< 18 March	20 March >

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, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doon College of Management[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP Shirt58 (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of WP:GNG being met in the searches I did. Creator notified about a copyvio. This appears to be one of a number of colleges, but there's nothing worth salvaging in the article IMO. -- Trevj (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. StandardSwan (talk) 00:09, 20 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Arent all educational institutes notable? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no, private small colleges are generally not.

delete fails basic requirements of WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about it, and it fails WP:GNG. Fireblazex3 (talk) 10:49, 26 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) 17:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan Drumming: The Thammattama (Book and eBook)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The book does not have any academic reviews I can find. The author has written only this book, and his phd thesis. It may be a boo kof specialized itnerest, but I do not think it meets NBook. (my prod was declined). DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cool-looking book, but as an article it's spam. Shii (tock) 07:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two interviews to the author by third party sources satisfy WP:GNG. Diego (talk) 11:14, 19 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Two interviews from essentially the same news organisation (see [1] which shows US Lanka and Boston Lanka are from the same company); the news sites themselves are similar to community papers. I don't see this as sufficient to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. - Frankie1969 (talk) 15:34, 29 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. CSD G4. I agree with BusterD. This is essentially a recreation of Boardwalk and Marina Casino Dealer School. If new sources exist then they will need to be presented to deletion review. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casino Dealers School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested Prod. Short-lived, defunct, job-training school with no claims to notability. Single cited source is a local newspaper. Has one link out; until prod notification was put on main author's talk page had absolutely no inbound links. Edit history is rife with single purpose accounts. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 14:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I understand it, the school is de facto notable because it a recognized post-secondary school. OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally unaccredited schools are subject to more scrutiny- such as needing to pass WP:GNG.

The articles does claim the school was accredited, although I suppose a source would be necessary to carry that. OSborn^arf_contribs. 20:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: haven't analyzed yet, but I suspect my rationale on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boardwalk and Marina Casino Dealer School will hold here also. tedder (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'*'KEEP- This school was a relevent presence in Atlantic City for 15 years, as the school trained a large number of students, many of whom were on unemployment, that became gainfully employed in the Atlantic City Casino Industry, while simultaneously assisting with the staffing of operating casinos, and newly opening casinos, at a time when casino skilled labor was in short supply in the Atlantic City area. Although articles on the school may seem scarce, much coverage on the school appeared years before they were archived by the media. As far as notability, readers can contact the New Jersey Casino Control Commission and the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, as well as the Accrediting Commission of Career School's & Colleges of Technology.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allinone23 (talk • contribs)

— Allinone23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Moved comment to bottom and replaced the "remove when closing" template. OSborn^arf_contribs. 20:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as recreation of deleted page per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boardwalk and Marina Casino Dealer School. I see no citation which backs accreditation and a reasonable search finds nothing substantive. This article claims a dubious notability, a large percentage of folks who got student loans to pay tuition for this for-profit school didn't pay them back... BusterD (talk) 17:42, 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:21, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- a careful research of this school with the Accrediting Commission Of Career Schools & Colleges of Technology (ACCSCT), a nationally recognized acrediting agency, showed that this school was in fact accredited. Please note that because a small percentage of students failed to pay their student loans back, should not reflect negatively on the school itself, as these former welfare recipients, who were now gainfully employed, would rather buy a new car, before paying back their student loans! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backupback (talk • contribs) 17:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Backupback (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The NY Times reported more than a third of all students receiving loans to pay tuition at this school defaulted on their obligations, but that disparaging mention was the ONLY reliable secondary source I could find on the subject. I'd like to see some secondary verification of your original ACCST research, otherwise, delete as unsourceable and recreation of a previously deleted article. No keep arguments made so far hold any weight... BusterD (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-Keep- The original researsh was a phone call to the Accrediting Commission's (ACCSCT-Now simply called ACCSC) Manager of Institutional Records- (Eileen King-703-247-4212) in which she stated that this school was accredited from October 1989 through October 2000, to which the school voluntarily withdrew from the Accrediting Commission October 10, 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backupback (talk • contribs) 19:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC) (second 'keep' vote struck by admin tedder)[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) 00:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jozef Kovalík[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NTENNIS - no ATP Challenger titles, no ATP World Tour main draw matches played in, no Davis Cup matches played in, never a top three ITF Junior ranking, no ITF Junior Grand Slam titles won Mayumashu (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I also could find no sources giving him notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All I can find is a lost final in challenger tour doubles. That doesn't satisfy NTENNIS. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:02, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why relist this, twice at that? - three contributors have said that he fails notability and no one has commented to the contrary Mayumashu (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NTENNIS. Also, in reply to comment above, three is not really enough for "consensus" in a lot of people's opinions. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:27, 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. Sandstein 17:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mariko Hill[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable women's cricketer. Hasn't played a major women's cricket match, so fails WP:CRIN and WP:ATH. The tour of Bangladesh she was on didn't involve major matches. The Asian Twenty20 Championship she played in is also a minor tourament, whose matches don't hold Women's Twenty20 International status (Hong Kong played Bhutan, China and Singapore, so hardly surprising). Google search also brings up hardly any reliable sources for wider notability. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with the nominator: playing for Hong Kong is clearly not playing at the top-level of amateur women's cricket: more or less all women's cricket in amateur, so she would need to be playing for one of the top women's teams in the world. No evidence of notability. Harrias ^talk 22:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree she fails WP:CRIN, but on reading the article and seeing that she made her debut for Hong Kong at age 12, I thought that significant coverage would be easy to find. However, that wasn't the case – I could find only passing mentions of Hill, nothing that could be considered in-depth or significant coverage (and many of the sources were all non-independent). Happy to change my mind if someone has better luck than me locating sources. Jenks24 (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the sources cited in the article? How are they not significant coverage? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's only two sources: [2] is a Cricinfo profile that contains no prose, which I do not consider significant coverage; [3], published by Hong Kong Education City, is a bit better in that it tells us a bit about Hill, but I'm not about the reliability and independence of the source, especially considering the article finishes with "Visit the website of the Hong Kong Cricket Club and Kowloon Cricket Club if you want to learn to play. They have regular coaching sessions for beginners." Would you care to explain why you believe either is significant coverage? Jenks24 (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:00, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:53, 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 Delete. If someone would like the content to start a How Berkeley Can You Be article just let me know and I'll be happy to userfy it. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nude & Breast Freedom Parade[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, lack of significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 07:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mentioned (one sentence-long paragraph) in the September 17, 2000 New York Times. GNews does turn up a few paywalled references in northern California newspapers plus some articles in the Daily Californian.[4] Used to be a mildly notorious event in Berkeley, not sure if it's still around. May be worth some further digging (and I will try later). --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the Daily Californian links are showing "Page not found". --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this article needs photos. Tony May (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; could not find sufficient reliable sources for the subject to pass WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. The event has garnered only passing and local coverage that I could find. The sources cited in the article are no help. I could not find any references at all later than 2005, suggesting that the event is no longer held. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources I could find are not really clear about this, but what may have happened is that the "X-plicit Players"[5], who instigated the "[Nude and] Breast Freedom Parade" among other provocations, eventually got absorbed by the larger "How Berkeley Can You Be" parade,[6], then they were "asked to stay home" in 2007[7], and "How Berkeley Can You Be" was itself cancelled in 2009 after Berkeley jacked up the permit fees.[8][9] There was also a "Breasts not Bombs" group that protested at military installations, but I am not sure if they marched in the parade. (2008: "Asked by the Planet why people are allowed to walk nude in the How Berkeley Can You Be Parade year after year, [a police spokesman] responded only that 'I've never been to a How Berkeley Can You Be Parade.'"[10]) Anyway, I am sorry to say that I didn't find much more in reliable sources about the Breast Freedom Parade specifically. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting research. I notice that the website for the X-Plicit Players is all written in the past tense (e.g. "Who we were"). But the article under discussion here is written in the present tense, even though it was written in 2008, by which time the N&BF parade did not exist. Wonder why? --MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to How Berkeley Can You Be or other suitably-named article. It sounds from the above as if the organising body of this event morphed into something else. Perhaps all the encyclopedic info can be summarised in a single article. -- Trevj (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Nudity and protest. Other nudity movements are listed there. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:24, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough independent coverage to prove this event's notability. As an alternative, a mention in a possible How Berkeley Can You Be article and a redirect to there can be done, but since that article doesn't exist (yet), I don't believe this should either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:29, 25 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 Pacific Zen Institute. Redirecting per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Tarrant[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject appears to fail general notability guidelines - total lack of the independent, reliable references. No evidence that the criteria of WP:AUTHOR met, either. (Declined PROD). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

question Which has the greater notability: Tarrant, or the Pacific Zen Institute--it seems there might be a possible merge. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:50, 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sabzi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There already exists an article by the name Curry and a redirect from Sabji to Curry. This article replicates the topic covered and has no references. Noopur28 (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Curry, this is a sensible alternative spelling for Sabji. Actually this action didn't require AfD but never mind, Redirect it should now be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In Iranian cuisine, "Sabzi" refers to green herbs. For example, Ghormeh sabzi is a stew, sabzi polo is herbed rice, and sabzi khordan are typically mixed herbs served raw[11]. So a simple redirect to curry may not be the most useful result for the searcher.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and in Indian cuisine, Sabzi/Sabji also refers to (curried) veggies. My point is simply that Sabji is already redirected to Curry and it will be no worse if Sabzi does the same. If Sabzi is to be retained then Sabji can redirect to it - but first, somebody will have to find Reliable Sources to save it from deletion. This is the English Wikipedia (for better, for worse...) so we'll need to be convinced that Sabzi is in fact notable rather than just being a dictionary entry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing to keep the article, just pointing out that there are a number of existing Wikipedia articles that are more likely targets for a redirect. There's also an article called Sabzi (artist) ~~although at first read one might be bit skeptical about notability there~~ to which I've now added some independent sources. If someone types in "sabzi" and gets sent to curry, it's more likely to be confusing than helpful; I'd more inclined to support a DAB page, or nothing at all (in which case they'd get taken the search results, which might actually be the most helpful result). --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Modified by Arxiloxos (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reason why there shouldn't be a Sabzi section in Curry as a landing-place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Curry and Sabji are two rather different dishes, and deserve their own page, not a catch-all. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 00:18, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikoladze preparation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. PROD removed by IP without explanation or improvement. Deskford (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Deskford (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not turning up coverage in any reliable sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 19 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As already stated, there's no references to back up this particular technique's notability. The person who is credited with the creation of this technique has an article, but that article is also lacking in any references to show notability itself, so I was unable to find any additional references by investigating through that. Rorshacma (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Willmott[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also a lack of any significant media coverage beyond the WP:NTEMP and WP:ROUTINE sports coverage (match reports etc). --Jimbo^[online] 21:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 21:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't have the "significant" coverage required to meet GNG; also fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looks like it passes WP:GNG. See this, this, this, this, this, this. --LauraHale (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, what isn't routine sports coverage about those? --Jimbo^[online] 15:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That link is about notability of events, so is irrelevant to a discussion about a person. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is not signing for a club an event? They still fail WP:NTEMP by quite a way. There's substantial that tells us why he's notable as a person beyond signing for a club or being name-checked in a match report (mainly from local newspapers that report specifically on their local clubs). --Jimbo^[online] 22:38, 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) 00:13, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:48, 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 redirect to List of tennis umpires. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana Alves[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of the very few tennis umpire articles. See Category:Tennis umpires. Article is mainly about a single controversy. I cannot find in depth reliable sources to make this into a more balanced article. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 19:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hawk-Eye#Tennis per WP:BLP1E. Only notable for one controversial incident, but it is already mentioned at Hawk-Eye#Tennis. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In cooperation with other editors from project tennis we have created List of tennis umpires, because we think they deserve some coverage on WP, but we have not enough sources to create standalone articles for (most of) them. In a way it would be rather unfair if the umpires that got into controversy get an article, while the others do not. So an alternative would be to have this page redirect to List of tennis umpires MakeSense64 (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thumbs up for the redirect to the umpire list option. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:22, 25 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 List of tennis umpires. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Asderaki[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of the very few tennis umpire articles. See Category:Tennis umpires. Article is mainly about a single controversy. I cannot find in depth reliable sources to make this into a more balanced article. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 19:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge and redirect to 2011_US_Open_(tennis)#Day 14 (11 September) per WP:BLP1E. The tennis umpire is only notable for one controversy, which should be mentioned in the 2011 US Open (tennis) article. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In cooperation with other editors from project tennis we have created List of tennis umpires, because we think they deserve some coverage on WP, but we have not enough sources to create standalone articles for (most of) them. In a way it would be rather unfair if the umpires that got into controversy get an article, while the others do not. So an alternative would be to have this page redirect to List of tennis umpires MakeSense64 (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thumbs up for the redirect to the umpire list option. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same issues as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valy. There is still no notability for this artist. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 13:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:47, 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) 00:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perbadanan Air Pulau Pinang FC[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this football team is notable per WP:GNG or applicable football-based criteria. Cloudz 679 20:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 20:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything significant on Perbadanan Air Pulau Pinang FC or PBAPP FC. The football notability guidelines aren't very helpful in dealing with clubs. Tigerboy1966 22:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:59, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanyo SS-690[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently looking at an article with no reliable sources, no claim of notability using verifiable citation, of course if that was solved then I could re-consider. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rant about product quality (and picture demeaning said product) disguised as a run-of-the-mill product description of an unexceptional product. Nate • (chatter) 06:34, 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 speedily deleted per G3 (blatant hoax) by Orangemike (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tal's Kebabs[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any references at all, not notable either. A google search doesn't find anything. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Also, this was speedy deleted before, but I wasn't quite sure if I should speedy it again. --Thekillerpenguin (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete zero Google hits aside from this article, leads me to believe this is a hoax. --Daniel 18:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as likely hoax (and on the off chance it's not a hoax, non-notable). No Google hits on the name, and nothing I can find on Google linking Tal Ben Haim to a kebab shop. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only thing that stopped me from putting an A7 speedy tag on this one was the alleged mention by Gregg Wallace, for which I requested a cite. If that turns out to be a hoax, then delete even if the joint actually exists. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Created by a user impersonating the notable player. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:47, 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 (G4), blatant recreation of an article already deleted previously via a deletion discussion. --MuZemike 20:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kissinger N. Sibanda[edit]

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted after an ugly AfD under a different name: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda. The creator is or has a very close connection with the subject and sent me several harassing emails from the subject's production company. With that said there are few if any reliable sources written about this person and the article is currently based almost entirely on press releases and online profiles. Daniel 17:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should be speedied. It is a recreation of a page deleted due to a deletion discussion. I don't see many reliable sources, either. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was that it wasn't actually deleted as a direct result of the AfD. The author blanked the article several times and recreated it under different names and the AfD was closed as a "G7 author blanking" rather than a "delete." You are right that a G4 speedy would probably meet the spirit if not the letter of the law. --Daniel 18:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Seems like the entry is not a stretch. The above comments by Daniel do not address the content and why this should be deleted. Also, are the only notabale people from South Africa supposedly white. Dont really understand, besides personal reasons, whats really wrong with this entry. Again wiki policy is not to delete pages but to edit them threw, deletion seems inappropriate here. See wiki deletion policy. "Most pages start of this way...."

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Article is not the same but a more detailed researched article for "Ken Sibanda." I do not agree that if an article is deleted this means the peronality will never appear on wikipedia again. Rewrite and keep....

Again, the ugliness of the previous debate was because of internal manipulation by various users of wikipedia without properly addressing the man's achievements, I am entitled to resubmit the article where Ken sibanda is appearing as ....1. notable University of London alumni and 2. notable black science fiction writer.

Sources include: Gibraltar News; Euro Weekly; Weekend Post; Montclair times: Essex Times; Olive Press, Spain

This should not be a personal vendetta against individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.159.179 (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LETS DISCUSS THE ARTICLE NOT PERSONAL REVENGE!JUST A MINOR ADDITION: THE PREVIOUS ARTICLE WAS DELETED AFTER END OF DISCUSSION, ALSO STOP PUTTING INNUENDO THAT I AM CLOSE TO THE SUBJECT NOR AM I THE SUBJECT.

KEEP and CENSURE EDITORS:

There is nothing wrong with the entry except that it might need a bit of an editorial rewrite. What bothers me with the attack on the article is the racist and crudeness involved. I have actually taken the time to check all references listed in the article and to verify his past speaking engagements: all solid. I do not agree with the suggestion that Ken Sibanda is affiliated with these news outlets. Perhpas, what these editors lack is a complete understanding of African and South African history. Some - it would appears, and I agree with the above entry - have a personal bone to chew with the Ken Sibanda entry.

This is a much needed entry as oppossed to the many wikipedia pages that the editors have created for themselves, including the editors who are attacking this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.28.62 (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Again addressing the issues raised. The entry it would appear is a much needed addition to that database of narrative. Secondly, I agree with the immediate above comments, that deletion is not the proper remedy here, wikipedia polcy is that deletion is to occur as the only alternative where article is in breach of noted policy..."many pages start of this way." There is indeed some racism at play here that Wikipedia supervisors need to address.
Comment I have a feeling that the editors voting KEEP are socks, no offense intended. I think a grain of salt needs to be taken. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO COMMENT

Once we run out of ideas then we start making false accusations, this page should never have been nominated for deletion. The above comment by "thekillerpenguin" is a good example that one of the editors involved in this travesty has run out of ideas. I think thats the grain of salt that should be taken and it needs to be administered to "The-killer-penguin," as he is affectionately known. lol. Hopefully the penguin will become less of a killer, as they say.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.159.179 (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One word: WP:NPA Thekillerpenguin (talk) 03:42, 25 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) 00:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Virgin Queen of St. Francis High[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1. fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) 2. no indication of notability (and non-notable director) Widefox (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A research in Google Books and Google News shows that the film was reviewed by Variety (see Variety's film reviews 1987-1988), Los Angeles Times (December 8, 1987: [12]), The Film journal (The Film journal: Volume 90,Editions 7-12, 1987), The Philadelphia Enquire (May 12, 1988). Enough to pass WP:NFILMS. Cavarrone (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found same sources as above. Very obscure film, but some indepth coverage in reliable sources at the time. Tigerboy1966 22:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is dependent upon sources being available, and not that they be in the article. Such sources have been found and offered. Notability is met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is at the very least no consensus that the topic is inappropriate for inclusion, so in accordance with our deletion policy, it is kept by default. I would like to remind contributors that disliking a topic is not a sufficient reason for deletion (WP:ILIKEIT), and that any deficiencies can be corrected through editing. Sandstein 17:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noynoying[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This so-called Internet meme has been around for approximate 4 days. There's nothing to indicate it will be anything more than a one-time event. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 14:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very annoying and out of the normal daily routine of today. ... discospinster _talk 11:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)~~ The preceding comment was added by 112.198.161.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and not discospinster (talk · contribs) -- Whpq (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this even an article? Better place for this on UrbanDictionary or KnowYourMeme. This should have been deleted yesterday. Ntlespino (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help,_my_article_got_nominated_for_deletion!#Some_articles_will_get_deleted_anyway "Some articles just don't belong in an encyclopedia, whether a paper-based one or an online one like Wikipedia. A local slang term which is not very notable from a worldwide view (or which is not covered in popular culture) is a candidate for the Urban Dictionary, not for Wikipedia." Ntlespino (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of the references in the article don't mention "Noynoying", and those that do all date from within the last few days. The same applies to what I have been able to find about "Noynoying" from a Google search. Maybe this will become notable, and if so we can have an article on it, but so far it looks like a mildly amusing publicity gimmick which, for all we know, may not be going to last. It may or may not be going to be notable, but WP:NOTCRYSTAL says we don't have an article on it yet. 79.123.75.171 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I think an article for Noynoying will be added in the future (it will last in the minds of the people), I don't think it's notable enough yet for an article. It's not even a meme yet. How does a term become a meme? Three needed factors: (1) spread - it should be viral and spread all over, (2) mutation - it should become something else other than the original (the original is a word, so it should be added in pictures, video, etc), and (3) crossover: should cross over with other memes. A good example is the Chris Lao meme. In 24 hours, it had enough spread, mutation (there were parodies, and "Chris Lao" mutated to "I should have been informed"), and crossover to be considered a meme. Noynoying, not yet. Mvching (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of a single article, I think we should add it to the entry for Pres. Aquino. Mvching (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep. Meets WP:V, but needs to clean up its sources. Noynoying was recently featured on Wall Street Journal (link) and expect more mainstream media to cover this subject. The article should also not refer to "Noynoying" as a meme but rather as a neologism, like Tebowing. There should also be a section on Malacanang's reaction (both by President Aquino and his spokespersons) about the matter. Starczamora (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noynoying is more than just a meme. I support the call above to focus on neologism and other political terms such as Salamandering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.54.39 (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hey, maybe in the future, but this just appears to be the latest internet blip. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also found this cached article from Manila Standard Today dated October 8, 2011, which could be the first documented use of the term "Noynoying" during the height of Typhoons Pedring and Quiel.

To quote: "The opposition called the government’s calamity response “insensitive, indifferent, and slow.” Palace ally House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. urged the President to visit the typhoon victims “to boost their morale.” The Internet was abuzz with a newly-coined word, “noynoying.” The word translates to “procrastinating,” members of a UP Diliman alumni social networking group say."

So we cannot quickly dismiss the article as a mere Internet blip, as it has been bubbling under the pop culture radar until recently. Starczamora (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- That's wasn't a cached from the original news article. You just wrote it up a few days ago. There was never a mention of the word in the original article. You invented it just a few days ago. You think you can fool the editors here??? 112.198.78.248 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Carlo Linga[reply]
  - Please assume good faith when you comment on Wikipedia. Starczamora (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- O C'mon. Be truthful, you know that you just invented it last week and you want it to be in Wikipedia already? My children uses this extensively and I wouldn't want them to read this kind of crap. Please don't pollute Wikipedia, for our children's sake! Put it on your own personal blog, but not in Wikipedia, PLEASE!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.78.248 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is your burden to prove that I invented the word. Starczamora (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Not a meme, but something else. Mvching (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just in the number of days that an entry should be based for deletion or not, but for the how widespread an impact it has to how-large a number of people have been exposed to it that should actually determine its significance and relevance. Noynoying -web searches in Microsoft Bing has already 4,780 results while Google has it at 206,000..., strikingly relevant for just a small amount of time. Not to mention the number of uses it already has in Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and other social networks. How relevant it is could also be shown by the number of mainstream media already aware of it, its meanings, and its uses... For ex.: From Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2012/03/20/noynoying-poses-challenge-to-philippine-leader/ From GulfNews.com: http://gulfnews.com/news/world/philippines/philippines-aquino-says-no-to-noynoying-1.997323 From ABS-CBN: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/03/20/12/what-you-need-know-about-noynoying From GMA7 News video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyq4FgDPr8w and many, many more... ---these are media giants in their own respect, cementing the idea of how widespread the exposition and amount of usage it is to a lot of people of a nation's number to say the least. Also, It just doesn't reside w/in the Internet, as it is now used on the streets, even farmers know its meanings here: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/03/19/12/luisita-farmers-go-noynoying -thus, "Noynoying" have a place here as a Wikipedia entry, for further reference within a more elaborate information channel such as Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyf1204 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article probably is news worthy but not Wikipedia worthy. The word was just invented by about a dozen people just last week. The media picking it up doesn't warrant it a place in Wikipedia

Provisional keep. As per the same rationale as Starczamora. With emphasis on the fact that unsourced materials must be removed ASAP. Otherwise, I shift my vote to Delete. Let's keep this up to NPOV standards, please. - Alternativity (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I am currently in the process of creating a NPOV version of the article in my sandbox. Wish me luck. Starczamora (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it became like the jejemon phenomenon, only bigger. And also someone nominate this for DYK April Fools Day edition. –H T D 01:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, jejemon was different. It's been probably over a year before that term was accepted. There's even some movies made with the same theme attesting to the word's popularity. But Noynoying was a week old and doesn't deserve to be in Wikipedia. Let's wait for at least 6 months before we put it in here.

It should be deleted. Noynoying is a term coined only by an activist(s) in Manila, the OVERALL population of the Philippines in which I am part of is not in any way going to agree that the president was doing nothing and thus the need to create a term based on his alias=Noynoy is needed, it is quite unfair. Leaving this article in wikipedia will make this public wikipedia a home for almost any editors on the planet to create an article just to support their unproven allegations. Those activists are omnipresent. Their works are only to critique the present leader, regardless of who they are, regardless of time, they are there in the streets to protest. The president of any state cannot control oil prices for common sense reasons, yet the activists wants the public to believe that the president has this ultimate power to lower prices not only of oil but of basic commodities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.131.100.52 (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This entry should be deleted as it does not deserve to be in Wikipedia. The entry does not enlighten but only serve to ruin Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. This term was merely coined by propagandists/activists/rallyists in an effort to discredit the current president and to tarnish his image. As such, the term and meaning are just the opinions of a minority. It is not even truthful. It is only malicious gossip. It is propaganda. It may have plenty of coverage now, but only because of concerted campaigns. It is likely just as the others have said, an internet blip. For it to be worthy of the space in Wikipedia, it has to at least be truthful, and must stand the test of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notnot0128 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. But the articles cited by this source are as unreliable as any: They're mostly talking about people talking about this gimmick. That's not news to trust. Media covering this blip isn't a good standard to go by either--we must take in mind the editorial policies of Philippine news outlets. The leading media stations like to cover Twitter trending topics for news, for example. And this particular gimmick hasn't even trended, contrary to the claims of its supporters.

Speedy Delete. An article as cheap and unprofessional as this does not deserve to be in Wikipedia. Put this in UrbanDictionary instead. --PinoiBIGscientian (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to the last 3 comments after my keep vote: Those are not valid deletion rationales. The appropriate policies here are WP:NN, WP:GNG, WP:NOT (and its companion essay Verifiability, not truth). The motives or the characters of those who started this are irrelevant; the question is, is this notable? Is this verifiable? With that said, everything that is not sourced should be removed; if the article truly is notable, there should be enough reliable sources to go around. If it isn't, but there's consensus that it is notable enough, the question should be which article should this be merged to. Presidency of Benigno Aquino III? –H T D 13:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Inclusion criteria, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and WP:SOAPBOX. Specifically: "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)." The term itself was coined only a few days ago. Too soon to even judge if the term is notable (I've never even heard of it until now). No this is not at all like Jejemon. I am not fond of Noynoy, nor any of our presidents for that matter, but this should be treated as under the terms of WP:BLP. It's an attack page after all with a great deal of POV thrown in. We'd be unduly legitimizing it by having an article on it just a few days after it was coined by the perpetual activists in the NCR region. So, wait. If the term survives after, say, six months, then I have no objections to adding it. But right now, it stinks of propaganda.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While I agree that the article started out as an attack page, my recent edits to the article made sure that it would not be so. Starczamora (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This article DOES NOT deserve to be in Wikipedia. This kind of article should be in personal blog but not in Wikipedia. Please don't allow people to pollute Wikipedia with partisan and untruthful articles like this. My children uses this extensively and I wouldn't want them to read articles like this, which might distort their views on what is really happening in the country. 18:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Carlo Linga — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.78.248 (talk)

Provisional keep I may be living outside the Philippines, but I do follow the news back home, and it seems that the local media is making a big deal out of this "Noynoying" phenomenon. Add onto that international media coverage and I'm inclined to believe that this much more than just being a "meme". However, while I must agree with Obsidian Soul that we should allow the term to run its course to ascertain whether or not it stands the test of time, I am not inclined to believe that time ought to be the sole determinant of whether or not an article warrants including in Wikipedia. By the looks of it, it does pass the muster of the general notability guideline, regardless of who invented the term or not. If there's a problem with association, we ought to clean it up rather than remove it hook, line and sinker: hence the provisional keep. (Also, on another note: I'm seeing an unusually high number of anonymous IPs who are behaving as if they're experienced Wikipedia editors. Please start assuming good faith and allow the AfD to run its course. Thanks.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 21:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We can't just simply let this blip run its course--it's damaging to Wikipedia's credibility and capacity to sift through notable events, if that's allowed to happen. (On another note: The fascinating thing about Wikipedia is that its users are lent a voice. People who rely on Wikipedia have a right to be provided only the most credible, notable, and neutral information.)

What can readers get from this article? Some things are not appropriate in an encyclopedia. This is not your regular tabloid so please delete this article as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mafiaboy22 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Wikipedia has content on something does not mean that it's a tabloid, and it does not mean that the article in question can't be rewritten in order to conform with the existing corpus of policy. Do understand that Wikipedia has a history of containing and maintaining "undesirable" content because the community believes that such content has an appropriate place on Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not convinced by those who are voting "Delete" on the grounds of it being an "invention" of the so-called militant protesters of imperial Manila, or on the grounds of being "inappropriate": there needs to be a much stronger basis for deletion than that, especially since we risk making norms out of AfDs which could possibly threaten the ability of Wikipedia to fully reflect a country's corpus of information, in this case being information on political happenings in the Phillippines. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I may be Filipino, but this does not deserve any place in Wikipedia despite the rants of certain anons. Issues have been raised about recentism and notability, and this runs afoul of them. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, for now at least, I have to vote delete. There has been coverage about this article from websites (The Philippine Star has it on its front page), but since the term is only a neologism, I don't know if we can save this. Yes there has been reliable sources, but they have only been around for the last four or five days, too soon I guess. This neologism is pretty much doomed to be a fad, as I can't see people remembering this by late April. I can also endorse a redirect to Noynoy Aquino under a Criticism section as an alternative. If more coverage comes up within the next few weeks, then it can be the next Jejemon and be recreated, and even become a DYK in time for April Fool's Day, but for now, delete. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It should be a rule of thumb that if the deletion discussion of a subject on Wikipedia is the subject of news, then the subject is notable. If this subject is ephemeral it can be deleted later. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. But, again, the question is: Are Philippine news outlets as rigid in their editorial policies as they should be? The article you linked to is too much like the snake eating its own tail. An article about a discussion of a passing moniker borne of the minority's ire, an article which is then cited in the discussion and the article on the moniker being discussed. Something is inherently faulty in this kind of media coverage, and we'll make it worse if we let Wikipedia descend to these kinds of self-serving standards.

Propose we rephrase lede to "a protest gimmick in the form of a neologism", possible link to culture jamming

Comment I always thought that the article lede should read "a protest gimmick in the form of a neologism" rather than its present phrasing (simply "a neologism"). It's an actual incontrovertible (and I think reasonably neutral) fact, and think it would make the article clearer. That's one of the conditions of my Provisional Keep vote, I suppose. The present phrasing is not neutral because it gives the impression that the phrase came out and became popular out of thin air. It did NOT. I'm going to wp:be bold and make the edit now, please undo it if arguments here provide an objective reason for rejecting that phrasing. I am also linking "protest gimmick" to culture jamming, which may be a separate issue altogether. Folks might want to decide to undo THAT edit on a separate basis. Let's make this article adhere to wp:NPOV, please. Thank you. - Alternativity (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Possible This article is purposely made to create statement against the present leader of the country and is political in nature. It is not even popular to silent majority and therefore eligible for speedy deletion. Ric Padgett (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity should not be used as a basis for eligibility, for it would make A LOT of articles here ineligible as well. The issues here are WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, which the article has extensively worked on. Besides, the "real" silent majority in the Philippines is the 60% of voters who did not choose Aquino to be their president in 2010, but I digress. Starczamora (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Local media websites as reliable sources I'd just like to note that the editors should exercise extreme caution in accepting news articles from local media websites in the Philippines as reliable source -- more often than not, they report as noteworthy anything Philippine-related that trended on twitter for a couple of hours, or reached a hundred thousand or so hits on youtube. Filipinos love being on the spotlight like that.

Right now there's even an article about how the discussion on this talk page supposedly shows that Wikipedia users are 'divided' over whether Noynoying should stay or not, complete with quotes from everyone else above this post. --112.203.73.230 (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While there are clearly national characteristics involved, relying on suppositions of what they might be is a thin reed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion I still see it as a name calling and not neutral in nature. Joefran4 (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Chink, Golliwog, Self-hating Jew and many other name-calling articles, all of which earned a place in Wikipedia.Starczamora (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You guys do really have to understand what WP:NPOV means -- it means the why the article deals with the subject should be neutral; not whether the subject per se is neutral. That's the crux of contention on many of the delete votes, aside from the recentism aspect which is a valid rationale. 112.204.187.181 (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the Talk:Noynoying page, I agree that the act itself is not neutral, and I agree that the act is propagandist in nature. If I may raise a point of order, however, the question is whether the article is neutral, or is, recognizing the effort to slowly improve it, in the process of being made neutral. The act and the article referring to the act are two different things. I think the argument Joefran4 is using is better discussed as an issue of the act's Notability, not the article's Neutrality. - Alternativity (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article "noynoying" phenomenon is still in the air. and still not reaching its saturation point. It is slowly becoming a household term and always used in public places (used in replacement for waiting,watching, resting, etc.). It is also used synonimously with "slacker". I guess this "noynoying" will remain for a longer period of time. So, keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbre Rock (talk • contribs) 16:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Timbre Rock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. This kind of tone mirrors the article's non-neutrality, which simply cannot be modified no matter the edits. It's because the blip has no credible basis yet, no matter the editorialized sources people pull up. Goodness, even the pronunciation guide is suspect.

KEEP THIS ARTICLE! Reading these arguments for deletion of this article border on censorship, not not editing. Just because you don't like a term or its meaning has no bearing on whether it should be included in an encyclopedic library like Wikipedia. I just Googled noynoying and it returned 254,000+ items. To me, that warrants an entry here, regardless of whether you like the term or not. As a "culture-neutral" anthropologist, one of the things I've noticed about Wikipedia is a bias towards older generation, "Western", academic intellectual/social level cultural norms. It's very apparent here, where noynoying originated from a younger, Eastern, grass roots culture. It belongs here because it's what's emerging in the world and Wikipedia needs to reflect all points of view, not just Wikipedia's "elite" editorial contributors.

Regarding "recentism" (even that term and concept reflect the strong "academic" bias of Wikipedia), I believe the best interests of the worldwide public Wikipedia serves (vs. the interests of its editors) are to include emerging trends like this in Wikipedia, so Wikipedia isn't just a virtual replacement of stale hard copy encyclopedias that were always at least a year out of date. What's needed isn't to delete lots of articles up front; it's to have a more robust editorial process for keeping content fresh - a totally different point of view than keeping it within rigid academic guidelines. That process should be the one that archives (not deletes) articles that are no longer relevant. That way if emerging trends like noynoying don't continue, the article gets archived. Wake up to the possibilities of electronic media - it's about living in the NOW, not in the past! I know this entry will get flagged for deletion because it doesn't meet some rigid editorial guideline. I suggest one of the first places to get started on making Wikipedia more "fresh", unbiased, and relevant to today's world is your rigid editorial rules. They need to reflect multiple perspectives and catch up to what's emerging in the rest of the world. They are what have kept people like me from contributing to Wikipedia, financially and editorially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcons-dream (talk • contribs)

Keep subject is multiply, reliably sourced to reputable news organizations that are independent of the topic. Article meets WP:V and appears to have been improved since AfD was opened. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe this article must be deleted as it violates lots of WP: conduct, policies & etc... such as personal attack, civility, harassment, and libelous threat. The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point of view. No Filipino in his/her right mind would believe that Noynoying has nothing to do with political propaganda thus it is not neutral. In fact, the word itself is derived from a political person's name which constitutes personal attack, incivility, and harassment. Therefore, such article should not be given a place in Wikipedia. Please note that I am only implying what was said in WP:Conduct, Policies and etc... It seems to be, in my understanding of your words, that we can violate WP:Rules & regulations simply because, it has been violated already. My word is final, I do not support violating Wiki Rules & Regulations. — Rammaum^talk_stalk 04:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are skewing the laws. W:NPA and Wikipedia:Civility applies among Wikipedians in discussions. W:NPOV only applies to articles, not the subject itself. While the act of Noynoying is considered offensive to President Aquino and those who support him, the question being raised here--as other Wikipedians have pointed out--is whether the article about Noynoying is notable and whether it is written with verifiability, neutrality, and independent sourcing. (As a Wikipedian who started the article about the Gucci Gang controversy, which was also nominated for almost the same grounds as Noynoying and was voted to keep, I know what I am talking about.) Starczamora (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG based on references, many of which are specifically about noynoying and are independent, reliable newspapers. Although we must tread carefully when dealing with articles on attacks on public figures, clearly the purpose of the article is to document the attack, rather than be an attack in itself. I read it over and I don't see any unsourced criticism of the figure (so no substantial WP:BLP issues) and quite a lot of it is dedicated to defenses against the attack, to the point where I don't think POV is an issue either. Counterarguments based on WP:NPA, Wikipedia:Civility, etc. make no sense as those are policies for editor behavior, not article content. (Note: article does appear to have been improved substantially since deletion discussion was opened - at that time it looked like this.) Dcoetzee 04:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Informative, well-sourced article. Kudos to those objecting to it, for their creativity in finding and citing not-quite-on-point Wikipedia policies and guidelines that, to inexperienced Wikipedia editors, might appear relevant. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might want to check this out: Wikipedia users divided on ‘Noynoying’ article--Coin945 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize, Merge & Redirect to Benigno Aquino III. Although the subject has received some media coverage perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON for the subject to pass WP:EFFECT. In the mean time the article can be summarized, created into a section regarding the present President of the Fifth Republic of the Philippines; if it later gets too large and the article reaches 100K per WP:TOOLONG it can be spun out, or if it does pass WP:GNG WP:EVENT & WP:EFFECT later the redirect can be recreated as an article again. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is what I am afraid of: merging the Noynoying article into that of President Aquino. As you can see, it does not contain a section that criticizes President Aquino because it has been how should I call it..."guarded" by his supporters. Starczamora (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response; although there are WP:BLP concerns, an article should also adhere to WP:NPOV and attempt to, in an unbias neutral way, incorporate criticism regarding a subject. No one owns an article and no article should be "guarded" in a manor if it only chooses to create a positive-POV towards the subject, for positive POV is still a POV push.

Perhaps you should bring up your concerns at WP:NPOVN, WP:BLPN, or at the talk page of President Aquino or WikiProject Tambayan.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. This is the kind of article--which smacks of lack of neutrality, and cannot even come up with a handful of credible, facts-based sources--that threatens the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole.

One. This article's tone is sorely lacking in neutrality, regardless of the act. Past edits have futilely attempted to lend an objectiveness to its approach to no avail--there just aren't credible resources to be found. Majority of the sources cited in this article would not pass Wikipedia's non-neutrality standards--discourse borne by one heavily biased side finding its way in a broadsheet.

Which brings us to: The sources are either editorial fodder, or the slow-news-day so typical of news outfits of the Philippines--someone has already linked to the article about a "division" among Wikipedia users, an article that extensively quotes passages above this in attempt to depict discord among us. Obviously, just because it's been picked up by the media, it does not mean it warrants a place in Wikipedia's records. It's a passing craze, a publicity gimmick--note that the articles are from only a handful of days ago. It's a pile of leaves thrown at a wildly popular administration, unfortunately for this article's creator.

It's rabble-rousing. It's using Wikipedia as a propagandist tool. The very presence of this Wikipedia article, and the discussions it's spawned within this site, has been the subject of editorials--which this article then cites. That's a lot of self-service right there.

Bottomline: Wikipedia should never be used to make the childish act of sticking one's tongue out any easier--especially since its non-neutrality and lack of credible resources make the name-calling so obvious. We're trying to preserve the dignity of this open forum; articles like this are two steps backwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnjaCruz (talk • contribs) 01:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I will point out your arguments one by one:

1) What lack of neutrality are you talking about? The Reception section included reactions from official spokesperson, from pundits favorable of Aquino, even President Aquino himself.

2) Specifically cite the sources you claim to be lacking in credibility. I have used the website versions of widely-read publications in the Philippines, including Philippine Daily Inquirer, Manila Bulletin, Philippine Star, and Journal group of tabloids.

3) Like all those who have voted for delete, you clearly dislike the Noynoying coverage to quote: It's a passing craze, a publicity gimmick--note that the articles are from only a handful of days ago. It's a pile of leaves thrown at a wildly popular administration, unfortunately for this article's creator. This statement smacks of WP:BIAS, so you cannot claim the article lacks in neutrality while your explanation is wanting of one.

4) The Wikipedians in favor of keeping this, myself included, agree that while the act of Noynoying smacks of propaganda, that does not means we should not make an article about it. See the following articles about propaganda subjects that have found its way in Wikipedia.

5) You obviously created a Wikipedia account solely for this discussion. May I suggest that you be WP:BOLD and contribute to the article Starczamora (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. It is appropriate in Urban Dictionary and not in Wikipidia. The Noynoying article is a propaganda and is using Wikipidia to promote the annoying word to the public. The content is bias and contain messages encouraging people to do Noynoying. It is only a short term hype because Noynoy Aquino is the current Philippine president and once his term of office end, the meme will also end. I will suggest that the creator of the article compile the Noynoying news in their blogs or sites and not in Wikipidia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towr (talk • contribs) 11:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 1) In what way the article about Noynoying, not the act, is written in a propaganda fashion?

2) Your comment also reflects WP:BIAS, as you refer to Noynoying as "annoying."

3) It does not contain a message that encourage people to do Noynoying. The article featured an inforgraphic provided by Anakbayan, which is used on the article for the sole purpose of visual identification of what Noynoying poses look like, as well as how the group attempts to make it viral through social networks.

4) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball as to declare whether Noynoying will disappear once Aquino leaves office. That assumption did not apply to words like "Marcosian" and "Imeldific." Starczamora (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Noynoying - It is a new term to describe inaction due to incapability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michallanjohnlo (talk • contribs) 15:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources aren't even complete. there are others instances of the meme way back than what is stated in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.110.84 (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the sources to make the article complete. Thank you. Starczamora (talk) 09:02, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CRAFT (company)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a not for profit company that lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. [13] is the only coverage I was able to find. Whpq (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Also written like an advertisement. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 14:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The article provided by the nominator was the only reliable source that I, too, was able to find. As such, it lacks the sources needed to establish notability. Rorshacma (talk) 18:18, 26 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. None of the delete !voters here, including the nom, have provided any policy based reasons for deleting this article. Bwilkins's concern about SYNTH is valid but this may be corrected through the normal editing process. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken 65[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a Recipe site Mandrake00 (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; however, there is no recipe here. Just puffery, which is a reason to delete. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No suggestion of notability; almost a recipe; a history/SYNTH about chicken (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom and Jeremy. Consists largely of unverified synthesis. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 14:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete [eyal]. I have not seen a single reason for deletion so far. I've lived in south oof India for 2 years, and chicken 65 was a great dish to eat. wiki can always help people who want to know what is chiken 65 without giving a recipe. Is wiki a recipe book? definitely not. went to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb and tried making an atomic bomb based on wiki, but there is no recipe there as well. let's delete this link too.

now seriously. No need to be fanatic. let people enjoy having some info about this dish without having the perfect details about it. and if you do what to make that good, insead of looking for the negative way, take the positive way and complete the missing parts yourselves. add links to other sites about this dish, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyalmela (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No matter how delicious this chicken may be, it is not notable. I prefer duck most of the time, anyway :D Thekillerpenguin (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Took another look at the article, and I am going to change my vote to neutral Thekillerpenguin (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Fix this article and keep it. This article is certainly written in the wrong style, but underneath the puffy language is content about an apparently notable Hyderabad dish. Some of the sources already contained in the article provide hints of this, and GBooks and GNews turn up firmer discussions of the cultural history and significance of the dish--see e.g. [14][15][16][17]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In a weak, benefit-of-the-doubt way. Article has issues and needs editing/attention. Item of cuisine seems to have plenty of mentions in reliable sources, although little in-depth coverage. I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid, but this food doesn't seem to be any less notable than hundreds of other food items covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink. Tigerboy1966 22:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added references to the article from India's national newspapers. This link - an article in Times of India (India's biggest daily) proves notability. --Anbu121 (talk me) 23:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable chicken dish, numerous references. Needs to be edited further, not deleted -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samir (talk • contribs)

Keep - Referencing added to the article demonstrates coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete or Redirect No claim to notability. JDDJS (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep After looking up other food related articles, I realized that this article is actually better in condition than most others. JDDJS (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Where would you suggest it be redirected to? And what of the sourcing in the article. That certainly amounts to a claim to notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

***Comment I guess it can be redirected to Fried Chicken. The sources in the article just refer to how it got its name. That is not enough to show that it deserves its own page. If it were to be expanded to include more sourced information besides its name, I will change my vote to a keep. JDDJS (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)h[reply]

Keep - The article indisputably needs work, but seems to be notable on the level of comparable articles on the same general topic (Indian food). MyNameWasTaken (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is 65!? -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 08:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

65 of Chicken 65 denotes that for every kilo of chicken - 65 chillies were used. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Quite a famous dish. Have seen it on many menu cards and boards on dhabas. Plus the current condition of article has many references too. Notable enough and notability proved too through coverage. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been improved since the initial nomination, and contains enough third party sources to establish the notability of this particular dish. Rorshacma (talk) 18:22, 26 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 merge to Jiang Zemin. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Yeping[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability. Notability is neither inherited, nor does it come from marriage. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jiang Zemin per nom. She should be merged into a "Personal life" section of Jiang Zemin. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jiang Zemin as above. Wang is not notable in herself but it's fine to have a section on spouse and family in an article on a notable individual. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merging or Redirecting? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:02, 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 redirect to Protégé: The Battle For The Big Break. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jensen Teñoso[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just because she participated in a widely-televised singing contest doesn't mean she is automatically notable. I was also unable to find any reliable sources about her. Bringing here since the original author removed the PROD. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails general notability and the more specific guidelines for singers. Specifically did not win or place in a major music competition. QU ^TalkQu 09:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Protégé: The Battle For The Big Break. As noted above, there is no evidence of notability, but a redirect to the TV show is appropriate -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bello Galadanchi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography by filmmaker who, to date, has only made non-notable short films. Article creator removed ((prod blp)), so now it's here. He doesn't appear to meet WP:FILMMAKER or WP:GNG. I haven't been able to find any in-depth verifiable and reliable secondary sources, and apparently, neither can he. I have no objection to him having an article in the future when he meets WP:NOTE, but he doesn't as yet. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 08:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 09:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - user blanked, plus issues as marked. Please close this, I marked for CSD A7, G7, G11 Widefox (talk) 09:23, 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wilds Christian Association[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page violates WP:N and WP:V and seems a ready case for deletion. ArturoDan (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a textbook case for repair, not deletion. The NPOV problems are obvious; but notability is still clearly met. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Certainly meets WP:N.--John Foxe (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ see below. Current sources seem to be connected to the organisation, so no good for establishing notability. Although it sounds like it ought to be notable, I only found passing mentions in local news media. Happy to change my mind if things improve. Tigerboy1966 22:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- 21000 attendees per year is probably enough to make it significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

only if the figure comes from a reliable source. I have been searching the Greenville News website for the story cited, but no luck yet. Tigerboy1966 19:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Removing the definite article finds several Gnews hits, which are either pay-per-view or uninspiring; and several Gbooks hits which seem to be either Wikipedia-derived, or by the WCA itself. However, searching for "Wilds Christian Camp" finds reliable Gnews hits like this. -- 202.124.74.74 (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent googling 202. Withdrawing delete !vote. Could I suggest that the page be moved to Wilds Christian Camp as it seems to be the commoner name? Tigerboy1966 17:57, 26 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. Closing this way based in the fact that Martijn Hoekstra did not find sufficient consensus to make a call on the 11th and there have been no comments since then. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denpasan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a dictionary definition and is non notable, though interesting. It has no place in an encyclopaedia Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to respond to the deletion nomination of Denpasan article I just started, which links from the article Arakawa Under the Bridge. First I would like more time to complete it before it gets deleted. It's my first post so bare with me. I had only just posted the stub when it was already nominated. I think it would be useful for those unfamiliar to the subtleties of Japanese culture and I have some firsthand knowledge. Second, you mention that this is a "This is a dictionary definition and is non notable", but I could not find it elsewhere on the web, otherwise I would not have went to the trouble to post is here. I appreciate your vote of confidence, but in writing this stub I was actually writing from my own personal experience from living and working in Japan. However, if you can find it defined adequately somewhere on the web, then there is certainly no need for it to be here on Wiki. You say "it has no place in an encyclopedia" but I have read a few articles on Wiki about Japan and its culture. They were quite helpful to me for surviving in Japan. You seemed sure that it could be found. If so could you please share a link. I am currently in China and may not be able to search it properly here due to internet restrictions in place here. Ckchanin67 (talk) 11:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Ckchanin67Ckchanin67 (talk) 11:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The process takes several days. During that period if you can enhance the notability then please do so. Doing this is likely to save the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those wanting to look for sources might try Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. FWIW I found dozens of (what I gather are) blog references, but not much else. More thorough searching might find something useful. Cnilep (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell, this was a term that was invented in Arakawa Under the Bridge, so it's not even really a dictionary entry. It is not a term or phrase that has received in-depth media coverage or become a social phenomenon, so a brief explanation of its meaning added to the Arakawa Under the Bridge article should be more than sufficient. No way does this justify a self-standing article inflated with unsourced original research as at present. --DAJF (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a widespread concept in anime and manga culture, and there is an article on it at ja:電波系 (denpa-kei). Searching for sources about it will be tricky, though - the concept is often referred to simply as 電波 (denpa), but 電波 also has the much more common meaning of "electromagnetic wave". The Japanese Wikipedia article gives some juicy details which make me suspect I will be voting "keep": for example, it says that the term probably came into use after the 1981 Fukagawa-doori murder case, in which the murderer claimed that "electromagnetic waves told me to do it"; it also says that the manga writer Takashi Nemoto popularised the phrase, writing several magazine articles about people who were supposedly "denpa-kei". However, the ja-wiki article is unsourced, so I can't say for sure that we should keep the English one until I do a proper source search. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found one source, a mention in a book about characterization in light Japanese novels. It's not the most detailed coverage, but it's a start.[18] — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here is another one, this time a whole book about "denpa-san" people. This one looks like it comes from the gutter press, though, and may be sensationalist. However, it does looks like a good indication that "denpa-san" has entered the Japanese popular consciousness. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is little point in simply placing those references here. Place then in the article if you believe that they enhance and verify its notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Mr. Stradivarius, for placing those references here. They give participants and the closing admin some idea of how notable the topic is (somewhat, at least in some subcultures) and what sorts of reliable sources may be available (at least a few, but not of the highest quality). Cnilep (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was pretty much my impression that I got from my source search - a whole slew of primary sources, in the form of light novels and manga that have "denpa" characters, but only a few references in reliable secondary sources. I think this is one of those articles that would require some research time in a Japanese library to do properly. ~~Until someone does this, I think perhaps an appropriate fate would be to merge this article to a new "characterization" section in Light novel, keeping only the parts that are verifiable.~~ — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is sufficient information to warrant keeping the article, while we source it further. Articles need time to grow, and people to work on them. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On reflection, I think DGG is right - the current problems with verifiability can be fixed through editing, and the subject seems notable enough. I'll have a little go at fixing it up. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have added the light novel characterization source to the article, and translated a couple of sentences from the Japanese Wikipedia that looked like they were probably true (they still need refs, though). I also got rid of the whole of the original content, because it looks like it was a bit of a mischaracterization - denpa-san is more of an awkward or distant personality type, and doesn't have so much to do with a conscious rejection of societal norms. (At least, that's the impression I gathered from the limited sources and from the Japanese Wikipedia article.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:42, 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:24, 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 05:07, 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) 00:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Jaykorbai Vidyamandir[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no notability (as per Wikipedia policy) whatsoever, and for this reason seems entirely promotional of a school that has nothing significant to place on Wikipedia other than the fact that it exists. Wer900 (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment. From the unreliable sources I found, this appears to be a higher secondary school. So far, I can't find reliable sources to confirm this. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This page is from the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board website, and lists the school twice, as secondary and as higher secondary (but spells it Shri Jaykorbai Vidyamandir). Primary source, but an official list from the organisation responsible for such schools, so should be regarded as reliable. So notability, on current criteria, follows. But I'd certainly prefer more substantial evidence. PWilkinson (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Usually we don't find sources for schools on Google. Article needs major work, don't delete. Informed Wikipedians, lets wait :-) -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 08:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 02:44, 26 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) 00:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maligaon[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been nominated due to its noncompliance with WP:GNG and thus has cause for deletion. Wer900 (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 19. Snotbot t • c » 04:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This does appear to be an actual population center [19] with all the indications of a separate municipality,[20] "Maligaon Post Office", "Maligaon Stadium", "Maligaon Police Station" etc. --Oakshade (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - yes, the place exists, but there has been nothing notable about it that has happened which legitimizes its being given an article on Wikipedia. It exists as a place, and if no more, it belongs on Google Maps, not here. Wer900 (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The above "!vote" is the nominator. --Oakshade (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't mean to cast a vote. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 23:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be a verifiable settlement, and based on long-standing AfD precedent, all settlements are considered notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real place = notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:36, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Knutson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely fails WP:NCOLLATH. Made a couple good plays in an upset a few days ago, but far too soon to determine notability. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 03:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. See also next big thing. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yeah, really hasn't achieved any kind of coverage except run of th emill game reports and the like. As a Carolina fan, I am a big fan of the guy though. Rikster2 (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't remind me... Jrcla2 (talk) 20:10, 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- nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comateens[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to satisfy WP:GNG. An editor who contested PROD added a few external links, but only one (the Allmusic site) is even arguably a reliable source, and even it provides minimal information and no evidence of notability. The article text is wholly lacking in citations, which reflects the dearth of coverage in reliable sources. Terence7 (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Request to withdraw AfD per discussion with Michig below. Terence7 (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Terence7: Although I did not write the article on Comateens, I was the founder of the group, created the official site, and I can certainly verify the veracity of the information in the article, if that fact is worthy of any consideration in the context of Wikipedia. In addition, the outside information sources added, particularly Trouser Press and Discogs, are as accurate and reliable sources of information on this kind of subject as there are, as pop groups talk to the pop music press, and it is with them that info on pop groups resides. Trouser Press reviewed many of my records and I had much contact with them during the 1980s as I did with many other pop publications to whom we told our story. With warm regards - Nicholas West Nicholas West 08 (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator is wrong about the sources/external links. Both Allmusic and Trouser Press are reliable sources, both have significant coverage, and the band also passes WP:BAND criterion 5 having released two albums on Virgin/Mercury.--Michig (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw the AfD since I think you're right about WP:BAND criterion 5, but I'm going to challenge most of the material in the article as it is completely unreferenced. And I disagree with your assertion that Allmusic and Trouser Press constitute "significant coverage" -- we're talking about a paragraph or so each. Not very much. Terence7 (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To state for the record, the band Comateens fully passes WP:BAND criteria 1,2,4,5,7,10,11 and 12. Nicholas West 08 (talk) 19:59, 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) 00:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MLA of Thakurdwara[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is almost a copy of the Thakurdwara article. The article doesn't cite any RS for most part of the article, which makes it like a WP:OR. Moreover, the article has various uncited WP:POV statements. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 02:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has been copied from Thakurdwara and Kunwar Sarvesh Kumar Singh. If the intent of this article is to provide info about the constituency of Thakurdwara, it can be covered in Thakurdwara article itself. If the intent is about the post of MLA, the article must list all the people who occupied that position. The current form of the article deserves deletion. --Anbu121 (talk me) 23:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 08:41, 24 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. I'd suggest that a merge discussion is started on the article's talk page. —SW— ^verbalize 15:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Co-culture[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NEO at this stage. I see lots of uses for the word, but in biology, not sociology. Single source. At this stage, it appears to only be this one author using the term, not an accepted term. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Cloudz 679 08:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is neologistic "political correctness" blather from one overly-sensitive and over-analyzing author. No evidence of notability/currency. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 03:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While the article's topical focus is about sociological matters, the term is also used in other contexts. See:

Co-culture system potential of sea cucumber and sea urchin assessed from Republic of the Philippines: Department of Agriculture. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge per Angrysockhop below - Google Scholar returns about 153,000 results for the term, showing that the term is not a neologism and WP:GNG is satisfied. Being a stub has never been a reason for deletion; if you don't like it being a single source and focused on a sub-topic then expand it, don't delete it. This is the Wiki way. Diego (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are entire books written about this stuff such as Constructing co-cultural theory. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Not properly transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Subculture. Co-culture is a well-established term used in academic sources since at least 1998. However, I can't see the value in having co-culture as a separate article when it seems to be an alternate viewpoint on the already-established concept of subcultures, rather than a separate concept. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 06:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE: I found 217 sources at Google scholar. There's lots of good sources in there. The 1980s is not so new in sociology. I've heard the term being bandied about in legitmate fora. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Subculture. Term exists, Bearian's searches provide evidence, but the denotation of the term doesn't differ from "subculture", the two describe identical or nearly identical ideas, and are best represented by a single article rather than mutliple articles as a result. The combined article can describe (based on such sources) the appropriate differences in connotation, and as a result, actually provide a more valuable result to readers searching for one term or the other. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Subculture. - Frankie1969 (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with a merge per Joe decker and Frankie1969. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 29 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.

Karen S. Davis[edit]

}

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. 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) 00:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slant Six Games[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Google hits return mostly social media or other unreliable sources. Pol430 talk to me 09:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Has some coverage in gaming media[21][22][23] BusinessWeek also has summary info.[24] Not a huge amount of press, but it's something. Maybe checking local business media will give more info. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:31, 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable products. Reliable coverage such as [25][26]. Useful even as a stub for product navigation. - hahnch e n 22:24, 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trade (gallery)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created by an SPA, that to my opinion, is an advert for the gallery. It is freshly relaunched (see source 6). Without the namedropping (two-third of the article) you are left with an article sourced by primary sources, trivial mentions and non-independent sources. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article in The Independent is far more than a trivial mention: it is a serious recommendation in a major national newspaper. The judicious use of 3rd-party primary sources can establish facts. Indeed even the careful use of first-party primary sources for information is permitted as long as it's clear what they are. Let's see what else people can find. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is truly a trivial mentioning, because the section is about the building "1 Thoresby Street". The gallery is only referred to as one of the users of the building. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is actually headed "The world's best secret art galleries" and the building is described as home to some of them, including this one. The article is about galleries, not about buildings. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 19:47, 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:36, 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 speedy delete. CSD G12 copyvio http://www.erieri.com/?fuseaction=Home.AboutERI Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update, it appears that the copyvio was added last month but I'll leave this deleted without prejudice. Anybody is free to write a new article and I'll be happy to userfy or incubate the non-copyvio history. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Research Institute[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It doesnt appear to have improved in atleast 5years Brad7777 (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't even approach being a valid reason for deletion. Any chance of a policy-based rationale? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 19:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The key issue needs to be demonstrable notability, and at the moment this entirely unreferenced article has none. A Google Books search does show various mentions, though more use of their reports than discussing the ERI as such. AllyD (talk) 21:10, 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:34, 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Premier Education Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 19:41, 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there might be some paywalled coverage here [27], there's also this about a lawsuit. There are a number of hits on google news, mostly local papers though. Since it owns several schools with articles a selective merge there might be an option too. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge. Specifically, keep this article and merge Branford Hall Career Institute, Hallmark Institute of Photography, Salter College, Seacoast Career Schools, and Suburban Technical School into this article. These are all "doing business as" units of Premier. (Another unit that has a separate article, Salter School, has enough information in the article to stand alone.) I've expanded the article a little bit based on what I found on the web. This is a business that has had a reasonable amount of third-party coverage if you consider all of its component units. It should be covered in Wikipedia -- but it shouldn't have a half-dozen separate articles, as it does now. --Orlady (talk) 01:03, 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 keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Bonics[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local DJ. Orange Mike | Talk 01:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG with several articles linked at the bottom that discuss the subject in detail. Yes, they need to be incorporated into inline references, but that's an editing problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References are to local press, but it's Pittsburgh not a tiny village somewhere. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:36, 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks like there is a mention in this book as well, despite not being able to see it via GBooks. Existing Urban Daily, PPG cites appear to rise to GNG. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:01, 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 Deleted by DGG (talk · contribs) under CSD G4. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Rajeev Kumar[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. No hits from web search or news archives. There are a few people who have the same or similar names so it may be a bit misleading, but as far as I can tell there is not information for this subject MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 00:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just nominated for speedy deletion (G4). I didn't realize this could have been speedy deleted when I made this AfD entry. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 00:14, 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 Council of Conservative Citizens. Redirecting per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Lee Baum[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not establish the notability of this individual; even the article on the organization he leads only mentions him one time in a 6-word line. Two niche reference entries with minimal detail are not enough to meet notability criteria. Prod was removed but references and material were not significantly expanded. Nathan^T 22:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reference that I added when I removed the WP:PROD template is to an encyclopedia published by ABC-CLIO, a major academic publisher, so it is far from "niche". More such sources can be found by clicking on the words "books" and "news" in the nomination statement above. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to link to any references that are substantially about Gordon Lee Baum and demonstrate notability; it seems that most mentions are limited to his link to Trent Lott, and don't discuss GLB at all except to tie Lott to the racial theories of GLB and his group. A brief biographical sketch in a niche encyclopedia of biographical sketches does not establish notability. (Your assertion that the publisher isn't niche does nothing to shore up the status of the "Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism in Modern American History"). Nathan^T 23:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources found by those searches don't even mention Lott: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read any of these so-called sources? Search results =/= article sources. Even the ones that don't mention Lott directly are still about unnamed politicians (i.e. Lott) or several other Republicans caught in a scandal over speaking to Baum's organization -- a scandal prompted by the revelation that Lott spoke to them. If you can actually add anything substantial to the article with a reliable reference, feel free. Otherwise, simply pointing to Google search results is not helpful. Nathan^T 14:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--if the article is deleted (I'm agnostic), this page should redirect to Council of Conservative Citizens. Meelar (talk) 22:01, 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) 00:06, 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.

Jessica Yee[edit]

The result of this discussion was no consensus. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. 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) 01:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Tanny[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable blogger, musician, 'net "radio" host, Wikipedia editor and author. Primary sources show (mostly) that yes, he has blogged, his one song aired twice, he hosted a non-notable 'net radio show, edited Wikipedia and wrote two newspaper articles. Independent reliable sources show a few of those things, but do not discuss Tanny, the subject of this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable at all. A long way below the minimum criteria for inclusion QU ^TalkQu 14:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep David Tanny plays a vital, pivotal role within the Dementia community despite having few of his songs actually played on The Dr. Demento Show. He is also a FuMP artist like many other musicians with Wikipedia pages such as the great Luke Ski and Lemon Demon. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 09:56, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't even look like a close question. The text of the article itself does not suggest that Tanny is notable. Most of the links provided are not to reliable sources, and the couple of newspaper links only mention Tanny in passing. Terence7 (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing here to establish notability. As Terence7 said, the references provided in the article really don't satisfy the criteria as reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 18:28, 26 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} 02:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Research Fellowship Programme[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Don't see any way this satisfies GNG - searched but failed to come up with a single reliable, non-primary source. SPat ^talk 02:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I can see how this topic could be notable, but I'm not really finding much sigcov to satisfy WP:GNG. Notability tag since last year. I'm calling delete on this one, but I'm not entirely certain. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 14:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 13 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) 00:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into where I know not! Possibly the IAS article? --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete insufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every research institute and PSU in India offers some program like this. Does not meet notability guidelines. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:53, 26 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 appreciate the sympathy expressed here for the article's creator, but the fact is that many if not most articles that end up here have a "primary author" and we don't want to set a precedent that seeming like they worked hard on it is a free pass from being subject to policy. Also userfication is normally only done if the user actually asks for it, which i don't see here. All they have to do is ask though. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Washington University Emergency Support Team[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

University EMT station. I'm sure they do important work, but it's no more notable that your neighborhood ambulance station. Yeah, there are 3 WP:SELFPUB references and 2 Washington University student newspaper references, but that's not sufficient to show that it has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time," per Wikipedia:Notability. GrapedApe (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 17:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOBLECAUSE. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It is obvious that a lot of work went into this and I would feel bad just flat out deleting it. I suggest moving it to User:Gtsiegel/Washington University Emergency Support Team so that he may work on it by adding third party coverage. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, sure, userfy. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or userfy for improvement. I am generally not a fan of college-group pages, but this one seems more notable than most. It has a long history. Many police and fire departments have their own pages and this seems comparable. On the other hand, a look at the template at the bottom of the page finds other student groups that are prime candidates for deletion, such as The Amateurs (Washington University in St. Louis) and Walk In Lay Down. --MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article The Amateurs (Washington University in St. Louis) was created today. And I'm not sure if its notable. Thinking about listing it for deletion. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have proposed "The Amateurs" and one other a capella group to be merged with Washington University in St. Louis#Student life. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Long history and other EMS departments (aka WP:OTHERSTUFF) don't make this notable. That this is well-written doesn't disguise its lack of notability. And yes, I'd say those two are not notable either.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy for the common-sense reasons raised by nominator. And it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG: the only sources are from the university itself. Terence7 (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for paucity of independent sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This not a question of verifiability or veracity or competence — all of these are evident. This is, rather, a challenge based upon the independence or lack thereof of sources. I do not feel that in this case this is sufficient cause for deletion of an otherwise well-done article. Don't tear down the house to prove a point. Keep under WP:IAR (Use Common Sense). Carrite (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge is not only based on the lack of independent sources, as I and others have pointed out. We're making a common-sense argument, too: a university's EMT team simply doesn't deserve an article on WP ("no more notable than your neighborhood ambulance station," see nominator above). Terence7 (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the standard for inclusion is not "verifiability or veracity or competence," the standard is notability. See WP:N. Notability is not established, see WP:GNG, so it is not suitable for inclusion.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a GUIDELINE to be generally followed in most cases. It is not an unchanging and unmalleable, but something that must be pondered and interpreted. The basic argument here is OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST smooshed with SELFSOURCED. That's really not a sufficient reason to blow up a competent, verifiable, and factually trustworthy article, in my own estimation. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think our point is that your personal affinity for this article and the amount of detail contained therein aren't sufficient reasons to go against the clear and very well-established notability guidelines, which it now appears you are acknowledging that this article does not satisfy. Terence7 (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on whether reliance on self-sourcing in this specific instance to provide verifiability is regarded as a terminal offense. You seem to think it is, I differ. Carrite (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly entitled to your point of view, but notability requires verifiable evidence from independent sources. That's not negotiable, at least not here. We all have our opinions about whether Wikipedia's notability policies are too stringent, too lenient, or just right, but this isn't the forum to raise objections to their most basic tenets. Terence7 (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it IS negotiable here. IAR is a policy, Notability is a guideline — suggested best practices to be followed in most circumstances. Carrite (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least we're clear that the basis for your argument is that you don't think the notability guidelines should apply to this article. Terence7 (talk) 01:58, 28 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. Verifiability. Three editors argue (I include Sreejith K here, based on notes in the article talk page and his/her view expressed here) a view that the information is unverifiable through reliable, official or otherwise canonical sources. This is disputed, but without reference to such a source, and as such, delete is the correct result until and unless reliable verification can be evidenced. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing Malayalam films[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are insufficient to meet WP:V Anoopan (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Difficult, if not impossible to substantiate this page with references. This page can only end up in fan-war --Sreejith K (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I don't think deleting the article is a good idea. What's required first is fight vandalaim by semi-protecting or full-protecting the article for a long period (6months-1year) so that only experienced Wikipedians can edit the page. Then as we find reliable sources, we can improve the article and make it a reliable and authentic table.
Anish Viswa 02:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: per User:Anishviswa -- Tinu Cherian - 07:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It's too hard to verify" is not a valid deletion rationale. No one actually seems to believe that this is unverifiable, and no one has made the claim that this is not a valid list subject, so I see no deletion rationale. postdlf (talk) 15:31, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Due to lack of official sources, figures always tend to change through different media, and no possible correct ones can be obtained. Just as a note, I would suggest looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest grossing Kollywood films as there is even less organization in Malayalam films as compared to Tamil films. Secret of success (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with User:Secret Of success, Its impossible to get boxoffice figurers for all malayalam films till date, unless we have sufficient networks or organisations like boxofficeindia.com. Keeping this article will only cause useless edit wars. rahul (talk2me) 11:52, 30 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 Ruggero Santilli. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Basic Research[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It does not look like the article meets notability criterias. The consern regards several of the criterias, among them "Independent of the subject" and sourcing. The article is deleted for notability reasons at Norwegian wikipedia. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ruggero Santilli. No evidence of notability on searching. -- 202.124.73.224 (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See google news and google books. I dont mind if this article is merged into Ruggero Santilli. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those Google books links don't contribute to WP:N, because they don't discuss the IBR at all: they are simply Santilli giving his affiliation in articles. The news articles appear to (a) mention the IBR in passing when discussing Santilli, or (b) not be reliable/independent. -- 202.124.74.111 (talk) 05:35, 17 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) 00:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect to Ruggero Santilli. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 03:36, 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 redirect to Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom. No harm in the redirect. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio Cataldi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR and the WP:GNG. Pol430 talk to me 15:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 17:30, 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) 00:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, albeit reluctantly. Appears to fails the first point of NACTOR, which is certainly the easiest for actors to shoot for. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 03:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 09:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just two film roles and just a significant one (Salò). Substantially a case of BLP1E, as all the few coverage Cataldi received is connected to Pasolini's Salò. Cavarrone (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom, the one film for which he has some minimal sourcability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:09, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MyAnimeList[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website. Fails both WP:N and WP:WEB. The last nomination was closed as "no consensus", presumably because two new online sources were brought up. Discussion of those sources was inconclusive. Links to both sources are now dead. Good raise 21:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable - it is the only website of its kind in the world - the only anime social networking site in the world, thus from that fact alone it is automatically notable, just as Anime News Network is automatically notable as it is the only encyclopedia on anime (other than wikipedia). Also in 2009 it had over 200000 users, now that number must surely be higher - these numbers also makes it notable. Regarding the rules - they will have to be changed to suit this particular case - in other words the rules will have to be dynamic (there is a rule in wikipedia - "ignore all rules" or something like that meaning that if a rule gets in the way of making wikipedia better or adding things, or if it gets in the way of logic, then ignore it - it applies here) - rules are at their best if they are dynamic and accommodate specific situations and facts (such as the fact that this is the only anime social networking site), otherwise if they are static it creates significant problems. There are so many questionable and useless articles on wikipedia but you want to delete this? This is a prime example of what is wrong with wikipedia and and why it would never even be near-perfect (let alone perfect). Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of knowledge - what kind of repository is it if this article, which is notable, gets deleted? What kind of reputation will it have then (never mind that wikipedia's reputation is already lousy). How can it not be notable when it is the only website of its kind in the world, and has a really large number of registered users? It would go against logic to delete this, and it seems that Goodraise doesn't want to understand, it seems he just want to delete it for the sake of it or because he is just simply against it (why else would he put so much repeated effort into trying to do this?). Here are other websites that mention it http://dailytechie.com/myanimelist; and this http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/04/idUS142955+04-Aug-2008+PRN20080804. It seems people just want to find things to fight about on wikipedia - is it boredom or an simply an effort to to be worthy? What ever it is, deleting this article is going over the top and is extreme - again this is a good example of the things that are very wrong with wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.233.181.106 (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize that wall of text: MAL is notable because it is unique and claims to have many users. WP:N (which among other things states that "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists") should be ignored or changed. Sources exist.

The sources you name are a press release and a random blog post. I suppose you want us to change or ignore WP:V and WP:RS as well? That's really the core problem: We don't have the sources we need to write a decent article. There's no way around that. Cite WP:IAR as much as you want. It won't help. Good raise 18:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. CSE. --Gwern (contribs) 01:05 17 March 2012 (GMT)

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, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Failure of WP:WEB. This should have been deleted long ago, but past AfDs on this were plagued with flawed keep rationales that cited term papers and press releases. Tarc (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:WEB. Nothing in this article shows that it meets the notability requirements presented in that policy, and searching on my own comes up with no additional reliable third party sources. As previously stated, the only third party sources that can even be found are either from personal sites (such as non-notable blogs) or copies of the press release about the site's sale. Rorshacma (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Failture of WEB. Does not meet requirements of notablility. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 19:08, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kerr[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not notable. A news search turned up lots of results, but most of them were about different Tom Kerrs or were mirror sites. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.. The article does cite one reliable source--the Comiclopedia at Lambiek--although this is perhaps not a strong indicator of notability given its vast database of artists. Also, I'd note that the blog references cited in the article make a compelling argument for the quality of his work over many decades; if someone more versed in UK comics than I am indicates that one or more of these bloggers qualify as "experts" in the field, I'd suggest we take a look at what they have to say. Mr. Kerr has a ton of credits over a long time, and it certainly seems possible that some reliable sources might be turned up with enough digging. Unfortunately I was unable to find anything else meaningful. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:37, 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, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has been mentioned in a journal^[1]. Also found a book where he has been mentioned^[2]. This apart from books he has illustrated^[3]^[4].

References[edit]

^ The Comics journal. The Comics Journal, Inc. 2005. p. 31. Retrieved 29 March 2012.
^ Edward Tabor Linenthal (1989). Symbolic defense: the cultural significance of the Strategic Defense Initiative. University of Illinois Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-252-01619-6. Retrieved 29 March 2012.
^ Linda Powley; Cathy Weiskopf; Tom Kerr (1 March 2009). Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow: Fractions and Decimals. Barron's Educational Series. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-7641-4171-3. Retrieved 29 March 2012.
^ Wayne Bryant Eldridge; Tom Kerr (1 August 1996). The best pet name book ever. Barron's. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-8120-9661-3. Retrieved 29 March 2012.

--Wikishagnik (talk) 20:49, 28 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. The consensus below is that the available sources are sufficient to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Boy Who Grew Flowers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book by non-notable author. I found, using Google News, a couple of mentions (four in all) in local media, but nothing substantial. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found multiple book reviews as well as a mention that the book has been adapted into a stage play. It seems to pass WP:BOOK,Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 13 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, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails #1 of the WP:NBOOK criteria. The "reviews" are just the standard minimalist blurbs from publishing groups. Terence7 (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Booklist, Publishers Weekly, and the School Library Journal aren't publishers. They're review sites considered to be reliable sources that show notability. They are not owned by any publishing company, nor does the publishers have any control over their reviews. Apart from the companies providing review copies or various information for articles, that's the extent of their control. The Stage also is not a review site. It's a newspaper. While some of the reviews don't extend on for pages, they absolutely are reviews by non-involved and notable third parties. They are neither primary or trivial. These are some of the most respected review sites in the literary world and their reviews are quoted in multiple other sources. ESPECIALLY Booklist and the SLJ. If you're an author of YA or children's books, the SLJ is one of the big sites you want a positive review from.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I didn't say they were "publishers" -- they're obviously not -- but I should have been a bit more careful with my wording. I'm not arguing the question of independence.

The point is that these are, with the possible exception of The Stage article, mostly mentions in trade publications that, in my view, do not constitute "non-trivial published works." You're saying that they're not trivial, but I'm looking at each of these sources, and none of them amount to more than a paragraph or two of plot summary, with a sentence or two of commentary thrown in ("It reminds them of the power of kindness", etc.). It seems like a stretch to say that this amounts to "sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." Do we really think that every book reviewed in Publishers Weekly, etc. should have a Wikipedia article?

Perhaps I'm going against established WP consensus here; if so, please point me to where this has already been settled. Terence7 (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not every book reviewed in the PW needs an article, but if the book has been reviewed by multiple sources then it should. I have asked for more feedback from the Children's book wikiproject to reaffirm that these are considered reliable sources that show notability (NOT to vote, but to just look at the sources just to ensure that I'm viewing them in the correct light), but I've seen reviews from these sites save other articles from AfD before. For example, PW and Booklist were two reviews for this article, along with Kirkus Reviews, which uses the same review format as they do. [28] It's also been shown with this AfD, where it was kept and two of the links were to Booklist and PW. [29] This article was partially saved due to reviews from PW and Kirkus. [30] (These aren't even all of the AfDs that I've seen where these review sites showed notability, just the more recent ones.) I should also note that this book also appears to be used in classrooms and has been put on summer reading lists. I didn't mention this previously as it's just a pain to go through and list every lesson plan that I find, but here goes: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], This one shows that it's in foreign school libraries, [36], [37], This one is for a school reading program. I also found another review, one from Wired Magazine. That there's several reviews for the book and it's used in multiple schools shows that it passes WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOWFLAKE. A solid Reception section, this is exactly the kind of articles we should have for professional-reviewed books that satisfy WP:GNG. Diego (talk) 07:19, 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.