< 17 March 19 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 G6, unecessary DAB page. GB fan 14:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Force Ten[edit]

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

Disambiguation page that links to no articles; no viable subjects for articles. Mikeblas (talk) 23:12, 18 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. The nominator offered no rationale for deletion. Snow closure given the general precedent for populated places, the current comments in the discussion, and a lack of deletion rationale. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dörarp[edit]

Dörarp (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 notable KzKrann (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Please read Wikipedia:Notability (geography).♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 19 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) 00:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some Velvet Morning (band)[edit]

Some Velvet Morning (band) (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 music group. I couldn't find any third party sources to establish notability. Tinton5 (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 19 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 close this discussion. Text merged to smart card with author's agreement. Redirect left at Smart Card Web Server. This title deleted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Card Web Server (SCWS)[edit]

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

Zad68 (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Not enough content for separate article, merge into Smart card. Unsourced, and why is a specific port given? Can't the web server be configured on a variety of ports? Is there a particular requirements specification? Zad68 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 19 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) 00:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish World[edit]

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

Minor publication with no references to support assertion of notability. Website seems to be dead indicating that it has probably ceased publication. Should be deleted. Bob Re-born (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 19 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 by User:Fastily under criteria G3 - "Pure vandalism or blatant hoax". (non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wind pudding and air sauce[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This strikes me as a dictionary entry; it's a very short description of the term's usage and directs you to visit an online dictionary for more information. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 21:36, 18 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) 00:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Church Of Latter Days[edit]

Church Of Latter Days (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 don't think this religion meets notability guidelines such as WP:N. Google hits in general are mainly false positives for (Church of Latter Days Saints, Church of Latter Days Prophets), so I searched using "Church Of Latter Days" -"Church of Latter Days Saints" -"Church of Latter Days Prophets", which does bring up some Google Books hits, but all from before the supposed founding of this religion. The same query brings up 0 news hits. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 21:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 19 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 School of Rock. The Bushranger One ping only 02:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Brown (actress)[edit]

Rebecca Brown (actress) (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 reliable references and only one notable work which was 8 years ago. JDDJS (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the actress was nominated for two awards: "Best On-Screen Team" at MTV Movie Awards and "Best Young Ensemble in a Feature Film" at Young Artist Awards werldwayd (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those awards were for the whole cast in the film, not her specifically. JDDJS (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable individual awards or credentials. Minimal press coverage.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 19 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 nominator apparently does not wish to delete Rajiv Anchal. (WP:NAC) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Anchal[edit]

Rajiv Anchal (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 page title: Rajeev Anchal is actually meant to be a redirect to the correct spelling Rajiv Anchal, the article for which exists already. This is a case of duplication. Noopur28 (talk) 19:09, 18 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 Tiny Tim (musician) and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Budinger[edit]

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

Essentially falls under WP:BLP1E - the subject's marriage to Tiny Tim received a lot of coverage, but I can't find any coverage other than brief mentions in articles related to Tiny Tim since then. As the subject's comments on the talk page show, we have been unable to maintain an accurate article about her. SmartSE (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 19 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 nominator apparently does not wish to delete Aranyer Din Ratri. (WP:NAC) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aranyer Din Ratri[edit]

Aranyer Din Ratri (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 article already exists as Aranyer Din Ratri which is the correct title as per IMDB and other sources. Noopur28 (talk) 19:03, 18 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jiří Krček[edit]

Jiří Krček (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 player is referenced to have played in the Gambrinus liga. However, looking at reliable sources of the three matches he supposedly played in [5] [6] [7] we can see the goalie in these games is actually L. Krbeček. This means Jiří Krček did not play in those games, and actually has never played a professional football match, see [8]. He also fails WP:GNG. Cloudz679 19:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes these are the appearances, thank you for pointing this out. I have removed them with a new citation. Cloudz679 17:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 19 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Win32/Heur[edit]

Win32/Heur (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 a particularly notable trojan. Google search comes up with removal instructions and forum discussions, but no news coverage. ... discospinster talk 18:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources or indication of notability. Cmprince (talk) 20:25, 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 keep. joe deckertalk to me 00:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted randomization[edit]

Restricted randomization (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 is a mirror of a handbook on a government website. It's not subject to speedy deletion because it technically is not a copyright infringement. But see WP:NOTMIRROR. Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. An admin (I forget who) once said that editors should eliminate "speedy keep" and "speedy delete" in AfD discussions. Couldn't agree more. "Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia." (WP:NOTMIRROR).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
collections of public domain or other source material... that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording clearly does not apply to this article. (By the way, "fails to advance an argument for deletion" is a valid reason for WP:Speedy keep). Qwfp (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying the language used (not counting the intro that no one seems to like) is useless? Perhaps we should mirror information on all sorts of websites as long we can get the proper license. What a world. Failing to advance an argument is different from you - or anyone else - saying the argument I advanced is wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying it will still be useful after its wording has been modified, hence is not 'source material' in the meaning of WP:NOTMIRROR#3. See also WP:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources para 2. Qwfp (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The plagiarism cite is not particularly helpful in this context. As for your first point, it would be great if you would modify the wording and make the article useful. It's been in its present, not useful, mirrored state for years now.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the section addressing impatience with improvement. Btyner (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"TNT" clearly does not apply here. That's only when current content is hopeless. In this case, the current content is good, but needs context and further work. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but this is absurd. Split-plot designs are a standard topic in statistics that originated in agricultural field trials. The fact that they are also applicable to quality control means we should delete the article about them because there are other articles on quality control? Why don't we delete the article about Barack Obama because we already have a plethora of articles about people born in Hawaii? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More prosaically put: This is not an article about quality control. This is an article that mentions quality control as an EXAMPLE. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Hardy (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, someone should create a bio on William J. Youden ([17][18][19][20]) one of the key statisticians regarding the development of restricted randomization techniques (his 1972 paper called it "constrained randomization)[21].--Milowent • hasspoken 12:10, 27 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Qness[edit]

DJ Qness (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 this article does not appear to meet the notability criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. The subject appears to have a pretty strong youtube presence and was quoted for two sentences in a CNN article, but neither of these things appear to make the subject close to notable. Previously speedily deleted at Qness. VQuakr (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 19 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. – sgeureka t•c 17:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Prodigy (TV series)[edit]

The Prodigy (TV series) (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. Except for a limited amount of local (Utah) coverage, there is no news about this series that never happened. Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 11 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, JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 18 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. Tikiwont (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Khan[edit]

Lal Khan (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, what isn't original research is self-sourced (marxist.com and newyouth.com are websites of the International Marxist Tendency, which Khan is a leader of, or its youth wing "Youth for International Socialism"). Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator withdraws AFD. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 19:13, 18 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist Left (Brazil)[edit]

Marxist Left (Brazil) (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-promotional article touting a non-notable organization, entirely self-sourced (the "In Defence of Marxism" website is operated by the group's parent organisation, the International Marxist Tendency), The statement in the article "In the 2009 Workers' Party leadership election, the Esquerda Marxista slate received 3,407 votes and won a seat on the national leadership" is contradicted by the article Workers' Party leadership election, 2009 (Brazil) which does not list any votes for a Esquerda Marxista slate or even any such slate (Esquerda Socialista is "Socialist Left" which is a different group). Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 14:47, 18 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) 00:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India national amateur boxing athletes[edit]

India national amateur boxing athletes (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 no such organized body/group. Imagination of some user. Article just lists Indian participation in 2004 Athens Olympics and 2006 Asian Games. — Bill william comptonTalk 05:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 11 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, BusterD (talk) 12:34, 18 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 delete !voters make a stronger case here. Thaindian News needs to be "written about" not just "quoted from". Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thaindian News[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Thaindian News (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 site. Fails WP:GNG. Secret of success (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google web page results cannot determine notability. The books, again, indicate trivial coverage, none of them seem to talk about the site, but rather show a passing mention of the subject. I see a similar case with the news results as well. Secret of success (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I'm arguing that for a news portal, those 'passing mentions' are what is significant. We're not in the old days where there are just wire services and newspapers and that's it. The media food chain has got these other kind of entities too now, relayers and aggregators and portals and so forth, and this one pops up frequently enough in the food chain to make a brief article worthwhile. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Usefulness ≠ notability. Each web aggregator is linked to – it is the main idea of news aggregator. The sites caring their reputation name the sources. Thus the mentions only prove that this site exists, not that it is notable. To warrant the article this one should be notable among them, so what is it notable for? – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. The mention shows the existence of the sites, not the notability. Articles need to indicate why their subject is significant through reliable sources, and if no sources talk about the site in a higher level of detail, it clearly fails the notability criteria. Secret of success (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources reference this in a significant way? I couldn't find any after several hard tries; "some magazines consider it reliable" isn't a reason to keep an article at Wikipedia if we can't write anything about it. Diego (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ms. Magazine [22] says "According to Thaindian News, the Women's Reservation Bill is supported by India's Congress and one of its major political parties." and links to their article about that. Daily Times (Pakistan) trust them as a reliable news source. [23] Two hundred Google news archive search results to go through, and 579 Google Book search results for "thaindian news". Their website gets "about 150,000 people daily." Dream Focus 07:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the books suggest trivial coverage, nothing more. That certainly cannot be a sign of notability, unless I'm very much mistaken. Secret of success (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability and notability are not exactly same. Secret of success (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the ways Wikipedia determines notability is by letting reliable sources tell us if they are notable. This can be done by them talking about them, or simply referencing them all over the place. Dream Focus 07:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To write an article, you need some material. There seems to be no site which talks about Thaindian News (about the site itself), even though they use the reports presented by it. Secret of success (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dream, what do you suggest should be the content of this article? Maybe "Thaindian News has reported about Women's Reservation Bill.[24] Thaindian News also reported about Pakistan’s Deputy High Commissioner to India[25]"? The spirit of Notability is having something to say about the topic for which we created an article. The indirect notability you suggest would make sense if we already had some verifiable facts, but we don't have them. Diego (talk) 16:03, 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 speedy keep. I agree WP:SK 1. No arguments for deletion. However, since this all seems to be over the ((notability)) tag, I would urge anybody wishing to add the tag back renominate instead. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Tucker[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jon Tucker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CooperDB (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Concerns CooperDB (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made this nomination to get community input and a consensus that the subject is indeed notable. In my estimation the subject meets WP:PEOPLE but there is a lack of multiple independent reliable sources so I like to see if the community agrees that it is notable and worth the continued effort of maintaining. If the community decides it should be deleted I can spend my time working elsewhere. CooperDB (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay well your nominating your own article for deletion, just because someone tagged it as unclear notability doesn't mean anything. If you would like to find out if your article is notable there's a place for that WP:N/N JayJayTalk to me 20:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. In seven days or less there will be a decision by the community one way or another as to the notability of the subject. It has been a while since I participated in an AFD, but several times I have seen AFDs initiated by someone who believes an article should be kept and there is no policy forbidding this that I am aware of. If this against some recent policy I am ignorant of please bring it to my attention and I will respond accordingly. CooperDB (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 19 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Strazzullo[edit]

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

While attorney Sal Strazzullo has been able to draw the media to hear what he has to say about his representation of some of his clients, that notoriety hasn't yet translated into reliable sources writing enough biographical information about Strazzullo to maintain a Wikipedia biographical article on the topic. Does not meet WP:GNG. In addition, the article seems more about being a place to list unflattering information about Strazzullo than being an account of Strazzullo's life. See BLP Noticeboard report. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 19 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality of Osama bin Laden[edit]

Sexuality of Osama bin Laden (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 article is not about a notable aspect of Bin Laden's persona. Virtually all people are sexually active, and this sure wasn't the reason for Bin Laden's fame. The article is based on some news reports of an interview with one of Bin Laden's wives in which she said he was good in bed, and some stories speculating on whether sex drugs and porn found in Bin Laden's compound last year belonged to him or even existed. The topic of Bin Laden's sex life isn't mentioned at all in the Osama bin Laden article (which doesn't even link to this article) and having a whole article on it seems to violate WP:NOTNEWS. While we do have Category:Sexuality of individuals, the sexuality of all the other people covered by articles within its scope has been the subject of considerable attention in serious scholarly works. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No person, listed in Category:Sexuality of individuals, is famous for their sexuality. But coverage of their sexuality in secondary publications made them worthy of articles. I created this article because I believed the widespread coverage in mainstream media makes it pass GNG. The coverage is not tabloid yellow journalism, but attention and analysis by notable individuals such as Roderick Long, Asra Nomani (who provides a feminist interpretation of Osama's sexuality), William Saletan, Susie Bright may make the topic notable, I thought. This was my rationale for this article. However I don't have any strong opinion here, so I'll not vote either keep or Delete. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 13:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if there is a lot of prurience for a long time, it becomes scholarship? Anarchangel (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the three factoids I mentioned above do you think we should merge? --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I have no problem believing that Bin Laden was a hypocrite. But I also have no problem believing that the US government is a liar. Hence I have no opinion one way or other as to the existence of Bin Laden's alleged porn collection." - Philosopher Roderick Long
The claim of discovery of pornography was met with skepticism with skeptics asserting the American intelligence community deliberately spreading rumor as part of their psychological warfare against Al-Qaeda.
William Saletan writing in Slate described the claim of founding pornography as a "propaganda war aimed at persuading Muslims". According to the analysis by Saletan, conservative Muslim sympathizers of Osama bin Laden are likely to be opposed to pornography and would be more shocked by pornography than by terrorism.
According to David Randall of The Independent, many bloggers found the claim of discovery of pornography laughable
"However, sceptics claimed the revelation could have been engineered by US intelligence authorities as part of their propaganda war against the terror organisation." - The Telegraph
Journalist and Islamic feminist Asra Nomani writing in The Daily Beast asserted "conspiracy theorists" in the Muslim world might dismiss the coverage on pornography as a hoax, claiming it was deliberately propagated by the US.
Anarchangel (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's sounds like a rewrite, not just a rename. And Conspiracy theories about Osama bin Laden and his prOn stash doesn't seem encyclopedic either.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:10, 22 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accellion, Inc.[edit]

Accellion, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment - Please note that topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, and not just those that may or may not be present within Wikipedia articles. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"just another"="idon'tlikeit." That it be of interest to a person in the same very large general professional segment "an IT worker" is sufficient. This is like saying an article on a classical musician should be deleted because it's of interest only to the minority of people who like classical music. To whom are our article on Unix software of interest? Surely only the relatively few people who know about Unix. And why should anyone care about ipads except the several million people who have one or might buy one? DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 15 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,  Sandstein  09:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
—Northamerica1000(talk) 16:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can you further qualify the references cited in my !vote above as press releases, or as sourced from press releases? Northamerica1000(talk) 10:40, 19 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melonpool[edit]

Melonpool (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 don't appear to be any reliable sources providing notability here. I had some hope when it turned out there'd been a 23 minute film of it, but that by itself is just your regular old primary source. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 18 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 and salt. Notability concerns raised by the delete !voters were not adequately refuted, and many on the keep side relied on WP:ITSNOTABLE rationales. The article has sources, and these sources certainly demonstrate the existence of the software, but it was not sufficiently argued that they also demonstrate its notability. While it was argued that a few of the sources were reliable sources, the coverage in those sources was not shown to be significant. Ultimately, the software does not pass WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. As this is the third AfD on this article in as many months, it will be salted. Anyone wishing to re-create this article may ask for permission at deletion review. —SW— comment 14:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Books[edit]

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

As per very recent deletion discussions, the last of which ended with deletion a few days ago. G4 declined on the basis that this is now about the software rather than the company. The same notability concerns are present, as it has largely the same references. The subject still doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, the founder here. In the previous article that got deleted the references were supporting Clear Books as a company whereas in fact most of the references are about Clear Books as online accounting software. So the context is different. The question is, is Clear Books notable online accounting software? It seems we at least agree that one of the references supports this, .Net Magazine. I would also like to make the point that I had no input on the creation of this article whatsoever and indeed it went through AfC this time. --TimFouracre (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Points all very well-taken, and I greatly appreciate that the article is now coming to us from AfC -- a project that I am a member of and have huge respect for. I also agree that shifting the subject of the article changes both the context and how the sources should be evaluated. That said, I'm still coming to the same conclusions. I will qualify that by saying that I don't feel quite as strongly about things this time. I thought the article about the company was an unambiguous, slam-dunk delete. This...less so. Here I'm making entirely subjective assessments of the sourcing. I definitely agree that the .Net magazine source is completely legitimate; my concern, and it is, again, a subjective one, is with significance, particularly given the "crowded field" the software sits in (per WP:NSOFT). I hope this helps clarify my comments. Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed a judgment call. I wrote this article just because I promised that to TimFouracre and I expected that it won't pass WP:AFC actually due to the really weak sourcing. That said, I wrote this article in a pure neutral way (yes, the wording "easy to use" is a statement of a sourced fact, not a jingle) with each and every sentence being directly supported by secondary sources. Though I would vote "keep" in this AfD (as that would be in line with all the similar AfDs in past few months), it is really not a straight forward case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More directory entries that prove it exists - as stated in the previous afd, this is not in dispute, what is in dispute is notability not existence. noq (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. TimFouracre (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unaware of that. Always learning so noted - thanks--TimFouracre (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have any evidence ClearBooks software even has a PR team, I don't think the company employs anyone in that role and I am an investor. This argument and other arguments about rehashing press releases are pretty weak cement they suggest that you question the independence of editors in UK national newspapers and large publications again presumably without any evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenmcl (talk • contribs) 14:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Switching from desktop to online accounting software is a huge technological impact. It's the same impact that caused Wikipedia to replace Encarta. It's the flexibility and power of web access and collaboration. 3000+ small businesses are benefiting (supported by Telegraph article). Net Magazine is a notable review which has been totally ignored.--TimFouracre (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have a reliable source that says that your business was the first one to offer a routine software product through a web interface? FWIW, reviews, especially in trade publications, establish little more than a product exists, and nobody disputes that. But there are many accounting software packages, web based and otherwise, and what they do mostly is add, subtract, multiply, and divide. This in itself is not enough to get this product its own article in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that you need to be the first to do anything to be notable? Notability is not about perfection, surely it is about being noted by a reliable source the rest is your opinion about how notable something is. I would suggest you set the bar to far too high would there even be a wikipedia left if this view were to prevail? Brenmcl (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not about counting sources; it's about what the sources say, and whether the sources say things that will turn this product into an appropriate subject for a stand alone encyclopedia article. Finding a subject notable is exactly equal to a claim that this product deserves a stand alone article; and because notability is not temporary, that means that fifty and five thousand years from now, it will still be thought worthy of mention in the development of its field. Nothing I've seen suggests that this product has that kind of significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying is that 50,000 years ago when modern man was dealing with migrating out of Africa for the first time that the 99% of Wikipedia today not subject to threat of deletion would be notable. I hate to tell you but I think they may have had slightly more pressing concerns and sadly I don't think they could read any of the languages wikipedia is available in either. Notability is therefore most certainly temporal, as with all things in life, and at this point in the context of today's society Clear Books software is notable and notability is not temporary needs an update. Brenmcl (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you got that a bit backwards. And yes, encyclopedia subjects from 50,000 years ago (fire? stone tool? woolly mammoth?) remain as notable as they ever were, but Foo the Hunter's Meats and Bar the Knapper's Hardware never made the grade; they weren't encyclopedia material then and aren't now, either; and neither is Clear Books. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately what I am saying needed to be backward to address your original points. I am drawing attention to the points you don't need to be the first and you don't need to be significant for 50,000 or even 5,000 years to be notable in wikipedia because others may adopt this kind of unnecessary and harmful "high bar" criteria for judging notability if your comments were left to stand. By the way the woolly mammoth is now extinct and I think it would be major worldwide news on every single news outlet if we discovered evidence of a business like Foo the Hunter's Meats from 50,000 years ago. Brenmcl (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By "high bar", I gather you mean "actual encyclopedic significance", the sort of notability, whether achievement or infamy, that gets a subject remembered in an encyclopedia. This high bar exists because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory or catalogue, and the only subjects that should have stand alone articles are ones that would not seem out of place in a general-coverage encyclopedia. I am not convinced that any of the offered sources say anything that would turn this product or its maker into an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "high bar" I was actually only referring to what I believe were unnecessarily strict examples you were using to establish notability. ("50,000 years" and "first one to offer a routine software product through a web interface") I also take issue with notability is not temporary as it seems to me everything in life is temporal and this very AFD is an an example of the temporal nature of notability - the first outcome was no consensus, the second delete and the third could be either of these or perhaps even Keep. I fully accept that articles should not seem out of place in a general-coverage encyclopedia like Wikipedia but I also believe this concept of "out of place" too is cultural and therefore temporal. Of course I acknowledge it is evolving at only a glacial pace much like the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm, upon which policy and law is based. Brenmcl (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Telegraph article is not about the software - it just mentions in passing a claimed number of users - not significant coverage. The PC Advisor article is about a publicity stunt where the company gave away some software to get some publicity - only tangentially about the software. Please see previous comments where this has been gone over ad nauseum. noq (talk) 20:43, 18 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, Black Kite (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
G4 doesn't apply, even Articles for Creation apparently greenlighted this new version.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that G4 doesn't apply. Article is about a software and not the history of a company. Article went through AfC.--TimFouracre (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It never really went through afc as it was tagged as a closed request by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff when it was moved to the afc page. No review appears to have been done. Another editor moved it main space without comment possibly just tidying up what they believed was a closed review. noq (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue: as one can see from this diff, the second parameter of ((AFC submission)) was never filled in, so the review was never closed. This template doesn't even support the form of "closed as accepted"! The reviewer just moved the page with open ((AFC submission)) and removed the template. noq, next time before accusing me of fraud, please, do your homework first. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this. It shows as in the process of being closed by the reviewer - and was at a time only you had edited the article. I am not saying that it was deliberate but the AfC was done incorrectly. noq (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((AFC submission)) rendering depends on the namespace (see the "#if:((NAMESPACE))" clause in the source), so it just can't render another way in main namespace. If you wouldn't take my word on it, compare the template with any pending AFC submission and look at the history of articles coming from AfC. It was indeed not closed by me, and indeed it can't be closed otherwise then by declining or moving to the main namespace. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies - I was not aware of that. noq (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The most interesting part here is that WP:AFC people tend to pass the articles with questionable notability (that is, article would generally be accepted if the lack of notability isn't evident), so the reference to the AfC submission appears to be of no use in deletion discussion. If I knew it by the time of 2nd nomination, I wouldn't recommend this process to TimFouracre back then and wouldn't write this article at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I requested a comment from the reviewer. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm not sure that AfC reviewer was aware of previous AfDs or ever looked over the deletion log of the target page. When I was submitting the article at AfC I expected some more restrictive approach to evaluating submissions. In fact I nominated for AfD three or four article from AfC since the beginning of this discussion and neither of them received keep votes yet, so I wouldn't mention AfC approval as a reason to keep the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't rely on it either, but it might remind people that articles like this float around everywhere on the project. Its not an affront to wikipedia's existence, even if it should be deleted.--Milowent • hasspoken 11:40, 27 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. I should add that if the MediaWiki feature Wikipedia:Category intersection was implemented, there would be very little need for lists like this. henrik•talk 21:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Senators who died in the 2010s[edit]

Closer, please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of members of the United States House of Representatives who died in 2012, if possible both discussions should be closed by the same person. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Senators who died in the 2010s (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's sources do not directly mention the subject, and its content (the names of the deceased Senators) is duplicated in respective articles on years, which include deaths of prominent people. The article's subject, I believe, is not notable. dci | TALK 01:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "just as relevent" ... Relevent to what??? EEng (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just as relevent to Wikipeida as any other list, such as List of Presidents of the United States by date of death, List of Presidents of the United States by time in office or Oldest living United States president. My list follows the likes of List of supercentenarians who died in 2012 and List of members of the United States House of Representatives who died in 2012 - it's completely necessary to have a list of people by date of death in 1 convenient place, the big difference here is I am breaking it down by decade, the others will follow. If I had every US Senator on here, then people would be saying that it's too large, so I'm breaking it up by decade in advance. I'm appalled that this list is facing such scrutiny. Hopefully after I explained my goals it will be clear that this list is just as acceptable as a lot of these other ones. Again, this template will eventually be filled out and Senators by decade will fit in nicely. RoadView (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's meaningless trivia. That goes for the lists of presidents and supercentenarians as well. EEng (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you just have a problem with a lot of lists. You could make a case for most lists being meaningless trivia, but others may find them entirely beneficial and convenient, it's very subjective. That's what a list is, a collection of data. As for the president and supercentenarian lists, if they are so pointless then why are they still here? Personally I like them, but this is no more pointless than those. I guess I should have made "List of United States Senators by date of death", which would look like a more substantial article, but I assume it would be too large and would have to break it up into something like this current AfD. RoadView (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question, "As for the president and supercentenarian lists, if they are so pointless then why are they still here?", please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. EEng (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but it's still misleading to see other similar lists on here as if they are accepted and then find this one target for deletion. I still stand by this not being trivial. US Senators by date of death is completely notable in my opinion. I would say if it were state senators, then I could see that being a significant step down of notability and although it would be informative, I would say it's trivial and probably cluttered. I have seen some trivial lists, but this is not one of them. RoadView (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense having failed, let's look at applicable guidelines. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources... (see WP:LISTN). And those sources are where? EEng (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This [32] clearly mentions the topic. I could put a citation next to every entry from here [33] if that's an issue. But all this totally satisfies WP:LISTPEOPLE. I really think I've made enough of a case for this to at least not be deleted. RoadView (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTPEOPLE tells who should be included in a list which, from its bare description, might contain a large number of trivial entries. For example, the Nazis banned many authors, probably 1000s of them (I'm actually making this up, but you get the idea). Many of them might have been obscure journalists nobody remembers anymore. So what LISTPEOLE is telling you is that not every name in the Propaganda Ministry's Banned-Author Registry goes on the Wikipedia list -- in general, WP would list only notable banned authors. That's for after you've decided to have such a list in the first place, which is the discussion we're having now. (Of course, if this list stays there's no debating senators go on it: they all do -- at least the dead ones, anyway.) As to the link you provided: it's natural for the Senate itself to have such a memorial roll. Any other sources (as in sources, plural)? EEng (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again outside of the link I already provided and an individual citation to each link on [34] or an obituary from a newspaper that could be added, I believe the notability has been more than been established and the list requirements have been fulfilled. Still, from a basic standpoint, US Senators are notable and deaths are notable. The debate is over if an outside source has specifically covered the senator deaths from this time period as a whole. That really seems like a technicality. Making a list from 2 clearly notable things does not automatically work, but I've done about all I can to prove my case that it does work in this instance. If this doesn't survive I guess I'll have to make an entire list of senators by date of death, which will be huge, and I'm sure I will have to end up splitting it up. RoadView (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you grasp the point. Now you're proposing, instead of List of Senators Who Have Died Since 2010, to create List of Senators Who Have Died. I rest my case. EEng (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be "List of United States Senators by date of death" with all senators sorted by date of death in a table with the other pertinent information, similar to a combination of List of Presidents of the United States by date of death and List of Presidents of the United States by age. There is no quick way to be able to find out birth and death dates for US senators and reps. There is for presidents, which is great. I'm tired of not having this beneficial information readily and comprehensively available on 1 page. Apparently it means nothing that there are loads of other related political lists that seemingly have not and will not be challenged at this point. So it only seems understandable that this list I made was not without precedent. All these senators are well documented people and there is even a similar list on an official government site. I can't really imagine what other sources are needed to have this accepted. It sounds like there has to be a duplicate list already made somewhere else for this to satisfy the desired exact notability. I kind of figured it would look weird at the beginning if I started off by breaking it down by decade, I guess I was right. RoadView (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I completely disagree about the comparison. This article is about listing the senators by date of death, which you cannot find easily. As with other lists such as the representatives or presidents, eventually I hope to compile a list of all senators by date of death. Since there are too few to list by single year and too many to list on 1 page, listing them by decade is exactly the way to go. After all the years are finished, they will look presentable in this template. This article is compiling, in 1 easy place, a list of senators by date of death and separating them by decade, not making a list of 1 the decisions they made in their personal lives as you stated in your example. That was really an unfair comparison. I don't want this article to be discredited because it's the first 1 with only 8 names. There will be more to come and in the end it will all fit together. There are so many lists out there and it is relevant to show senators, as well as representatives and presidents, by date of death without having to click on them 1 by 1. RoadView (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk, tsk. "This article is up for deletion and I could really use some support for it to stay." [35] WP:CANVASS EEng (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC) P.S. This is just a gentle reminder that alerting members of relevent projects is a good idea, asking them to take a particular position isn't. It wasn't Dru of Id, but RoadView, who posted the loaded message I just quoted.[reply]
For clarity, I assume you are proposing something like "List of members of the United States Congress who died in the 2010s" and then list both senators and representatives. Then have 1 for each decade in order to have more content? I suppose I'd be ok with that, especially if that's what it takes to keep this content on WP. The only problem, as you mentioned, is the lengthy house list. 2004-2009 already has 151 names, so it seems like people may object to the size of those lists, which is why I settled on single years for reps and decades for senators. But if everyone else would support it, I can be a little flexible. RoadView (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in only a list of those who died in office. I really think being able to have a page for a certain time period is the best way to go, whether or not it's one page for both senators and reps. I really appreciate the suggestion though, but I see the List of former United States Senators as being great if you just want a non sortable alphabetical list with out birth, death, or age information on them. It's a good list for what it is, but it's really lacking the content that I think is even more beneficial. I suppose a similar list that has not been deleted is List of supercentenarians who died in 2012 or any of those US president related lists. I didn't think there would be so much objection to making a list of congressional politicians by date of death, especially when there is no other single page that has these details. RoadView (talk) 23:25, 10 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, Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's technically not a bad idea, but the concern I raise is that that list already seems too large. What would have to be done is to remove all of the subsections, which are by letter, and then put it all in 1 table so you can sort everyone by whatever category you want. Personally, I think it would look a little too cluttered. Also, I would like this page to match the format of the other representative pages. There are far too many reps to put into a table on 1 page so those are broken down by year. Those are the main reasons I'm not totally on board with just adding a birth, death, and age column, but if there is still a strong movement to do so I will deal with it. RoadView (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per RoadView. I would add that these lists are considered significant by members of the relevant Wikiproject, there is no allegation that they are inaccurate in any way or will become inaccurate because they are difficult to maintain, and they compile relevant information in a highly convenient format that I have myself consulted from time to time. Discussing the potential deletion of this group of lists does not strike me as a worthwhile use of the community's collective time and resources. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 22 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. JohnCD (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ben 10: Omniverse[edit]

List of Ben 10: Omniverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First episode to come in September 2012, too early to have a stand alone list for episodes list. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 19 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 Freshwater Elementary School District. joe deckertalk to me 06:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freshwater Elementary School[edit]

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

K-6 school articles are generally not kept till notability is established. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can easily include pertinent relevant information on this school in the district article. Barring notability not heretofore seen, I move that we close the discussion, delete the article and place the information in the district article. Norcalal (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pertinent information related to the school has been placed in the district article. Norcalal (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I see that Eureka_High_School_(California) shows blue. Well, I guess that's good news. There's MASSIVE room for improvement there, obviously. Carrite (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 19 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 per WP:CSD#G7. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fractal dimension/Accesible version[edit]

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

Deletion requested by creator, with only trivial contributions from another editor. The page was created as a temporary placeholder to fix layout. Diego (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's the process to request a speedy delete? Diego (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You put the template ((db-g7)) at the top of the article. For future reference, temporary page copies like this should be created as sub-pages underneath your user page, not in article space; see Wikipedia:User pages. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:25, 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. The clear consensus is that this does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The main "keep" argument is that an encyclopedia should record everything, but Wikipedia decided long ago not to go down that route, and WP:Notability and WP:NOT define limits to its coverage. It is also argued that the SFL is a notable organization, and indeed it has its own page at Super Fight League, but it does not follow that each of its events is individually notable. JohnCD (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SFL 1[edit]

AfDs for this article:
SFL 1 (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 MMA event fails WP:MMAEVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT, the coverage it has received is routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, which clebs attended and the results). The article fails to demonstrate the events lasting effect, none of the references show continued coverage lasting beyond the end of the event. Mtking (edits) 04:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mtking (edits) 04:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LMAO, I am amazed by the amount of policies there are that any page can survive a AfD. The amount of policies out there for a simple page with so many different rules and guidelines is absolutely ridiculous, and I am amazed that so many people actually care about every single one of them! On this AfD alone, I can clearly see that the amount of policies that people are claiming this page 'fails' makes it into the double figures, yet in terms of coverage, the UFC meets a similar number, yet I don't see this kind of 'lets deleted it because it fails 99 out of 100 policies' approach towards them, even though you do get people trying to do so under these reasons. Wikipedia is going to the dogs simply because of these improperly written policies being made by people under 'consensus', many of which are either written, contributed or being enforced by people who admittedly say that they have no interest what-so-ever in the topic, and they are being used as a reason why to keep or delete a page.

Now I want to just remind everyone of this one simple fact that everyone actually seemed to have forgotten - THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA! An encyclopedia keeps record of EVERY that has happened, regardless of how newsworthy, or even whether it is newsworthy now, next week, ten years ago, or since before the dawn of time. Wikipedia keeps record of anything that is relevant, which actually includes sport results, but due to this ridiculous system that somehow came into place, it can be debated. This isn't a debating website for information, this is an information website. Anything should be given a spot on here and no-one should really be debating otherwise.

When you think about, who has ever been so offended by seeing an article on here (that may need an article or two to prove notability) that they decide it is somewhat illegal and decide to have such information remove from here entirely? Who is it actually affecting by having a page for India's first MMA event on Wikipedia, and if it is how is it affecting them? Is someone dying because they look on the page and found out The New York BadAss commentated on the event, or that James Thompson defeated Bob Sapp because Bob had a leg injury during the fight? And what is it that the people get out of successfully deleting a page? A pat on the back? Someone telling you 'Well done'? Giving you a cash reward? Giving you a high honour in the real world where they'd recognise you as 'Sir' or 'Dame'? Don't think so, all that your getting for deleting page after page is more hardship from the same or different users for deleting pages that provide the very thing that all encyclopaedias offer - information. Users like TreyGeek admit that pages are being created faster than they are being deleted and why is that? Because pages here are not meant to be deleted, they are meant to remain on here. It is easier to create 10 pages full of information on 10 different topics than deleting one page full of information on one topic. The information on here is free, Wikipedia is free, no-one gets paid to create nor delete pages, and it is far easier to create than delete, so why must we actually argue about whether a certain topic should remain on here when the reality of it is that this is an encyclopedia, a place where all information on any topic should be welcomed. I think people should start to realise this fact now! BigzMMA (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to point out another policy to you BigzMMA but An encyclopedia keeps record of EVERY that has happened is not true and I suggest you read Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Bjmullan (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bigz, The point of the wiki is to have a relatively neutral collection of the notable aspects of knowledge. Rather than lobby on every single MMA based deletion for a systemic change to what the wiki is, you should be lobbying at the Village pumps for the systemic change. We have to go by what is on the books currently for policies/guidelines/consensus. Have you consiered setting up a MMA Wiki that is more focused and can set standards that are only applicable to MMA subjects? Hasteur (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bjmullan I'm afraid to point out that you have make the wrong text bold :P and Hasteur, what is the point of even having a normal Wikipedia if nearly every subject has to be broken down into categorised Wikipedia website? There is really no point of having a Wikipedia at all if every subject cannot be on here. And as far as the policies goes, think about it, if no-one at all tries to enforce these policies, or to defend them, or use them in any way, then whats going to happen? no-ones going to punish you for not pointing it out nor rewarding you for doing so. It is for the best if we remove many of these un-necessary policies so that there will never again be confusion about this being just a selected information site that removes useful information within 2 years of being put on here. BigzMMA (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So BigzMMA do they have any rules in MMA or is just a free for all like you are suggesting here? Another policy to look at is WP:NOTSOAPBOX which I think your rant above might breach. Bjmullan (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But we're not talking about an article on the SFL, but on the single event SFL 1. Different question, and hence probably a different answer. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This to be precise. Super Fight League Terkaal -- <Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!> (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)::[reply]
Times of India? Opposing Views? HindustanTimes.com? Mid-Day.com? DailyMail.co.uk? Your telling me that these papers are exclusively MMA papers? Did you even look at the articles on the SFL 1 page to see their notability? Don't think so, just another improperly made delete vote which should immediately be made void until the user has proven he has looked into the subject in more detail other than what appears to be a 2 second look at a Google result. I do agree that the SFL is a strong second tier promotion at worse, so lets make that happen now so that there will be no more future confusions about this subject. BigzMMA (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with your point at all, daily mail especially seems to be a good, independent source. HindustanTimes.com might fall under WP: ROUTINE. I crossed out the first part of my vote, but I still stand by the lack of importance of the event. Please don't assume that I'm not interested or knowlegdable about the subject. --Pat (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I appreciate the fact that you admitted you were wrong to say it wasn't covered by any paper outside of MMA. However, the fact that the event had been covered by India's version of the New York Times in more than just one article shows that it was viewed as a very important event. Mix in the fact that this is the very first MMA event to happen in India by India's first MMA promotion, the stars of Bollywood attending the event and lets not forget the main event was Bob Sapp vs James Thompson, two men who grew their names and reputations in Pride FC and throughout Asia means that this event has significant importance, also lets not forget that this is probably (though it may need to proven if false) the first MMA event to stream live on Youtube and the fact that it was covered on national sport news on television must add to the case to keep. BigzMMA (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your points. I think the promotion itself is at this point notable. I'll wait a while to comment again on these pages. To me SFL events can prove to be notable by adding current top fighters and continuously promoting shows with large media coverage. Otherwise, I still question the "lasting effect" of these shows. WP:MMAEVENT --Pat (talk) 18:41, 23 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. Ther is a hatnote for the band on the song's article. JohnCD (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some Velvet Morning (disambiguation)[edit]

Some Velvet Morning (disambiguation) (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-needed dis. page Tinton5 (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikidave77. Instead of arguing here (and you are not going to win this one!), try improving the band article . Facebook and amazon are not much good as sources, but The Guardian is. I found this source [39] which would make the band article safe.  Tigerboy1966  07:59, 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. joe deckertalk to me 16:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneur of Life[edit]

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

Accidentally nominated by Meclee at MFD with rationale of "Not notable, no category for article." Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He accidentally nominated the talk page instead, which resulted in it being sent to MFD. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:48, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why Paint Cats[edit]

Why Paint Cats (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, as far as I can tell. Author himself may even be non-notable the the criteria set out at WP:N. I've been unable to find any sources about it... The Cavalry (Message me) 02:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 19 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. JohnCD (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Krueger[edit]

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

Biography of living person, only known for running a business Cheryl&Co., and the page on the business has been deleted. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 19 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 nomination withdrawn. I'm going to interpret the nominator's "keep" vote as a withdraw. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stygiophobia[edit]

Advanced search for: 
"fear of hell"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library
Stygiophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No indication this is an encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Prod removed without comment. SummerPhD (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see nothing to indicate that dicdef is merely organizational or structural. "Sometimes an article really is a mis-placed stub dictionary entry, that discusses the etymology, translations, usage, inflections, multiple distinct meanings, synonyms, antonyms, homophones, spelling, pronunciation, and so forth of a word or an idiomatic phrase" perfectly describes the page as nominated. How do we handle that? "If the article cannot be renamed, merged, or rewritten into a stub encyclopedia article about a subject, denoted by its title, then it should be deleted." - SummerPhD (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In this case, there's a bit more that can be pulled out of the few sources that were brought up, though. Drmies (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that material shows up, it would certainly be reasonable to flesh out the article and (from the sounds of it) move it to the more general title. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'fear of hell' should link to the page, but the scientific name stygiophobia or hadephobia should remain as the title, as is the case with most other pages on phobias, except common phobias where the phobia is more commonly known by another name e.g. the page on 'fear of the dark'.VenomousConcept (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone with a British keyboard can help me? I want to change the link to phobos from phobos (mythology) to phobos (mythology)/phobos, so that only the word phobos appears, but I don't know how to do that straight line. I can see it on the keyboard, before number 1 and below Esc, but there are 3 symbols on it, and I don't know how to produce the straight line. Argh! VenomousConcept (talk) 00:06, 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demoluca[edit]

Demoluca (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. A Google News search gets zero hits. Unsourced trivia. Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 19 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 Prepared statement. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prepare (SQL)[edit]

Prepare (SQL) (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. I'm probably going to be criticized for taking this to AfD, but why would we want separate articles on computer instructions? Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could probably become a small section within query optimisation, but it has little to do with cursors. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 19 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Professional Genealogists[edit]

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

Seems to be self-sourced and non-notable, failing to meet the WP:CORP criteria. Sionk (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly it is, but I couldn't find any substantial independent non-trivial sources myself. The article is currently unsourced, apart from the organization's own website. Sionk (talk) 20:55, 11 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) 00:01, 18 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 "soft" delete. Due to the lack of input this deletion should be treated the same as an uncontested WP:PROD and subject to WP:REFUND. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea women's national badminton team[edit]

South Korea women's national badminton team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

That is no gender different as Korea national badminton team will serve for all of it. This is because badminton have mixed doubles and Sudirman Cup which will have different sex in one events. Aleenf1 06:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 11 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) 00:01, 18 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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chokyong Palga Rinpoche[edit]

Chokyong Palga Rinpoche (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. It was a large article until I stubbed it. None of the material was supported by any secondary sources (feel free to view that version). A Google News search reveals zero coverage. Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 11 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, 18 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burial Chamber Trio[edit]

Burial Chamber Trio (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 article has never had any reliable independent sources. It asserts notability solely by inheritance (which, as we all kn ow, is invalid). Guy (Help!) 23:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 12 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, 18 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. JohnCD (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soler (band)[edit]

Soler (band) (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 article, much of which comes from Bridgingsoler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), reads like a fan page and its sole independent sources are gig guides. I call vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 12 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, 18 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) 21:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nofel Izz[edit]

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

Overtly promotional poorly sourced paid editing. Vanity article by proxy. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 12 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, 18 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