< 12 March 14 March >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by Fastily (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement). Pontificalibus (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacy Council of India[edit]

Pharmacy Council of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Partial copyright violation from http://pci.nic.in/GeneralInformation/AboutPCI/Introduction.aspx

Language and formatting of the page seems to suggest the rest of the material (that hasn't been copied from this url) has been copy-pasted from somewhere else. Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication detector report--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm sorry Tani12 but there are simply not enough independent sources right now that show that he's been taken note of. This may change in the future but right now the consensus is that he shouldn't have an article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJ King SamS[edit]

DJ King SamS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

page creator removed PROD, concern was lack of reliable sources concerning subject's notability CanuckMy page89 (talk), 22:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 23:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the citations are to DJ King SamS's official site, other Wikipedia articles, a press release, a press kit, with no cites to reliable sources. A search does not come up with anything usable to substantiate notability. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete This is an encyclopedia, thus it has to feature all small and big things alike. DJ King Sams might not be a famous artist but his name was mentioned even before in English and French Wikipedia, proving his existence. You need to consider to let the article be. There are several other artist here who have similar external links to support them, so why is this article being side lined? I request experienced editors like you all to make suitable changes in the article rather than deleting it (Tani12 (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)) — Tani12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

http://www.booska-p.com/new-one-life-dj-king-sams-feat-nessbeal-n2218.html http://www.allmusic.com/artist/dj-king-sams-p1168570 (Tani12 (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Calabe1992 03:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secrecy (book)[edit]

Secrecy (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only source is from Random House (the publisher). No other statements of notability. Calabe1992 21:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Amalthea[edit]

Tales of Amalthea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Website that does not, at this point, pass Wikipedia:Notability (web)/Wikipedia:Notability. A websearch has not turned up any indication that this site is of historical significance as required, I found no reliable sources at all covering it in detail.
The one current indication of significance is that Terryl Whitlatch is contributing to it. Since notability is not inherited, this is not enough. Even though I like the name. Amalthea 20:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I added that. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is now some indication about what the article is about, but the article is still lacking any reliable third-party sources, and still fails WP:GNG. - SudoGhost 15:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm sorry but the keep arguments here just don't cut it. Per longstanding consensus, blogs are not reliable sources for establishing notability. Also, one keep !voter made a mention of "numerous sources" but failed to show us any. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry O'Neill[edit]

Gerry O'Neill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable former wrestler/web wrestling commentator. All but one reference are to the subject's own website. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subject is notable for being the only pro wrestler to hail from Omagh, N.Ireland. Also your reasons for deletion are incorrect, as there is more than one reference to a website other than the subjects site. And the "web commentator" reference is also incorrect as the subjects show aired on several radio stations. DannoMcMahono (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

There are two references to the subject's own website and one to a blog. None of these are reliable sources. LeSnail (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems like there's not enough context given in the article. I don't get it, he comes from Ireland, he hosts a radio show in Florida, yet he lives in Ontario, Canada? What's the actual story here? What is he primarily known for, wrestling or radio? What's the evidence? Why is he living in Ontario if he hosts a show in Florida? —JmaJeremyTALKCONTRIBS 21:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any reliable sources to establish notability. LeSnail (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dispute the fact that a Percy Pringle's Blog is not a reliable source. Being that he was employed by WWE from 1990–2002 and references the subject's radio show and website as "respected". Please indicate what additional proof you require otherwise this looks like an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.49.6 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources LeSnail (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above IP keep vote is from a likely sockpuppet of User:DannoMcMahono who has previously voted in this discussion. LeSnail (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have a reliable source for this accusation LeSnail? Or is this just your personal speculation? Regardless, this does not address the question posed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.49.6 (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no refs outside of Kokosports. Can't find anything reliable to tie him to even being a wrestler. My favourite, there is only one mention of "Garry B.Ware" on the web and that is on an archive of a geocities site. Needs more than just refs to his radio show. Bgwhite (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found numerous references with just a preliminary search. Craicen —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unwin Avenue[edit]

Unwin Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A minor industrial street in the Portlands of Toronto with some abandoned buildings lining it. The places along the street may be notable, but the road itself is a local street. Delete as insignificant and failing WP:GNG (all provided references make trivial or passing mention of Unwin) ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a coutesy satellite view of this little street in a warehouse/port district.[3] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
  2. ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
These are probably the most applicable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I do not believe I did rely on original research at any point in this article.
  2. Sorry, and how do you think this passage applies to this discussion? Are you suggesting this article lapses from some policy? If so I request you be specific as to which policy triggers your concern, and to how you think it violates that policy. Geo Swan (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You're relying on articles you've admitted you haven't read to add pointless information to the article. Original research. Several of the sources you've added are completely trivial mentions of the street or properties along the street, which afford no notability; non significant coverage. The murder victim is WP:NOTNEWS.
  2. Just because you've amassed every internet mention of Unwin Street doesn't qualify it for an article; it is not presumed. The last sentence applies to the highest degree: "For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
If you don't recognize these guidelines and policies, then you need to sit down and read the rules a bit before continuing to create articles on minor insignificant streets. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WRT to your characterization that I added "pointless information", no offense but this seems to me to be a further instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

    WRT WP:Original research -- please be specific as to which passages in the article you think lapse from OR and which passages of OR you think they lapse from. As Unscintillating pointed out earlier, passages that lapse from OR is not a policy based justification for deletion. It would be an editorial concern, that should be resolved through the normal process of editing and talk page discussion.

    You've pointed out that Hearn Generating Station already has an article. But the soccer pitches don't. Does the soccer pitch merit coverage on the wikipedia? Probably. They took months to construct, were built to a high enough standard for a world tournament to be held there, and will be near enough to the atheletes' villages for soccer players to use during the Pan American games. However, as the Pan Am games haven't been held yet, and that world tournament was not of one of the world class leagues we consider notable, the pitches don't merit an individual article. In such cases the Unwin article is a good place for some coverage. Amateur sports facilities in Toronto would be another candidate.

    As I mentioned earlier the sentence that mentions the murder victim offers the context to the sentence that describes the monument.

  2. I dispute I used every internet mention of Unwin Street. I used references that enabled the addition of information that I thought was encyclopedic. The vast bulk of internet hits I did not use.

    You and I seem to have vastly different interpretations of what is or isn't "an indisciminate collection of information". As I believe you have already acknowledged Unwin Avenue is heaviliy contaminated due to the use of containminated landfill and the 19th century practice dumping effluent right into the Ashbridges Bay march. If and when I come across an RS that says that, it can go into the article. Stating it now would sail to close to a lapse from OR. But using references that each have an environmental relation to the roadway.

    Here on the wikipedia we use non-standard interpretations of "notable". For non-wikipedians notable is usually a synonym for "remarkable" -- meaning worthy of mention. There are documentable facts that are worthy of mention which don't rise to the level of making a topic "notable" using the wikipedia interpretation that the topic would be worthy of its own wikipedia article. I don't think anyone needs to apologize for adding information that they think is worthy of mention thus "notable" using the real world interpretation of notable, if they think the notability of the article they are adding it to has already been established.

    As I wrote above, roads that simply go from A to B, for which there are no references that say anything beyond that they go from A to B, or had routine maintenance, routine traffic accidents, etc., won't merit individual articles. I have argued that Unwin Avenue is one of the minority of roadways that has RS that back up more than the routine "goes from A to B" and has had routine maintenance.

    One of the other respondents here asserted that Unwin Avenue is not really different from a lot of industrial roads. And I would suggest that any industrial road that has sufficient, significant RS to back up how it differs from mundane routine roads does merit an individual article.

    • Unwin Avenue has documented environmental concerns;
    • Unwin Avenue has merited coverage in many guides to strollers, tourists and bicyclists -- as I pointed already one of those guides devoted over a page to Unwin Avenue;
    • Unwin Avenue has facilities on it that merit coverage which have not risen to the level of being notable enough for their own articles;
    • Unwin Avenue is in the first stage of a redevelopment that will remove the aging industrial buildings, and see much of it turned into parkland and amateur sports facilities.
    I suggest the points immediately above establish that Unwin Avenue rises to the level of wikipedia notability where it merits an individual article of its own. Geo Swan (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But you haven't even read some of the things you've found, so you are synthesizing. You've admitted this. The five points above apply to The Portlands in general, not specifically Unwin Avenue. Almost every street in downtown Toronto (most of which ARE NOT notable) has walking tour; again, these tours don't afford notability upon the street, but rather upon the various landmarks that line the street. WP:Wikipedia is not a directory. The fact that there are facilities on the street that aren't notable makes it just like every other urban street on the planet. My street has facilities on it that don't merit an individual article, but that doesn't make my street notable (how could it?). The redevelopment is red herring again, as that applies to The Portlands in general. You're concept of what makes roads notable would literally allow for articles on every 300 metre long side street in every major city in North America (all of which have numerous walking tours and guides). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dispute that I acknowledged lapsing from SYNTH, or that I have in fact lapsed from SYNTH. I request specificity.

    WRT WP:Wikipedia is not a directory -- it lists 8 numbered types of directory, like "lists of aphorisms", "geneologies", "release notes" and "release notes". I don't see how this article is remotely close to the potential problems WP:Wikipedia is not a directory warns against.

    Could you please make a greater effort to avoid straw arguments? Informal walking tours do not make a street wiki-notable ™, and I never asserted it did. When PUBLISHED walking tours, and similar guides, describe a roadway in some detail, then I do assert that PUBLISHED source does help establish wiki-notability. When the guide merely says "Proceed a further 400 meters west along Fubar Street to get from site of interest A to site of interest B. But please don't mischaracterize the sources I used. The Psychogeographic Stroll devotes over a page to Unwin Avenue.

    Please make a greater effort to distinguish what is remarkable, notable, worthy of mention, using the real world interpretation of these terms from the non-standard interpretation of notability that merits an individual article. WP:BLP1E guides those who work on biographies of living persons to not create an article for individuals who is only notable for one thing. Rather that policy recommends that the remarkable thing about them should be covered in a broader, related article. And, I suggest, the same principle applies here. That soccer pitch is not notable in the wikipedia sense to merit its own article. But it is remarkable enough to merit coverage on the wikipedia. I feel my position is being seriously mischaracterized by your conflation of the different kinds of notability.

    When a reference talks about environmental concerns on the Port Lands, in general, the main place that reference should be used to talk about environmental concerns is the article on the Port Lands. But when a reference talks about specific environmental concerns that apply to Unwin Avenue alone, and don't apply to the Port Lands, in general, I suggest this builds the wiki-notability of Unwin Avenue. Since I have used references that do apply specifically to Unwin Avenue please stop asserting that these references are better placed in the Port Lands article. The exact same principle should apply to references that specifically address redevelpment of Unwin Avenue.

    Finally, your characterization of my arguments as advocating "...articles on every 300 metre long side street in every major city in North America..." -- that is an irresponsible wild exagerration. I do support an open-ness to articles on roadways where there are sufficient WP:RS to meet our standards -- regardless of the roadways' lengths. I can't say for sure what roadways you support individual articles for, but from everything I have seen you write, here and elsewhere, you seem to support articles only on highways and some arterial roads, allowing no exceptions. In fact, you have written as if that was already encoded in policy, or guideline. I have asked you to cite where your position comes from. And it seems to me you have not been able to cite a specific policy or guideline that bars the occasional exceptional roadway that is neither a highway or major arterial road from meriting an individual roadway, when there are otherwise sufficient RS to establish its wiki-notability. Maybe this is not your position? Would it be possible for you to be clear on what your position actually is? If you can agree to an article on the occasional, exceptional roadway that is neighter a highway or arterial road, when there are sufficient, significant RS, but you just don't agree that Unwin Avenue has sufficient RS, I would appreciate you clarifying that. In that case I would appreciate you clarifying what kind of RS you would require to accept that a roadway that was neither a highway or major arterial road merited an individual article. Geo Swan (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're missing number eight: "[Wikipedia is not] A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[3] Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight."
  • I was talking about published walking tours as well. Almost every street in downtown Toronto (including several very minor streets in that guide alone) is part of some tour of historical buildings and landmarks. This does not make the street notable. That you think this is the appropriate place to shoehorn details about places that you've deemed notable (yet admit aren't worthy of an article) doesn't make it so... in fact, this borders on WP:ILIKEIT, the opposite of what you have accused me of numerous times. The broader article in this case is the Port Lands article.
"That soccer pitch is not notable in the wikipedia sense to merit its own article. But it is remarkable enough to merit coverage on the wikipedia."
  • "When a reference talks about environmental concerns on the Port Lands, in general, the main place that reference should be used to talk about environmental concerns is the article on the Port Lands. But when a reference talks about specific environmental concerns that apply to Unwin Avenue alone, and don't apply to the Port Lands, in general, I suggest this builds the wiki-notability of Unwin Avenue." - What do the environmental effects of runoff from a snow disposal facility in the Port Lands have to do with the street network in the Port Lands? You are synthesizing the connection because the facility is on Unwin, but it has zero relevance to the road.
  • My position is that a bunch of sources (at least one of which you haven't read anything more than the title of, and thus should not be using in the article) is one half of a unique article. Significance is the other half, and this street has next to no significance (its use as a movie set is possibly the only exceptional event). Published walking tours are common place and should not be used as an indication that a street is notable (but rather often that the buildings and landmarks are). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK I agree. Redirect to Port Lands. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don Peuramaki (1988). "Unwin Avenue: Cherry Beach to Leslie Street : a natural history of the area in the 1980s".
  • Shawn Micallef (2011). Stroll: Psychogeographic Walking Tours of Toronto. Coach House Books. pp. 289–290. ISBN 9781770562615. Retrieved 2012-03-13.
A reference does not make an independent article (content does). Most of the roads at the lists have several sources as well as a paragraph or two of text. This doesn't even meet the criteria for inclusion in those lists because this is not a major thoroughfare in any respect. The first source you have provided is two pages; likely a historical manuscript compiled by a historian at the local library (I use a similar source on Vale of Avoca). I sincerely doubt this text describes the road in any detail, but in any event the fact that you can't fill in any more details in the ref tells me that you do not have access to it. The second reference makes casual mention of Unwin, as it prepares to describe the actually significant Hearn Generating Station and other monuments of an industrial city gone-by. These monuments, as I've said, may be notable in their own right, but they afford zero notability upon the street that they line.
If there was something of note here, I'd say merge it into List of roads in Toronto, but it doesn't even warrant inclusion there. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct. I do not have access to the natural history -- today. I am mystified why you do not recognize that a two page guide to the Natural History of this particular street shows an author felt that topic was remarkable enough to publish. I suggest that if the content of this guide was instead a two page chapter on Unwin Avenue, in a book on the Natural History of all streets near Toronto's waterfornt there wouldn't be any question that it would confer notability.

    The Stroll reference does devote a page to Unwin Avenue. As do several other guides to tourists and strollers. You argue that it is really the monuments on the avenue that are notable. If the authors of these guides agreed with you they would mention Unwin Avenue in a different manner. Have you ever taken a pedestrian tour? I've included references to several novels that have scenes set on Unwin Avenue. While I must admit they aren't that exagerrated, I looked past the Gothic impression they felt when they drafted those passages. Cherry Street between Unwin and the Keating Channel was the site of the first infestation of termites in Toronto. That is worth remarking on. The snow dump site on Unwin Avenue has had environmental consequences, as per the reference I added to the Civil Engineering Journal. Geo Swan (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not a good indication of notability when you haven't read it, for all you know it doesn't cover the street itself in any detail. All these things do not make Unwin street notable, they are a collection of events that took place at places along the street. There are passing mentions of several hundred minor streets in Toronto in the books on the heritage and walking tours (both of which I've read as well as hundreds of plaques and boards scattered about the city). This street is simply not in of itself important at all, nor is it a major road, nor does the city give it any significance in their street classification system. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've read lots of books on Toronto's streets, gone on walking tours, read historic plaques? Why that's great! That makes you well prepared to consider writing articles about some of them! You realize that one of the reasons readers consult encyclopedia is so they can find in one spot all the information you found by reading those books, going on those walking tours, and reading those historic plaques.

    You speculate that the document entitled "Unwin Avenue: Cherry Beach to Leslie Street : a natural history of the area in the 1980s" doesn't cover the street itself in any detail. You speculated that the document is: "likely a historical manuscript compiled by a historian at the local library". You realize that "natural history" is not the study of history? It is an old-fashioned term for the study of plants and animals in the natural environment. Since it was written in 1988, and its title says it is about the 1980s, Peuramaki is writing about the current state.

    OK, what are you going to acknowledge is a level of detail you regard as sufficient. I asked asked you if the information in this standalone document was instead a chapter of a book on the natural history of waterfront streets in Toronto you would acknowledgeit as a meaningful reference.

    This is the shortest document I have seen that was turned up by google books. Without reading it I am confident the document is not patent nonsense. I am confident that google wouldn't have included it in their index if it weren't a serious document. The greenbelt that borders Unwin Avenue has been present for forty years or more. I think i came across some maps that showed the greenbelt had been part of the plan for the Portlands way back when the Ashbridges Bay marsh was filled in at the turn of the 1900s to form the portlands. So even if Peuramaki was a terrible writer, and not a particularly good naturalist, I think it would hard to screw up the document so it wasn't meaningful.

    I don't know if I will have a chance to do so before the ((afd)) runs its course, but I am going to go to the dead tree library and look for a dead tree copy of this document. Geo Swan (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It makes me well prepared to know what in this built city is noteworthy. You haven't read the article, don't use it in the article, especially simply to write "In 1988, the author released this". Until you read it, it should not go in the article. For all you know, it merely covers the plant life in the lower Portlands, and the natural environment along the artificial lake shore. I say it is probably a local historian file because of its length. Any report or actual study would be far far longer. The length is irrelevant here; its the fact that you haven't read it and so you're entirely speculating on what it may or may not contain. Anyways, the Queen/Saulter library at Broadview is probably your best bet. Look for big filing cabinets labelled as the Local History Files.
  • Right now, I've acknowledged that the level of detail is going overboard. I'm sure a linguistics expert knows the term here, but the way you use a source to describe that source in the article is very indirect. An inappropriate tone I suppose? Again, this falls on Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, seeing as the portlands was constructed as an industrial harbour in the early 1900s, I doubt there was ever a greenbelt plan. Those things came into being in the 1980s, which would tie in to the deindustrialization. South of Unwin near Leslie has always been unbuilt because its unstable garbage (literally!) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. On a substantial article I'd see no issue with a brief mention that "The body of foo, the xxth murder of 20xx, was found on the street. A memorial was subsequently erected at 450 Unwin.[ref]"... but in this context it falls on the line of WP:NOTNEWS. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You call Unwin a "a grimy industrial street, the kind you find in every city". I believe you are making two serious mistakes. First the article has six environmentally related references, to five different environmentally related topics. I suggest any of those "grimy industrial streets" where someone can find references to environmental concerns is likely ot merit coverage.

    Second, I believe you are simply incorrect to conflate Unwin Avenue to those indistinguishable "grimy industrial streets". The Toronto Islands, the Leslie Street spit, -- and the Portlands, are part of an important flyway as migrating birds cross Lake Ontario. There is an environmentally significant greenbelt between Unwin Avenue and the shore.

  • Murders may not be notable in the United States. Happily Toronto has a significantly lower murder rate than similar size American cities. This particular murder triggered significant public attention. The Toronto Star managed a trust fund when its readers were upset that the young woman's family could not afford to travel to Toronto, or to pay for a funeral. The monument I mentioned was valued at $30,000. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I mentioned her murder as a prelude to explaining the location of the monument. Geo Swan (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTNEWS still applies to Canada. Almost all murder victims lack articles. The main exceptions are child abductions or missing persons that show up weeks later (such as Miriam who was found last week in Hoggs Hollow). As for the environmental concerns, most of these regard the industrial lands throughout the Portlands, and such details are better confined to that neighbourhood article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I think you are advancing straw arguments. We are not discussing articles named the murder of Leanne Freeman, or the Leanne Freeman monument on Unwin Avenue. Rather we are discussing an article on Unwin Avenue that currently devotes two dozen words or less to a monument on that roadway.

      Your suggestion that the environmental concerns were shared with the rest of the portlands would hold merit -- if none of the concerns were specific to Unwin Avenue. Geo Swan (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; the discussion is taking place here. Articles are deleted for far more reasons than being a hoax, having no hits on google or having an objectionable edit history. There are plenty of arguments, above, for you to object to, but ignoring them does not make them go away. You are essentially voting keep on a very weak edge-case claim of not following procedure. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The simple summation of my response is...there is nothing wrong with my !vote.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, except WP:NOTAVOTE. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !vote to merge as a compromise position, as the Port Lands article is a good target that will be strengthened with the reliable sources from the existing article.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Port Lands#Streets. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


and Coming Soon from the same fabulous producer who brought you Unwin Avenue - get ready for the new sensational User:Geo Swan/Cherry Street (Toronto) and User:Geo Swan/Blue Jays Way. I just can't wait. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hate this too George. It distorts the entire discussion. Please stand up and show us who you really are. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't effect the nomination in any way; I've added additional details. What comment is out of context (besides your contextless comment on how you believe there is no rationale)? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That editor placed their !vote well after I made that change; that change just added more policies to the nomination. I encourage you to cite any policy, guideline, or even essay which discourages this, let alone forbids it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments states,

It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it.

Removing or substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deny the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change your own comment, consider taking one of the following steps:
* Contact the person(s) who replied (through their talk page) and ask if it is okay to delete or change your text.
* Use deletion and insertion markup or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered.
** Deletion, which in most browsers is rendered as struck-through text, is coded <del>like this</del> and ends up like this.
** An insertion, which in most browsers is rendered as underlined text, is coded <ins>like that</ins> and ends up like that.
** A placeholder is a phrase such as "[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]". This will ensure that your fellow editors' irritated responses still make sense. In turn, they may then wish to replace their reply with something like, "[Irritated response to deleted comment removed. Apology accepted.]"
** Please do not apply any such changes to other editors' comments without permission.
* When modifying a comment, you can add a parenthetical note pointing out the change. You can also add an additional timestamp by typing ~~~~~ (five tildes).

Under some circumstances, you may and should remove your comments. For example, if you accidentally posted a comment to the wrong page, and no one has replied to it yet, then the simplest solution is to self-revert your comment.

Well, this is not a talk page (if we want to be lawyering things to the word), and a nomination is different from a comment. I adjust my rationale. Again, this doesn't affect the discussion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per the WP:TPG lede, "When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply."  Unscintillating (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I stand by my changes though. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment  No one has as much as attempted to refute my argument that there is no case for deletion.  It now becomes the burden of an admin to defend policy against what is nominally a majority !vote, although looking beyond the word in bold, a decent consensus to merge this article in its entirety to Port Lands appears.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted, but this is a community consensus, and not your opinion of how this venue works. Plenty of policy has been presented, you have chosen to ignore it by tossing it aside with a snide comment:"The simple summation of my response is...there is nothing wrong with my !vote". Hypocritical at best. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, here is the edit comment for the previous post, "You need to learn how AfD works Unscintillating, I see you trying to push this same old garbage all over AfD. Your opinion is not the community consensus, that doesn't make this a !vote)".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So? Are you attempting to discredit me, or are you going to address how I've discredited your WP:WIKILAWYERING, a problem which your talk page shows isn't recent? Or perhaps you just trying to create a WP:SOAPBOX? Regardless, can either you address your fallacious comments, or the closing admin ignore them? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the previous post brought anything new to the discussion, this is consistent with my hypothesis that there is a consensus here.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It adds that you are wikilawyering, that you have been told not to on your talk page several times, and that your vote should be ignored if you can't be bothered to respond, since its a simple case of "WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but can't find any actual policy, so just going to vote keep on the basis of the nomination itself." Your response above says it clearly to me "No, I cannot address my fallacious comments". Your argument that there is no case for deletion has been refuted numerous times with numerous policies. Or perhaps WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is the game you're playing. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that you read my !vote instead of continuing to assert obvious contradictions like no "actual policy" when two are cited.  I'm not actually sure what your objective here is given that you have contributed to the apparent consensus to merge to Port Lands, and this AfD seems to be at a stopping point.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is deeply undermining since from my viewpoint I've had to be strong to find ways to bring the conversation back on track instead of responding to the personal attacks, incessant baiting, ad hominems, red herrings, and misdirections; but since keeping a steady hand in the face of abuse and being effective in turning the disruption into a consensus is now undermined; let me take a George Romney approach after the dirt slinging got to the point that he had to respond.  Nominator has stated recently on a user talk page that coming to AfD was done because the previous forums didn't have the participation that he/she wanted, this is evidence of Forum Shopping and abuse of process.  Nominator exhibits a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality in wanting to win.  The admin asserts illogically that there is "no point" to building consensus, instead of admonishing wikilawyering disruption.  This is my last comment at this AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done no such thing, but thank you for your false accusations (perhaps in some cases I have gone to the talk page first, but that is certainly not forum shopping, especially when there is no response. In this case, the stuff I raised on the talk page was an aside from this and took place after the nomination) Unlike you, I don't have several sections on my talk page of people complaining about my view of how afd works and wikilawyering. This venue is for the community to discuss the merits of keeping or not keeping an article, or what to do with the article. Despite the title "articles for deletion", plenty of discussions take place without deletion as the sole objective. If responding to each point makes this a battlefield to you, then you may wish to avoid afd discussions in the future. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A street does not include the properties bordering on it. If they are notable, they should get an article. Notable places do not make a street notable, the street needs to be notable in its own right. We already have an article on the cruise ship terminal and the Leslie Street Spit, so what is left is soccer pitches and a snow dump that impart notability to Unwin. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:PUFFERY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOTDIR are all policies/guidelines presented here, in addition to claiming it doesn't meet WP:GNG. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be Cherry Beach Sports Fields - and then there was one. 50.100.185.239 (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No valid (in terms of our guidelines) argument for retention was made.  Sandstein  20:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CPFD Software[edit]

CPFD Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CPFD is a notable company in that they are the only simulation company to accurately model fluid-particle flows. This is accomplished through solving the coupled Eulerian and Lagrangian equations simultaneously through time sequencing. And article should be started on the software package Barracuda that accomplished this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.234.227.4 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability should be demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Could you give some examples? Also, the request for another article is outside the scope of AfD; that should be done at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 01:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have checked the full text of those sources, and can find no mention of "CPFD" in either apart from notes saying that some of the authors are employed by that company, and there is no mention at all of "Barracuda". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:SNOW is a good enough reason. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shollenese[edit]

Shollenese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable language spoken by only two people. Fails notability guidelines tremendously; Google search for it ([5]) brings up only nine results, none from independent, reliable sources. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 19:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 00:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Kern[edit]

Arthur Kern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find anything suggesting the topic would meet WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Operation 7 (video game)[edit]

Operation 7 (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded without comment by page's author. Only one review which may or may not be reputable; no other sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, author left this edit summary when removing the PROD template: "If I have 2 reliable references and a reference to the game itself, some articles have a lot less then that!" —Wrathchild (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alessio Jim Della Valle[edit]

Alessio Jim Della Valle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article previously deleted by prod and now recreated. The COI editor is an Italian film production company. The (now removed) biographic text, that contains some very questionable informations (as that he is an "inventor" and that his "making of Piovono Mucche" was chosen by the Italian Ministry of Work and Social Welfare for the National TV Campaign), as far as I can see, fails any verifiability and is entirely copied by the IMDB biography. The same for all the claimed honors and awards, that however in the main part seem to be very weak to support a claim of notability. The article shows only two references, the cited IMDB and the official site, that is just a blank homepage except for a link to IMDB and a "Contact me" link. Happy to withdraw this nom if someone could show some independent coverage in support of his notability. Cavarrone (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Above the City[edit]

Above the City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fails WP:NALBUMS JayJayTalk to me 03:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AbanteCart[edit]

AbanteCart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously Prod with rationale "The only reference is to the vendor's own site, so no evidence that this software meets the notability guidelines." Prod was disputed by article creator after adding 3 reference links. However these links (to "Ecommerce Wisdom", "HotScripts" and "Shopping Cart Reviews") don't look strong enough to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Bmusician 09:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Blake (artist)[edit]

Peter Blake (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles on living persons without enough references must be deleted immediately. WOLfan112 (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC) #Delete, based on only 1 source and has many claims. "Articles on living persons" without enough references "must be deleted immediately".--WOLfan112 (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nurjan MirAhmadi[edit]

Nurjan MirAhmadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep as the subject passes WP:ATH and the article has a source (the NFL.com profile in the infobox). Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Farman[edit]

Dick Farman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

ABOUT A LIVING PERSON AND HAS NO REFERENCES. MUST BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY! WOLfan112 (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Wrathchild (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carex petasata[edit]

Carex petasata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references. There for it is not notable. WOLfan112 (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. no quorum, doing a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al Opland Singers[edit]

Al Opland Singers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page seems nothing but a local choral group with nothing but sources directly related to the group Flygongengar (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White-whiskered Spinetail[edit]

White-whiskered Spinetail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very little content with only 1 reference. Does not seem that notable. WOLfan112 (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Paper size#Tablet sizes. Unlikely to be expanded, such that it can get an article length. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steno pad[edit]

Steno pad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:DICTIONARY Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Zad68 (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Despite all the SPAs (including one proxy editor), the result is to delete and not redirect. The current title of the article is not neutral and is more an opinion, or a referenced opinion. Also, this is duplicating existing topics and there is not much newly sourced information in the article. It discribes affiliations and activities, which is already covered in the other articles, or should be covered there. This is not disputing the right for the information to exist (except where previous consensus has been made), but it does need to be done in a more neutral fashion, and we can't be saying they have ties to group x and group y, so they are now supporting terrorism, as "supporting terrorism" is an opinion in itself. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorism[edit]

Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic is covered well in the main article. This is a WP:POVFORK created after two RFCs ([19], [20]) at the main article's talk were closed with consensus to exclude the content proposed by the author. So this article is also in a way evading the consensus reached there. SMS Talk 18:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to add to the above, there is already an article on the topic: Pakistan and state terrorism. This article is WP:REDUNDANT. One of them needs to go, either this should be kept and the other AfD'd, or the other is kept and the content from here is merged to there. Mar4d (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a fork at all, theISI are constantly described as a state within a state, the state terrorism article is an overview whilst this one goes into detail in ISI activities. They often work without telling the state what they do after all. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the AFD link on the article looks to be broken but works fine. --SMS Talk 19:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not about the page, rather about WP:POVFORK as the same content could not get a consensus in the main ISI article and this article is highly biased at the moment since it circumvents that consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I ought to have mentioned: we should change the title to "Allegations of..." and adjust the text accordingly. It's a fairly short article so cleanup should be easy. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even the article title is not conforming to NPOV to start with, how is it anything separate from the Pakistan and state terrorism article or the main ISI article which has this covered? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you remember the consensus on ISI talk page, the only place it is good enough to be merged to is that talkpage. The content was already covered in that article and the proposal in that form was rejected. This one currently goes against that consensus. So you might want to change your !vote to delete and redirect. A consensus will need to be formed for the inclusion there. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also probable sock, see [29]. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename, obviously. Duh. When are you going to get that 'terrorism' is POV, without a well-documented statement from the group concerned that they are trying to inspire terror with their activities? Try, irregular military. Anarchangel (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not another IP of any one else. Please do not remark on me. --39.41.168.9 (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So your just going to follow me around now are you? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not understand you had other comment too. I have removed as you said. Thanks. I am not going to follow you, I wish to edit on my own behalf. I saw this debate from ISI page. It was in See also. Please do not blame me again and keep the peace deal. --Highstakes00 (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Hits of the Showa Era: A Novel[edit]

Popular Hits of the Showa Era: A Novel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe that this stub, which will probably be nothing more than a stub, is in any way notable. I have read the criteria at WP:BK, and I do not know if Ryu Murakami qualifies for the 5th criterion of "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable..." —Ryulong (竜龙) 17:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. joe deckertalk to me 16:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1963 Danish 1st Division[edit]

1963 Danish 1st Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Statistics of Danish 1st Division in the 1963 season." and nothing more than statistics. Move to Wikisource? Bulwersator (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Rather than outright "keep", as two "keeps" are qualified as weak and the last opinion does not really contain an independent argument for keeping.  Sandstein  20:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Florentina Mosora[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Florentina Mosora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Okay, so this article has not been improved in two years. The previous discussion was to keep it on the basis that she once won a Belgian award and starred in a couple of films - the first is the only reasonable documented part of the article; the second is irrelevant, as only trivial sources attest this, and the films themselves are marginally notable. The creator of the article probably has some connection to the subject: s/he persistently introduced info that traces to no public source - see for instance here and here. There is no ample coverage of this person, the sources that are borderline WP:RS make only very brief mentions of her, and some of the sources on which this article was based when reduced from much puffier versions are hopeless deadlinks. Dahn (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little note: By way of courtesy I have dropped a little note on the creator of this article's talk page, User talk:Bci2‎, to let them be aware of this Afd and allow them a chance to address any of the concerns raised here. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

No - I think you may be wrong in your guess that the existence of such a film on youtube means it's important - but it may I think be useful to see for oneself that the film exists and see that she stared in it, and who she acted with and that it was made by a noted film company. I am also not sure about how useful it is but a quick look for sources does yield the Marquis Who's Who entry which lists our Florentina Mosora-Stan as a physics professor, who, for her education, took a Bachelor in Biological Sci. 1961, and a Bachelor in Physical Sci. 1967 from the University Bucharest. In 1971 she took her PhD in Biophysics, University Bucharest, Romania, 1971. For her career it lists a Research fellow post at the University Bucharest, 1967-71 - then a series of posts at the University Liege culminating in Professor, Institute Physics, (1988— ) Lecturer, Institute Physics, (1979-88) Head research fellow, Institute Physics, (1975-79) Maitre de conferences (1974-75), Research fellow (1971-74). It also lists her religion as Roman Catholic which is I think different from the Romanian Orthodox listed earlier in the article. Is this useful info. from a valuable source or is Marquis Who's Who not respected anymore -is it now (was it then) a vanity publication? (Msrasnw (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
It's borderline more than anything - self-submitted bios that, if Marquis' own account is to be trusted, afterward get churned out through some editorial process. There apparently are credible sources out there who rate Marquis as no more than vanity press. Dahn (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Johnstown,_Pennsylvania#Landmarks. The consensus is to delete but the suggestion for a redirect makes sense. I'll leave the history intact in case anybody thinks there is anything here worth merging. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Silver Drive-In[edit]

Silver Drive-In (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was: No indication the drivein is independently notable, no sources other than primary ones Eeekster (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were absolutely no sources before yesterday, but the subject interested me, though I knew it would be deleted. I figured I'll move that content into the locality article after the AfD closes.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6er Gascho[edit]

6er Gascho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced non-notable group JayJayTalk to me 02:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shabnam Dutta[edit]

Shabnam Dutta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-promotion, lacks notability and reliable sources. Expanding on these:

There are no reliable sources cited to establish notability. Cited source primarily include youtube videos (likely self-published). A google search fails to reveal any credible sources.

Majority of the content written by user "SpncerJones", whose sole contributions include creating pages for the subject of this article, her spouse, and adding their names to the list of "notable alumni" for their respective colleges.

Includes unsourced promotional quips for family members under Trivia ( none of which is verifiable by google searches ). This theme of cyclic promotion is also evident in the corresponding article for her spouse ( see Manish Sahi ).

The above, in addition to the tone of the article and the improper use of full caps to highlight "accomplishments" strongly indicate this to be a self-promotional article.

ViaOxford (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 16:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makoplasty[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Makoplasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little appears to have changed since last nomination. The lead author of the article cited is a practitioner (see http://www.makosurgical.com/zipcode.html and search for a NYC zip code). The article on MAKO in Surgical Robotics: Systems Applications and Visions is co-authored by a founder of the company. Etc.

I confess I haven't exhausted the possible sources, but the posture of this article—recreated again as a promotional copyvio—leads me suspect that any further pursuit will have similar results. Bongomatic 15:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 16:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me2Team[edit]

Me2Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CSD was declined. Non-notable product. One source covers the company in a different context, the rest of the sources are SPS or otherwise don't support notability. No third-party sources found. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 14:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 16:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of plays in English on the Internet[edit]

List of plays in English on the Internet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's nothing notable about a list of plays that happen to have been uploaded to the Internet, I would say. Biruitorul Talk 14:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was incubate. Wikipedia:Article Incubator/A Chapter of Men Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Chapter of Men[edit]

A Chapter of Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable short film due to be released. All references are to either reliable source information on the principal's previous works/awards, or WP:SPS that don't establish notability. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 14:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 16:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Marsura[edit]

Davide Marsura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet a professional player. A unused bench did not count as debut. Matthew_hk tc 13:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 16:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nagkahiusang Kusog sa Estudyante[edit]

Nagkahiusang Kusog sa Estudyante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been tagged for improvement for 4 1/2 years. No references are cited at all, other than a couple of inline SPS links to defunct GeoCities pages. Check of Google News archives shows no substantive coverage that would support any of the text in the article mainspace. Fladrif (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason 4[edit]

The reason 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I find it very hard to believe that a contestant who got knocked out in a pretty early stage of a TV talent show could be considered to be notable. I think this article is too early and seeks to establish their notability before the event. Even if the talent show appearance renders them notable, that notability is for one event only.

When they become independently and verifiably notable for more than just getting knocked out in a TV talent show then they have a place here, but not until then. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the list of the criteria they meet alot of the required. Including 'have had a single or album chart on any country's national music chart', they also performed on many television shows, they've been placed on rotation on national radio and tv music channels. Surely this is enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdaniel88 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also they've also signed a major publishing with major Sony ATV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdaniel88 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redwood Technologies[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Redwood Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to establish company's notability and significance for history of computing industry. Request for speedy deletion per WP:CSD § A7 declined. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was obvious delete Shii (tock) 14:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MIND POWER aim for goal attainment[edit]

MIND POWER aim for goal attainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book. WP:BEFORE check doesn't offer anything not released by the author. Sales claims are dubious (Neilsen Bookdata doesn't corroborate them). Fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage and WP:NBOOK due to lack of verifiable info. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hapi ® (Herb's Acoustic Playground Instruments)[edit]

Hapi ® (Herb's Acoustic Playground Instruments) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable trademark/product just this side of G11 WP:SPEEDY due to neutral tone. (Comment says it's the creator's first entry.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Hapi article is my first attempt at adding a new item to wikipedia. I am somewhat familiar with using MediaWiki but definitely a newbie regarding submitting new content to wikipedia. I have added some additional content and several references to the article. Am I on the right track toward having the speedy deletion removed? Do I need more references and citations? Is this follow up comment in the right place? Computerjazz (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You've improved it, but the references you've added aren't very strong (see WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:Notability). The video, for example, is about the park, and only shows the instruments in passing, without even identifying them as Hapi. This isn't a speedy deletion by the way (it's an Afd), but this is the right place to defend your article. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This AfD is interesting in that it turns on an actual point of law instead of Wikipedia policy. The question is whether this list is a derivative work of the titular selection of jazz albums, and therefore a violation of its copyright. Five people affirm and three deny this (albeit one weakly). Lacking a clear numerical consensus, I must weigh the relative strength of argument. Most "delete" opinions reflect a serious and reasonably thorough examination of the material at issue and of the applicable U.S. law, and from my reading of the cited case law (disclaimer: I'm not a U.S. lawyer) their argument appears prima facie sensible to me. On the other hand, the "keep" opinions mostly do not really address the legal issues raised by this discussion, namely, whether (as discussed in the cited Key Publications case), the source work is an original selection of data (and therefore copyrighted), and whether our article exhibits "substantial similarity between those elements ... that provide copyrightability to the allegedly infringed compilation". The arguments by Franamax and Moonriddengirl make a reasonably convincing case that this is so, and the "keep" opinions mostly do not address the points the "delete" opinions raise. On that basis, I find that there is a consensus, considered in the light of the strength of argument, to delete the article.  Sandstein  20:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Core Collection albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz[edit]

List of Core Collection albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Copyright violation, per http://openjurist.org/945/f2d/509/key-publications-inc-v-chinatown-today-publishing-enterprises-inc, as explained in User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. This list is not a simple recitation of facts: it is a reproduction of a creative work (due to the value judgment and creativity that went in to the selection process), and violates the copyright of the source work. —Kww(talk) 01:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* WP:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And some questions, is this very different from lists of Grammy winners, or Oscar winners, or categories based on those? (I'm not trying to be WP:WAXy.) If it's possible to mention in any number of articles that "The Penguin Guide included Album X in its Core Collection…", is it possible to categorize articles on that basis? If so, is it possible to derive a list (like this one) from that as well? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's one of the reasons I took this to AFD, rather than doing a speedy delete as encouraged above (and by Franamax, as well). It's clear to me that if Penguin created a single publication called "The List of Crown Albums" and this article reproduced it, we would be infringing. It's also clear to me that if Penguin sponsored an awards show, we would be free to report the results. This list lies somewhere in-between, and I'm not 100% certain how to handle it.—Kww(talk) 12:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can copy the wikitext right now onto your own PC and preview it in an edit pane for the rest of your (or en:wiki's) life, so the existence of this particular page is not material. The Crown albums list, having looked at it recently, yes, should have the same scrutiny. As far as using a category instead, I've watched the interplay between categories and list articles over a period of years (often, if it's a category, it deserves a list article and vice versa) and at this point I have to say I would view such a category in much the same light as I do this list. In either case, it seems to me that we are doing an end-run around all the effort expended by the authors and giving people a handy way to avoid buying the creative work. But that's not our goal here, we're meant to collect and summarize the work of others, not simply regurgitate what others have already done. I'll grant that the category question is trickier, but the principles are the same. Franamax (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: As we shouldn't rush this through, copyright is too important for that. I also left a note on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 March 13, so I expect some more input will be following. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've done the same for the redlinks at List of Crown albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz (which, presumably, will meet the same fate). Note that there is quite a bit of overlap: I didn't bother to remove duplicates (should I remove them from the "Core" list, or the "Crown" list?), but the "Notes" column already mentions if/when an album is in both lists. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It might not necessarily be my own opinion, but the consensus is clearly to keep the article DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burlington derailment[edit]

Burlington derailment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

News flash; train derails in Canada, three train workers killed. Wikipedia is WP:NOT#NEWS. Event is not notable or durable, and has vanished from the news. Speciate (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, we shouldn't have articles on any event until many months after it takes place, at minimum. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 05:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Turtle[edit]

Purple Turtle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If this is the most that can be said about this "organization" after seven years of an article being up (and three years of being tagged for primary sources), then it doesn't seem that there's enough "there" there to support a claim of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 04:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was preserve. in some way or another. Refocussing to Zhangzhou College of Science and Technology is one suggested way, merging to Ten Fu Group another. There is consensus that there isn't enough here for a stand-alone article, but none on how to deal with that exactly. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tenfu Tea College[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tenfu Tea College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organization does not seem notable. I can't find any good sources for it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For searching also try simplified Chinese "天福茶学院" and "天福茶职业技术学院". icetea8 (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Actually the CCT article from 2007 [38] barely says anything about the college other than, in 2007, it existed. Does not establish notability. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
for a stand alone article on the university, yes, since we have consistently always considered all universities notable if they can be verified. For a stand alone article on the college, not at this point, unless more historical information appears. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 05:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina (Gjomarkaj) Verger[edit]

Cristina (Gjomarkaj) Verger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person.Eiad77 (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. No reliable sources. Having her name mentioned in two advertisements is not reliable nor does it assert notability. Nor does a link to her page advertising her business. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Workpoint Entertainment[edit]

Workpoint Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested by creator. Concern: Claims "multiple award-winning programmes" but gives no indication of what those awards are, no sources and doesn't appear to be notable in the article's current form. Eeekster (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Snow closure. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Michelle Le[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Murder of Michelle Le (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (events). Le's death is tragic but her murder isn't notable....William 02:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can be restored if needed for mergers.  Sandstein  20:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Janos Boros[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Janos Boros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In a nutshell, I believe Boros fails WP:POLITICIAN for two reasons:

Previous nominations of this article were marred by canvassing and filibustering on the part of the article creator. He is now topic-banned, so hopefully we can have a more rational discussion. I will just say that one of his main claims revolved around the notion that because Boros is an ethnic Hungarian, there is some sort of conspiracy not to cover him in the Romanian press. I debunked that claim in two ways. I showed that Romanian language media do care about ethnic Hungarian politicians, even fairly obscure ones (but not Boros), and also that they don't care about deputy mayors, regardless of their ethnic background. - Biruitorul Talk 01:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience in doing that. I don't see anything there that would consitute significant coverage of the man, hence no pass of the GNG. I'm amending my !vote to Delete accordingly. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sighetu Marmației explosions[edit]

Sighetu Marmației explosions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, this got a short burst of coverage, but there's no evidence of any more permanent significance, and the damage/casualties don't seem serious enough to warrant an article either. Biruitorul Talk 01:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Rather than "keep", considering that one "keep" opinion is qualified as weak, and the one by Esc2003 does not advance a policy-based argument.  Sandstein  20:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seljuks in Dobruja[edit]

Seljuks in Dobruja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be a fairly marginal topic, and any useful content, of which I can't tell if there's any, could easily be covered at Dobruja. Biruitorul Talk 01:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Rename to Turkic people in Dobruja (or even Turkic people in Romania) and treat this on a greater scale to include Avars, Pechenegs, Cumans, Bulgars, Tatars, Seljuks etc.
  2. Merge what is relevant to Turks of Romania and/or Dobruja#History.--Codrin.B (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Catana[edit]

Vladimir Catana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

To begin with, this is a blatant conflict of interest, having been authored by single-purpose account Vcatana86. More to the point, although Mr Catana evidently believes he belongs in an encyclopedia, the evidence doesn't support that. The sources are largely marginal, the prizes he allegedly won we have no indication of their significance, and there's nothing actually discussing him in any depth. Nice promotional page, but he should set up an official website for that sort of thing. Biruitorul Talk 01:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it ! Can you also delete the facebook artist page relied to that wikipedia page or it will delete as you delete the wiki page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcatana86 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete also the photos. I didn't create the Facebook page, it just appeared with the informations from Wikipedia ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.255.124 (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take the photos to Files for Deletion. As for Facebook send a request to Support. Wikipedia isn't responsible for Facebook content. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus after the relistings is very clear. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KNERO[edit]

KNERO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG on my end. SarahStierch (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 01:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Seattle Mariners#Culture where it is already covered. Any remaining content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rally fries[edit]

Rally fries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. This is an article on some random happening at Mariners games. This is not on par with the Rally cap, Rally Monkey, or Rally Squirrel. Given the branding, this appears to violate WP:PROMOTION, as it only serves as advertising for a company. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch, its amazing how often I see that happen--deleted articles coming back that long go unnoticed.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is consensus the article can be recreated once he plays his first match as fully pro level. Feel free to request undeletion at WP:REFUND at that time, or request userfication with any willing admin (like myself) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean McDermott (footballer)[edit]

Sean McDermott (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, not by the author, due to fact the player had played at youth international level. However the player has not made his first team debut for his club nor has he played at senior international level therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL & has not received significant media coverage & also fails WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  07:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University Without Walls- UMass Amherst[edit]

University Without Walls- UMass Amherst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. All Ghits are directly from UMass' website or one of their social media accounts, and the only references in the article are from UMass websites. Article might be somewhat of a noble cause as well. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset International Bible Institute[edit]

Sunset International Bible Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article on an organisation that lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian national heroes[edit]

Iranian national heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is totally useless and there is no way to determine a "national hero". Americophile 23:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Americophile 23:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's try defining it and see if it' possible. --Tondar1 (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the very problem: the topic itself is unclear; you have to figure out what a "national hero" is for yourself. I could see this page being kept if "national hero" were an official title in Iran, but it's practically impossible to define it for ourselves without violating policies such as Wikipedia:No original research. Without any objective indication of what constitutes a national hero, I say delete per nom. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 02:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this rationale. If there is a clear-cut definition of "national hero" for Iran in WP:RS, then source that definition and limit this list to people who meet it. For instance, if an editor can find a reliable source that asserts that an "Iranian national hero" is someone who has received Iranian award X, Y, or Z, that would do it. If no such definition is available (and I can't find one), delete. (I am open to revising my opinion if an RS definition is found.) - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, I would also revise my decision if an official definition is found. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I do not want this page to be deleted is that it contains very famous and important people and is a good "gateway" for people to look them up if you guys know what I mean, something like a portal. Perhaps the name of the article can be changed to something else? --Tondar1 (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any suggestions? It needs a clear criteria that sorts out who belongs on the list and who doesn't. That criteria needs to be based, itself, in reliable sources. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More