< 15 November	17 November >

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pollution Control Technologies[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. This is a department of a university (Technological Educational Institute (TEI) of Western Macedonia) without an article. The parent university may be notable but I'm not certain this particular department is. §everal⇒|Times 23:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability as an individual department within a faculty of the Technological Educational Institute of Western Macedonia. With the current name, I don't see a redirect as useful as the title makes no indication that it is a department of a university as opposed to an article about pollution control technologies. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to our established practice for academic departments. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—does not pass WP:GNG. —Theo polisme 16:16, 23 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Ibn Al-Feasy Al-Hanbali[edit]

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

This apparently self-authored article, about a 26-year-old Muslim scholar from northern Malaysia, makes bold claims of 'famous' books and such, but there are no independent sources verifying his notability. This should not be surprising for a 26-year-old 'Hanbali scholar' in a Shafie part of the world. The bloke's blog is here in case anyone's interested. Mkativerata (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 22:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 22:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 22:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just speedy delete this as A7? If not, delete this for lack of reliable sources and as a vanity page. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:42. Qworty (talk) 05:10, 19 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RED STAMP[edit]

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

No indication of outside notability. Fails to meet WP:GNG and, if applicable, WP:ORG (as there's no specific policy on studies or programs, but ORG is broadly construed). Written in first person plural; highly personal/promotional tone; reads like a pamphlet or an "overview" section on a website. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 22:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources, nor certainty as to whether the program has yet been initiated. Perhaps copied from internal publications. 99.0.80.70 (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this has yet taken place or that it's currently notable. There's always the chance that this research project may eventually become something notable enough to where it's quoted in papers or used as a source in peer-reviewed journals, but it's not notable yet. It's just far WP:TOOSOON to claim notability for this. There are a lot of research projects that never get any notice (academic or otherwise) from outside sources and/or never get past the initial planning stages. It doesn't help that the page is fairly promotional in nature, stating that participants get a free t-shirt and such.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:54, 18 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Wade[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO; claims made in related article used to shore-up notability are without merit (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/232 Records). No substantial third-party coverage, no references. §FreeRangeFrog 21:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable individual. reddogsix (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Edits (from two different accounts) look like autobiography. Hairhorn (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.73.220.10 (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC) — 80.73.220.10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment To closing admin, the !vote above should not be taken into account. §FreeRangeFrog 22:54, 21 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

232 Records[edit]

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

Non-notable record company lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article lacks references. reddogsix (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy, actually. There is, as far as I can tell, no "Lancer Médias", and the claim ... owned by French media conglomerate Lancer Médias. It is one of the largest French music companies. can be regarded as a WP:HOAX at best. I'm bringing the artist's bio to AfD now. §FreeRangeFrog 21:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I do not agree with the deletion of this page, I did not create it, but as such I am aware of Fiasco. and 232 partnership, I am fully aware of Lancer. However I did correct some exaggeration as all companies featured are small. Not large as the article states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obearartical (talk • contribs) 22:53, 16 November 2012‎ UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, dubious. Hairhorn (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks made up. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 17 November 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 Skid row. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Felony Flats[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 20:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the Wikipedia guidelines: "Usage, slang, and/or idiom guides. Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney, or Leet) are desirable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvandervoo (talk • contribs) 20:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't a descriptive article about a language, dialect, or type of slang. It's an article about a specific word, which is generally prohibited. Furthermore, this phrase does not appear to be in frequent use, making it a violation of Wikipedia's neologism policy. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 21:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the urban Dictionary --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to adding things on Wikipedia, and was surprised there was no Wikipedia reference for this term. This term is very common here in Portland, Oregon, and apparently throughout some of the West. I've found a number of references and articles from both digital & print/digital sources. The only thing I can finally say in defense of this article is, if you don't want an article on "Felony Flats," then why have one on "Skid Row"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skid_Row. Thanks - Bjorn V., Portland, Oregon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvandervoo (talk • contribs) 00:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message at your page with some useful links on article creation. As for your comparison, there is, first of all, the fact that "skid row" is, I'd venture, a more notable term, but the more significant distinction is that the primary purpose of that article is to document the use of that term, whereas this article serves only to define it. This seems more suited for our sister project, Wiktionary. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 01:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Skid row, and perhaps also transwiki to Wiktionary while we're at it. Wikipedia articles are meant to treat concepts, not words (see WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary). It appears that skid row and felony flats are different terms for essentially the same concept. Cnilep (talk) 02:06, 20 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Florida–Alabama football rivalry[edit]

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

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

This text was deleted from the Florida Gators football article and dumped into a separate new article. This article is a substantial recreation of an article that was previously prodded and deleted by the consensus of active editors at WP:CFB. The reasons given on the WP:CFB talk page were that the Alabama-Florida series does not constitute a "rivalry" game as that term is commonly understood, and per WP:CFB policy such material should be incorporated into Alabama Crimson Tide football, Florida Gators football, and their respective team-season articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same editor has now created Alabama–Florida football rivalry. Please note that this AfD discussion includes two articles, not just one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like this was simply WP:SPLIT from Florida Gators football? Was there a complaint with having that content in that article? If not, simply merge it back by normal editing. I see that instead of bringing this prior discussion to the attention of the editor who split it off into this separate page, you nominated the split page for deletion within an hour of its creation. That's jumping the gun, in my opinion, particularly when you don't even know that the creator wouldn't have agreed once you discussed it with him. Can we make more of an effort to resolve such matters without AFD?
BTW, there's no rule against recreating an article deleted via WP:PROD; it's not "binding" like AFD is. postdlf (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Postdlf, I know. Otherwise, I would have submitted it for speedy deletion of a previously deleted and recreated article per CSD G4.

In answer to your question about the split from the Florida Gators football article, the pre-existing Alabama-Florida series content was disproportionately long compared to other similar content sections. So, no, we don't want it back. LOL It should have just been deleted, without creating a new article into which to dump the content removed. Because of the previously prodded and deleted version of this article, AfD is our only choice to dispose of it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient establishment of true "rivalry". Not an appropriate candidate for a split article.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no reliable references on the page, nor can I find any references with a google search, referring to games between Alabama and Florida as a "rivalry." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhortman (talk • contribs) 03:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to re-create. No sources, article isn't ready and is incomplete without sources/etc.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient rivalry, does not warrant its own page. Pigsbiy66 (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both at this time p b p 22:12, 23 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Race Legends[edit]

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

Article does not seems to meet notability, tagged since 2010, article itself has been outdated for several months. A search turned up no notable sources apart from a possible website written by the article subject. John F. Lewis (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Either this didn't happen or it wasn't notable enough to warrant coverage, but there are no reliable sources that mention this race. I see mentions of a sailing race by the same name, but nothing else. Heck, if not for the mention at the non-primary websites, I'd almost think that this was a hoax. None of the mentions on the websites seem to say if it actually took place, although existing is not notability. Clear delete here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete It doesn't appear to have happened; I could barely find a trace of it except for one blog noting that the 2011 date already represented a postponement. I couldn't find any news sources, and scarcely any webpage sources, none of which said enough to actually write an article from. Mangoe (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable may not even exist --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find a couple of brief mentions in Swedish media of the fact that the event did not happen; here is an article mentioning the fact that the company behind the event went bankrupt, and that the race never happened. --bonadea contributions talk 15:20, 17 November 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 eurypterid . MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of eurypterids[edit]

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

Article is already severely outdated. An updated classification and a list of currently valid genera is already present in the article on Eurypterid and the two systems currently conflict with each other. I would have just migrated the former to the latter, but the updated system fits in with the Eurypterid article as it is, negating the need to split. This article has some additional info (e.g. fossil range, location, synonyms, a full list of species, etc.) but they can't easily be rechecked against Dunlop et al., you'd quite literally have to rewrite the article entirely. I think it's better to delete this for the moment, until an updated version can be written, that is. OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I'm not sure deletion is a good idea. We need to have a comprehensive list of all genera whether they are currently valid or not to have a means of a explicitly clearing up any confusion as to whether or not certain genera actually are currently valid or not. Most readers are probably not aware of the most cutting edge research and will probably be under the impression that some deprecated genera are still valid. Just look how many people still think Brontosaurus is a thing, and that's despite decades of time passing and a much less obscure subject matter. The list in the main Eurypterid article is good, but I think we need a separate article to house a more comprehensive list including deprecated taxa and more information like the age ranges, etc. Abyssal (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just copy my post from the paleo talk page here: Wouldn't it make more sense to cut the huge list from the eurypterid article (which seems to be 50% list, perhaps too much) and replace whatever is in the list with that? FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Random unrelated comment: I've userspaced a backup of the page as it now stands in case we ever need to restore anything. Abyssal (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I thought of doing that, but as Stemonitis said below, the list as it stands now in the Eurypterid article is not actually that big. It's quite well within the normal length of such lists in articles of other higher taxa. Yes, we could replace it, but imo, it's an unnecessary split.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually quite reluctant to AfD this, seeing the difficulty of compiling such a list, but we have no choice really. I'd be quite happy if the list can be retained and updated to fit with the 2011 system, but I do not see that happening any time soon. I'm not aware of any new comprehensive treatments of all eurypterids down to the species-level. In the meantime, the only thing the list is doing is misleading readers by contradicting correct information in other articles. For example, Mycterops is already correctly under Mycteroptidae in its own article, but in the list, it's still listed under Woodwardopteridae. And I disagree on retaining the list for historical purposes. Especially when there is no indication that the list is outdated and should not be used for reference. This is not quite the same as the Brontosaurus example, since that is already a redirect. This would be more like having an article on Apatosaurus and another on Brontosaurus at the same time, with no indication on either of the pages that they actually refer to the same thing, and that one of them is out-of-date. The list is still useful of course, but to us, not to our readers. I was actually thinking of making it a subpage or something, but that's also unworkable given that this page is a redirect target for almost all eurypterid genera.

I think part of the problem itself is because it's a list of all species in an order. That makes it extremely difficult to keep up-to-date. You'd have to be aware of every single revision, every single taxonomic dispute, every single invalidation, etc. Not to mention this actually specifically includes synonyms and misidentified fossils. I think it's best if we keep the list strictly down only to the genus level. We can still save the information by creating articles on the genera, families, etc. (most of them are still redirects to this page) and migrating parts of the list there. That way, individual pages can be updated more easily with no danger of introducing contradiction.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just redownloaded the 2011 pdf, and I was wrong, it actually has a list of species, including synonymies, incertae sedis, etc. So, technically, we can still update that article with that. Still, the point stands, such a list would be unmanageable in the long run. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 18:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 18:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The main eurypterid article already has a list of genera, so this can be readily redirected there, with no loss of functionality. That article is not so large as to need breaking up, but if it ever does, then we can copy its list over to this title. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eurypterid already contains a list. If something is missing from that list it should be added there. No need to have two articles giving the same information. If information on invalid genera is important a section could be added. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or just redirect. There's no reason to delete the history, or break any incoming links. Siuenti (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Stemonitis; for the same reasoning, deletion is a poor idea. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a "merge" would be actually just a redirect. Nothing can be truly merged from the current article as all the genera, including authorities, are already listed in the newer system. The current list of species can't be merged either, as they've also been reclassified.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 15:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karuvelam Pookkal (film)[edit]

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

I think it fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 18:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 18:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Poomani. His work on the movie seems to have won him a national award, although I don't see anything that necessarily proves this. There's definitely two huge barriers here: a language barrier and a time barrier. This movie was made pre-Internet and any reviews or other coverage of this film probably hasn't been uploaded to the Internet. I say that for the time being we redirect to Poomani's page and userfy a copy of the film to the original editor's userspace so they can work on it until it passes WP:NFILM. (In other words, until they find enough sources to pass it, which might take more time than this AfD has.) There's one review on the author's page by The Hindu, so that's a start in the right direction. I know that there are issues with the reliability of the Hindu at times, but a review by them should be good in this case.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What may I kindly ask are the reliability issues you see with the Hindu? It is one of the most respected newspapers in India. Just curious? Arunram (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me personally, I've seen people mention in various AfDs that the Hindu can sometimes stretch the truth with some of their stories. I've never had any issue with the paper, but any time it's used as a source in an AfD where they're the predominant sources for notability, that usually comes up as an issue.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. This article is about one of the Tamil film produced by Doordarshan, a government agency in India, which also won considerable awards.-- Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Dineshkumar Ponnusamy. Sufficient coverage exists for this 1996 film that can be evidently seen from sources like 1, 2, 3. Secret of success · talk 12:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep A full-length film that won a state award and apparently an international award, produced by National Film Development Corporation, and involved notable individuals. Easily meets notability criteria. As the nominator has told, there is perhaps a lack of easily retrievable sources in the web, as the film was made in the pre-Internet era. This once again goes on to show systemic bias. We have problem establishing notability of this film, while albums of third grade bands pass notability just because of the coverage in the Internet. --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Film was in an era that did not have adequate online penetration in India. Film was different in that it brought mainstream cinema focus on a very serious social issue of Child labour in India in the match industry. There is a state award for the movie. The article perhaps needs further improvement. Arunram (talk) 04:21, 23 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clickn kids[edit]

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

I don't think this passes WP:CORP. The references in the article don't look reliable, and all I could find online were PR pieces. I do see a possible exception in this THE Journal issue (p. 116), but I can't see enough of the source to verify it, and even if it was a good reference it wouldn't be enough to prove notability by itself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Like the nominator, I also come up empty handed (save some PR pieces and scant mention) when searching for something to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. JFHJr (㊟) 17:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Puff Piece --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 17 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya Communication Manager[edit]

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

Does not currently seem to pass GNG. Written very promotionally (no negatives, lists only benefits of several versions). Nounique names 15:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. There are a lot of Avaya articles from this editor. Almost all should be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom. I've found absolutely no third party coverage that would come close to satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. JFHJr (㊟) 17:26, 16 November 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 by User:Dreadstar under criterion G4. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 21:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ali Raza Author[edit]

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

The article do not meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 14:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per rationales given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed ali raza author. This was previously deleted due to a lack of sources and has apparently been recreated by what I believe is the same author. I'll tag it accordingly.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional. I've also filed a report for User:Istehkam at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, as they've attempted to add several versions of this article under different names and had the pages deleted each time. They've also attempted to add other articles and had them deleted for similar reasons. User has also been warned more times than is warranted for removing deletion templates, so blocking is probably long overdue at this point as they're just being disruptive beyond what is reasonable for even a seasoned editor. An admin might want to watch for various versions of this name, as the user clearly knows what they're doing by attempting to avoid detection by uploading the article under different article names.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:47, 16 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mobilelearning exhibition[edit]

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

Seems more like advertising than an encyclopedic article Gorgak25 (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I agree with the nominator. But do we need to delete just for that? I think it also fails WP:GNG. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 17:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been speedied as a G11. §FreeRangeFrog 18:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I agree this could have been speedy deleted or PRODed. There's nothing currently indicating notability, and I haven't found anything upon searching; it fails WP:GNG as a concept/company/exhibition. JFHJr (㊟) 21:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (Non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 00:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CIDER International School[edit]

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

Completely unsourced since March 2009 Roger (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Secondary schools are generally considered to be notable. Being unsourced is irrelevant. A quick Google search will establish that the school exists. That's sufficient for the article to be kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An SNG is only a presumption of notability, but that presumption is not allowed to be used as an indefinite "get out of jail free card". The editors of the article have had since March 2009 to convert the presumption into definitive evidence. It's time to deliver the goods. BTW I would like to actually see this widely alleged SNG for high schools. Roger (talk) 16:04, 16 November 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 Bangladeshi 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) 16:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So just how much time must we allow? IMHO Three years is more than enough to come up with the goods - even in Bangladesh. (For the record - I'm not American.) Roger (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per the current consensus. Q: How much time should we wait for this to be referenced? A: A reasonable amount of time might be, until every school in Bangladesh has reliable internet access, and the Bangladeshi government has a central website listing every school in the country. If it still can't be referenced by that time, then delete. For the record, I can name a first-world 7 to 10 school that doesn't have a website.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have notified User:Faruk cider as a main contributor. TerriersFan (talk) 21:08, 17 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Widow (Booty Luv song)[edit]

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

Unreleased single by an artist which is no longer notable. Fails WP:notability and WP:FUTURE Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 13:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree it is too early for this song to be notable, but an artist doesn't become non-notable because they haven't released anything successful for a while. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the artist is notable (ymmv here I guess), the recording in itself is clearly not. No reviews, no significant third-party coverage, etc. Fails WP:NSONGS. §FreeRangeFrog 20:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:09, 16 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Jurkas[edit]

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

Not very well written. Notability unknown. Vincent Liu (something to say?) 13:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As unsourced, self-promotional BLP. Actually should have been PROD'ed as such. §FreeRangeFrog 20:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG and SPEEDY Delete BLP puff piece --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. He is allegedly a polymath, but the WP:42 doesn't exist to establish his notability. Qworty (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, zero evidence of any notability from any reliable sources, most likely a promotional piece. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 02:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Pride of Britain Awards[edit]

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

Unsure of notablity enough to justify full article. Shouldnt it be merged with parent article? Ditto for the rest of year-wise named Pride of Britain Awards TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The year-wise series are supplemental to the main article, and contain information of interest (e.g. award winners for the year) that would clog up the the main article. Niado (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. There can be a separate List of winners of Pride of Britain Awards article if that is the only thing that needs to be there in the article. As for the rest of the details, I dont see how the Pride of Britain article cannot include that. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep Either nominate them all or nominate none: the rationale would apply equally. In principle, these could be legitimate articles, but they have no sources and little content. It's probably best to userfy them and then move them back. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to nominate all of them, but I am not sure if and how to make multiple nominations. So I decided to nominate one of them, and have the discussion include all of them. If anyone can include the rest of them too, it would be nice. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The awards event is notable. Whether we should have separate articles for each year can be discussed on the article talk page(s). As even the nominator doesn't appear to favour deletion, this is the wrong venue. I would favour Googling and adding a few sources over userfying.--Michig (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- we do not allow award categories, necouraging listifying, so that we should keep the list articles. We might mige all the Pride of Britian Awards into one article, but it would be too large to be convenient. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:21, 18 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mods[edit]

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

This band fails WP:BAND. Google News archives is not yielding significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The sole reference in the article is from a blog. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to lack sufficient significance to justify an encyclopedia article, let alone sources on which to base one. --Michig (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No releases, no significant third-party coverage, etc. Fails WP:BAND badly. §FreeRangeFrog 20:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:11, 16 November 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 deleted as copyright infringement. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coreel technology[edit]

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

Biased point of view. Rarkenin (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. . . Mean as custard (talk)

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sick Happy Idle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This topic about a zine that fails WP:GNG. For additional opinion about media on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Notability (media). Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless there are sources out there that never made it onto the Internet, there doesn't seem to have been any in-depth coverage of this zine in any independent and reliable sources. I see one or two offhand mentions or trivial sources here and there, but overall there are no sources that are in-depth, reliable, and secondary. The rationale for the previous deletion's "no consensus" is fairly weak even by 2005 standards and by all rights, should've been deleted long ago.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources. Found one notable mention in The Guardian: "the fanzines Dark Star and Sick Happy Idle continue their inimitable assault on good taste". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:51, 17 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Murderous Circus[edit]

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

This album by the band Mourning Beloveth fails WP:NALBUMS. Not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reviews, no significant third-party coverage. Like so many other articles about recordings. §FreeRangeFrog 20:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:13, 16 November 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 Zev Bellringer. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 15:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cluster Lizard[edit]

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

After several searches, this topic isn't passing WP:GNG whatsoever. It's an in-universe depiction of a fictitious species of reptile within the science fiction series Lexx. It's also not meeting Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zev Bellringer. The redirect article has some issues and the overall character pages would probably be slightly better as a list of characters, but I've merged most of the information in this article to the character page. Outside of Zev, cluster lizards aren't featured that heavily in the series.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Tokyogirl79. Plausible search term for Lexx-heads. --Michig (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. No reliable sources that can WP:verify notability of this subject. Nominator's reasoning is sound. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zev Bellringer per tokyogirl. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 02:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. I withdraw this nomination. Two of the sources ([1], [2]) provide significant coverage, thus the topic meets WP:GNG. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

California Patriot[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A topic about a student-run magazine from the University of California, Berkeley that appears to fail WP:GNG. Additional opinion about the notability of print media on Wikipedia can be read at Wikipedia:Notability (media). Custom searches such as this are also failing to yield significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To my surprise I found a lot of coverage in national-level Reliable Sources including Time Magazine, the Boston Globe, and the San Diego Union-Tribune. This is very unusual for a small student publication and IMO it is clearly notable. I added three sources to the article and stripped out the unsubstantiated and promotional material. --MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just those three references in the article are enough to pass the notability threshold. §FreeRangeFrog 20:33, 16 November 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 DJ SS. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 15:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formation Records[edit]

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

A record label that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Google News archives is not yielding coverage in reliable sources, and customized searches such as this also yield no coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to founder DJ SS. Record label of notable acts. Nom does not appear to be formatted correctly and shows up as a redlink. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the article's page, if the AfD link is red, purge the page and it becomes blue. Check out WP:PURGE for purging methods. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to DJ SS, at least in a summarised form. Encyclopedic content relating to a notable musician. --Michig (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 17 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

God Talking Soul[edit]

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

This topic is failing WP:BAND. Google news archives is not yielding any coverage in reliable sources for the band. Custom searches such as [3] are likewise not yielding any coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 7 years and WP:BAND has finally caught up with them. §FreeRangeFrog 23:01, 16 November 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 Hillsong albums. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 02:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Worship 2[edit]

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

After searches for reliable sources, this topic fails WP:NALBUMS. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Hillsong albums as a plausible search term. --Michig (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Michig - David Gerard (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There is a very obvious WP:RS, which is the album itself. Hillsong is effectively a "brand" of worship music, and a prominent one, linked to a church of the same name in Australia. Virtually all their albums are the subject of an article, so why not this? Peterkingiron (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hillsong is noteworthy, but that would be a reason to put it in a list and redirect the title there - the complete information in this article, including track list, would fit just fine there. There's no reason for a separate article without third-party sources - David Gerard (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Michig – shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 15:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

F-Beat Records[edit]

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

A record label that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Not finding coverage in reliable sources. Google news archive yields zero results, except for the Wikipedia article itself. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 18:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a record label that had many major hit records, and is covered sufficiently widely to be 'notable' even for those can't see beyond the GNG. --Michig (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hello Michig. If you could provide sources in this discussion, it would be appreciated, and if the topic has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources, I'll gladly withdraw this nomination. Also, sources don't have to be available online, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The label is covered in the books Elvis Costello: a Biography and They Could Have Been Bigger Than EMI, there's an article on its sale to the Kingfisher plc in Billboard, it had offshoot labels that themselves received significant coverage, e.g. in Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound, according to this, Paul Gorman's book Reasons to Be Cheerful: The life and work of Barney Bubbles "is also an alternative history of the post-punk scene, from Stiff to Radar to F-Beat to 2-Tone to Go! Discs to – gulp! – Red Wedge and beyond." There are plenty of other sources discussing the label's formation, artists, and hit records. --Michig (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources with links simply provide passing mentions, though. For example, in the Encyclopedia of recorded sound entry, the entry is about Demon/Edsel Records, and simply mentions that Demon Records was started as an offshoot of F-Beat Records, and an article already exists for Demon Music Group. I'll take your word regarding the Elvis Costello Book, and if one more independent reliable source that contains significant coverage is provided, this topic could very well them meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pretty obviously noteworthy - David Gerard (talk) 08:31, 20 November 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 School of History and Archives (University College Dublin). (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 02:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The History Review[edit]

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

This topic about an academic journal appears to fail WP:GNG. Additionally, opinion regarding the notability of Academic journals on Wikipedia can be read at the essay located at Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). Several customized searches in Google News (e.g. [4]), Google Scholar (e.g. [5]) and Google Books (e.g. [6]) are not yielding coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 18:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 18:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 18:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to School of History and Archives (University College Dublin). It's certainly relevant to that article, even though a standalone article isn't justified. --Michig (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to School of History and Archives (University College Dublin). It might be notable but don't have access to the databases (Web of Knowledge and Scopus) recommended in Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) for checking. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- we commonly allow articles on academic journals, even the less prestigious ones. The fact that it ceased publication last March is irrelevant [7]. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but not every academic journal gets a Wikipedia article simply for being an academic journal. Only those that are considered notable journals, per WP:GNG. I had trouble finding sources about this journal, it appears to be little-known. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:14, 20 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boss Lady[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established, fails WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find reliable independent sources that show notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:42. Appears to be WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UPANDCOMING and WP:CRYSTAL - right now she is a run of the mill disc jockey. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 19 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cause for Concern[edit]

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

This article is about two topics. It's about a do-it-yourself cassette label style in the 1980s and also about a band of this name based in South Bend, Indiana. The first appears to fail WP:GNG, and the latter fails WP:BAND. Additionally, custom searches such as these [8], [9] have yielded zero results in Google News archives. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for lack of context and focus. What is the article about, exactly? Is it supposed to be a dab? Bearian (talk) 17:29, 19 November 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, —Theo polisme 15:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure what the point of this article was, but both things fail at least WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog 21:56, 23 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

River Valley Ranch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article reads like an advertisement, and after several searches, appears to fail WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tagged as failing WP:GNG for a year, and is an unreferenced mess that doesn't fit Wikipedia layout standards either. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. WP:EXISTS called and he wants his article back. §FreeRangeFrog 22:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL - there are literally hundreds of such small Christian camps in the United States, many of which do good work(s), but the overwhelming majority are of course not notable. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 15:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Menace (New Mexico Lobos)[edit]

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

This topic appears to fail Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Source searching has not yielded significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources such as this just have passing mentions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is significant internet coverage of this subject. The biggest problem is this article provides no references for what is written. Bill Pollard (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is not unknown in Albuquerque. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 19 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cats and Kittens[edit]

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

After searching, this topic about a magazine does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. As such it appears to fail WP:GNG. Also, see the essay Wikipedia:Notability (media), which provides some additional opinion about the notability of media on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and even WP:V. --Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about a non-notable magazine that no longer accepts subscriptions. Genius. WP:GNG and WP:ORG fail. §FreeRangeFrog 22:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Randykitty. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 19 November 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 Shamrock Farms. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmilk[edit]

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

After source searching, this topic appears to fail WP:GNG. I added one short source to the article, but not locating others that consist of more than passing mentions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you may protest, but-almost-solely because I am the creator, I will vote Keep. Besides, they are widely available at Arizona and other Southwestern supermarkets, so they are well known here..Antonio El Lechu Martin Diga 08:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're able to locate reliable sources that consist of significant coverage about this topic, please provide them here at the AfD discussion and ping me at my talk page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand your point and see your logic. I have found many webpages that mention it but many of them are personal blogs, or the company's page, and stuff, and that is the problem. Here is something from about.com, if that counts as reliable anyways [10].Antonio beautiful Face Martin Diga 08:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC
Snow Delete per WP:MILL, which could have been written specifically for this. Orbell's soft drinks were widely available where I grew up, but at the end of the day - so what? YSSYguy (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At the end of the day, the idea is that a reader who doesn't know this stuff can look it up in this encyclopaedia. Don't lose sight of the goal. Uncle G (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MILL is a personal opinion piece that has attracted much more opposition than support. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those many cases where failing the Primary Notability Criterion doesn't mean deletion, Northamerica1000. Out Shamrock Foods Company article is clearly pitiful, and your search for sources on that will probably turn up the same potted histories in books and the book by Mervyn Kaufman that mine just did. A reader with the question "What the Heck is 'Mmmmilk'?" on xyr mind is obviously best served by a redirect going to that article if there isn't enough documented information on Mmmmilk specifically to support a standalone article. Ordinary editing tools get us from here to there just fine, as you know.
For information, my brief search for additional sources on this subject turned up just the "MmmmFlop" article in BrandWeek. So on that preliminary basis I concur on the amount of verifiable information available.
Uncle G (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Um, this certainly exists, it is a well-known brand in the US. That said, I can't for the life of me understand why it rates a standalone article; it should redirect to Shamrock Farms if anything. §FreeRangeFrog 20:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the parent company article, where a brief summary of the brandline is appropriate. LadyofShalott 16:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 17 November 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 Joanna MacGregor. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 15:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Circus[edit]

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

After several searches, not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. This topic appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Joanna MacGregor. As a standalone entity this fails WP:CORP badly. §FreeRangeFrog 21:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect as User:FreeRangeFrog. Looks like a self-published label. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:18, 18 November 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 John Stevens (New Jersey). MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Stevens (immigrant)[edit]

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

This person appears to fail WP:BASIC. Several searches in Google Books and Google Scholar have not yielded results in reliable sources for this person. Posting at AfD for community discussion, rather than prodding. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The article has no references and doesn't seem to even claim notability. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 07:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To John Stevens (New Jersey), who seems to be this person's issue and (mildly) historically notable. §FreeRangeFrog 21:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 17 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett Graham[edit]

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

Article is just an ad for his website, notability warn since Apr 2009, no improvement Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 06:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are multiple issues here, such as this article being pretty blatant spam/promotion for the artist as well as the overabundance of pictures. The most important one and the one most pertinent to the AfD is that there seems to have been no in-depth coverage for this guy in any reliable and independent sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 18:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 18:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no evidence that this person meets the guidelines. AllyD (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources, plus it is spam, spam, spam! -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only remotely RS I found was a local news article here, which isn't anywhere near enough. Mabalu (talk) 12:39, 21 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Max & Chloe[edit]

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

Article is just a link to a retail website Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing on Google to show that this web retailer has notability. Mabalu (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They are certainly mentioned in a few splaces. But none of it amounts to significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 19 November 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) 17:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarina Tarantino[edit]

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

Not notable, article is purely a link to her website Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are lots of hits on Google News Archive going back some 10 years for this designer. She has multiple celebrity clients and has had high profile exposure, such as her work being featured on the red carpet at the Oscars, and has designed headdresses for celebrity weddings. The sources are out there. Mabalu (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly she has sold some jewelry to people, but there are no references to establish WP:CREATIVE. Regarding references on google, I can only find links to her own press releases or listings for products. But I'm sure she is a very nice and creative person.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have expanded the article considerably, and added several independent references which had been lacking. She has plenty of coverage in both the English-language and Italian-language press.[11] --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, big improvement, WSJ article is clear support for notability. However I believe the article is overly promotional. My main complaint is her work is often worn by high-profile celebrities in the lede. Even if that was cited, I feel it is inappropriate there. Thanks for your great work!--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I was the one who added that material, and I have no interest in this woman or her company at all - never heard of her in fact. The reason I added those two quotes to the lead paragraph was to "explain why the topic is notable" and "establish the notability of the article's subject in the first few sentences," as per WP:LEDE. But I'm open to moving them elsewhere in the article. In any case, we should probably discuss editing questions at the article talk page, rather than here at the AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I don't know how to interpret this diff, do you? It looks as if the article might have been part of a group AfD nomination, back in June, with the result "keep", but there doesn't seem to be any record of that at the article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, seems to have been saved by a reputable editor. Agree re moving to talk, but at this stage I'm ready to propose closure to Keep as per WP:WITHDRAWN if you want to deemphasize the celeb stuff. Really every jewelry designer article legitimately on WP could propose to add that sentence to their lede. The inevitable next step is that they want to add a long list of names! Reference supporting the statement!--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reference cited names half a dozen celebrities, but I deliberately didn't include any of the names. (WP:NOTINHERIT). If you want to delete that half-sentence about celebrities from the lede, it's OK with me. --MelanieN (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There, I took it out. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note for an administrator per the discussion above and apparent consensus, my AfD is WP:WITHDRAWN please Speedy Keep--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 17:01, 19 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Berkshire Artist[edit]

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

Not only is it not notable, this is just a website link. Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an easy search, as various articles about Berkshire artists are returned, and searches for "Faith Hochberg" return articles about the lawyer/judge, but I'm not finding anything specific to demonstrate this particular artist's notability. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After a quick Google search and various keyword adds/subtractions, I did not find anything to demonstrate notability. Mabalu (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 17 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Deutsch[edit]

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

Sorry, not remotely a notable designer or otherwise. Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No presence on Google News, for Elsa Vergara, Elsa Deutsch, or variations thereof. Only saw retail or promo sites on Google. Mabalu (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional BLP of person who fails to meet WP:CREATIVE. §FreeRangeFrog 22:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 17 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Palo Alto Lane Reduction Projects[edit]

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

This is a minor aspect of Palo alto city policy. I can see a sentence on it in the history of the city. this will have no discussion outside the city itself. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a trivial local issue, referenced only by government documents and a hyper-local weekly paper. If someone feels strongly that this is significant for the city of Palo Alto, a sentence could be added to that article, but there should not be a redirect; this is simply not an encyclopedic topic, and anyone wanting information about it will look in the city article in any case. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there is information about these projects, it all appears to be local in scope. I see no evidence that these projects are notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. A brief mention in the article on the city might be warranted. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. AfD withdrawn; nominator agrees there are sufficient sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltan David[edit]

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

Sorry, just not a notable designer, the only reference is to a press release Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note for an administrator - Based on the comments and actions below, I WP:WITHDRAWN--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources exist to demonstrate notability. Won award in 2009 1 and another in 2005 2. Although this ref is a blog and not really a reliable source, it lists some of the awards he has won - surely more than enough to establish notability 3. He has also patented a inlay technique 4. I'm sure there are plenty more sources out there. Mabalu (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object if you want to add those good references. The current article has none.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, the sources exist. The onus is on the nominee to add these sources in, especially if you think they are valid sources. This is not the article improvement workshop, as I saw someone say on another AFD I was involved with, and while some of your nominations appear to be valid deletes, there are some such as thus where basic Google searches would have thrown up sources to consider. A nomination for deletion should not be treated as a substitute for article improvement. I would suggest checking what sources and info are out there first before nominating for AFD, that is good practice, especially if you are going to nominate a number all at once. ,Mabalu (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and points taken. Although there can be no doubt that my AfDs have resulted in numerous deletes or substantial improvements - many as you suggest, by me after other editors express support!--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plus I was on my phone when I commented above hence the typos (so I couldn't just go in and edit the article there and then). I have no problem with improving articles, although jewellery is outside my area remit so I hesitate to tackle these ones. Anyway, back to focusing on the AFD as this is getting off topic. Mabalu (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article edited/expanded, sources added. Mabalu (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Forero[edit]

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

Sorry, just not a notable designer, no references etc. This article is a marketing placement. Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Agreed that article needed citations. I just went through and added them. Forero appears to be a figure in the Chicago jewelry design scene. There is press on her shows and work in that region. She seems to have had an ongoing business since 2003 - that is nine years in the business. Not much presence in NY based on google so probably not on the radar of someone at FIT :) Jytdog (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep especially after Jytdog's reference sourcing and edits. Is notable enough. Mabalu (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Jytdog, and thx Mabalu. You are a credit to WP. I'll un-AfD --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, reading the AfD procedure again, I'll simply change my opinion to Keep, and hope for an admin to determine --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. You can apparently withdraw your nomination: WP:WITHDRAWN This is one of the "special circumstances" under which an AfD can be closed early: WP:CLOSEAFD. Since there is no fierce debate here I think you can signal that you are withdrawing and close it and remove the tag. I think. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WITHDRAWN seems the proper guide, AfD removed, thanks! --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note for an administrator. As the original nominator for AfD, per the comments and edits above, I tried to end the AfD by removing the template on the article's page under WP:WITHDRAWN, which backfired, because now all the bots think I'm trying to circumvent the process. I'm not an administrator I so cannot close the debate here. --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 15:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Bucci[edit]

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

Sorry, doesn't seem notable to have an article on a minor active designer, using WP as a marketing platform Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some of the sources currently in the article are not good as the links do not work properly, but that is no reason to delete. She has been around since 2005 according to the hits on Google News, and has come to the attention of international fashion magazines such as Vogue over the same period, which demonstrates notability. She has also had her work exhibited at multiple venues. She is clearly a successful jewellery designer and seems to qualify as notable. Yes, the article was probably created to be promotional, but that can be fixed. Mabalu (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you support keeping the article, I have made a pass at cleaning it up, but did not add new references.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some of the sourcing in the article is problematic, but there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. For example, Vogue has multiple reviews of her work: [12], [13]. -- Whpq (talk) 19:36, 19 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jigar No Jung[edit]

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

Unable to find any sources in English or Gujarati indicating this film even exists. Creator of article is single-purpose account with a possible connection to and whose edits only consist of articles related to this filmmaker. Kinu ^t/_c 04:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is upcoming movie so first of all I published it on Wikipedia so there are no any reference on Internet, so what can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggythakor (talk • contribs) 05:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In short: no sources, no article. Wikipedia isn't a place to promote a film. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe this will meet WP:NFILM but for now it's WP:CRYSTAL, especially without references. §FreeRangeFrog 22:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in the media or any movie fora to verify any criteria for notability yet. Arunram (talk) 04:50, 23 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of family offices in Switzerland[edit]

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

Yes, family offices exist and I'm sure there are many in Switzerland. That said, there are no notable family offices in Switzerland. This list in entirely arbitrary. SummerPhD (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list full of red links is a good sign of the topic's non-notability. There are, of course, also hundreds of these, and I don't see what the point of listing them is. Sandstein 15:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A list of all red links. SL93 (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, and as run of the mill positions. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 19 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud Warfare[edit]

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

WP:NEO.neologism that no one appears to be using. Fails WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like WP:NEO to me. I don't see very much use of it at all. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be an attempt to draw publicity to a little-used hashtag. Absolutle WP:NEO. — sparklism ^hey! 08:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Heh, clear WP:NEO, a propos what's happening in Palestine at the moment. §FreeRangeFrog 21:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 November 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 Transformers (film series)#Transformers 4 (2014). MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers 4 (film)[edit]

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

I'm going about this deletion nomination a tad oddly: I feel this page meets the A10 criterion for speedy deletion, but I realize that unilateral speedy deletion is too controversial. (My previous nomination was twice contested, and ultimately challenged and removed in good faith.) Therefore I'm submitting this to AfD with the official opinion that it should be speedily deleted (as AfD discussions can result in speedy deletions). My rationale is as follows: the introduction is just a paraphrase of information already presented at Transformers (film series)#Transformers 4 (2014) (herein "the main article"); the Cast section is a reiteration of information presented in the main article and elsewhere on this page (excluding the presumably false claim that Glenn Morshower's character's name will be "General Morshower); the Production/Development and Casting sections are word-for-word copies of the main article. In other words, though this article may look longer than the section of the main one, it's actually just the same content spread out more (literally, though figuratively too). Unless anyone feels that the relevant section of the main article should actually be moved to this one (which would almost definitely fail a notability test), I see no option other than A10 speedy deletion. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 02:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transformers (film series)#Transformers 4 (2014). Will this film become notable once it starts filming and gets released? Yep- no question about that. But has it actually started filming? Nope- the film is still in the beginning stages and the casting isn't even yet complete. I think that it's just a teensy bit WP:TOOSOON to have an article for this film at this point in time. I have no doubt that this might change in a month or two, but then a lot can happen in a month. I've seen a lot of "guaranteed" movies end up getting completely scrapped or put on indefinite hold within a two month point in time, only to go through an almost complete re-write of the script and be released as something else entirely. The Chipmunks movie "Chipwrecked" is a good example of this, as it was originally supposed to be called "Alvin and the Chipmunks 3D" among other things and the concept was thrown to the side for some reason and released simply as Chipwrecked. My point is that this could very well happen to this film as well, so until we have more coverage for the film and principal filming starts, having an article for the movie (which doesn't even have an official title yet, I notice) is a little premature.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As Tokyogirl79 says, this is highly unlikely to be the final release title (since its predecessors didn't have numbered titles), and it currently fails movie notability guidelines, but it is a likely search term. --Colapeninsula (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tokyogirl79. §FreeRangeFrog 21:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proposition. Since I still feel this meets A10, would anybody consider changing their vote to "speedy redirect"? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 21:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect title but Incubate content. As the article contains more sourced and different information about this planned film than exists in Transformers (film series)#Transformers 4 (2014), and could certianly benefit from expansion through regular editing, this possibly noitable topic does not quite qualify for an A10 deletion... much less a "speedy redirect" as if we do not have other options to discuss. As principle filming is expected to begin in Spring, and it is easily sourcable that Michael Bay is planning the project and that the topic of a 4th Transformer film IS receiving significant coverage (IE: Who has missed that Michael Bay is offering the winner of the Doritos "Crash The Superbowl" contest wins a small role in the film.[14][15][16]) I would expect that before too much longer this one could even merit being a reasonable exception to WP:NFF and this discussion could certainly itself benefit from this AFD running the full 7 days. While Tokyogirl79's suggestion for a redirect is acceptable, another consideration is that while the title could be redirected, this topic could itself be placed in the incubator for a couple months so it could benefit from collaborative editing, expansion, and sourcing as its time draws nigh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Page creator indefblocked as a sockpuppet. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 17:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sad event... even if handled through Quack rather than CU. As this contributor's behavior has been handled, improving the project requires consideration of a topic's growing notability through growing coverage.[17][18]More important now that we consider how to best handle an article on a topic that is itself approaching notability, even if not quite yet ready for mainspace... point being that no matter who brought it to Wikipedia, the topic IS receiving coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - There is no need to incubate. Any material sourced material about the Transformers 4 movie can be expanded in the section of the main article. This allows all editors easy access for collaborative editting. The section with all of its updates then can be spun off to a separate article when the time is ripe. -- Whpq (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NFF, content can be included at Transformers (film series) until notability is met. Not sure whether we need the redirect, as the disambiguation is probably unnecessary, likewise Transformers 4 (2014 film). However, leaving the redirect may deter premature article recreation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion we should keep this page. --Rayukk (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Based on what policies and guidelines? -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 23 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States tornadoes in January 2013[edit]

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

Too soon. Nothing to report yet. Hell, it's not even known yet that January will for sure have tornadoes given how rare they are then. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For one, it doesn't matter if there are no tornadoes in January. If that happens, the list will be extended for several months. And two, although it may be too soon, this page will soon be recreated. So why not keep it? United States Man (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought about it and came up with a proposal. How about me redirecting the page and putting the content in my sandbox until January. Will that suit you? United States Man (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could totally go for it being userified until there's actually something to put in it other than a bunch of placeholder stuff...I actually have the same concern with Tornadoes of 2013. Would you object to userifying them? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the page, and userfy the content (although there isn't much to userfy). United States Man 's suggestion sounds reasonable.--xanchester (t) 05:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Supporting Sandboxing along with the "January" article or just leaving as is. It also needs to be updated to be included in Tornadoes_of_2013 category. If its deleted now, it will only be added again in 6 weeks Dimspace (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two words: global warming. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 19 November 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Shore Living[edit]

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

Local magazine with no evidence of notability. Kinu ^t/_c 01:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've noticed that it's pretty darn hard to prove notability for a magazine because unless they're overwhelmingly prominent ala Time Magazine, not many competing papers or magazines really want to give coverage to their competition. However, the standards for notability still apply and I was unable to find enough in-depth coverage to prove that this local magazine is ultimately notable enough for inclusion. If the parent company had an article I'd suggest a redirect, but as it doesn't exist I'm going to just go with delete.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article basically just consists of an (unencyclopedic) list of places where it is distributed, without any sources. Fails WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage. This is a non-notable local magazine. SL93 (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per 'WP:CSK#5.(non-admin closure) Ryan Vesey 03:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Pillar of Cloud[edit]

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

As a new current event, this topic fails criteria #1 of Wikipedia policy Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Nominating this article for deletion per this policy at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Major issue on all news sites. I propose this afd be closed as per WP:SNOW. Unflavoured (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Hard to assess whether this event will be of significance in the future, but looking for prior similar events, I found March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes, which doesn't appear (from the talk page) to have been through AfD, but was assessed by a member of WikiProject Israel to be a Start class article. (Pointing this out to highlight that the assessing editor did not AfD that article when they assessed the article.) Easier to AfD/merge this a month from now than to delete current info and recreate if it is of significance. At the very least, this should merge with Israel–Gaza conflict instead of being a pure delete.--Policy Reformer (c) 01:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most significant military escalation in the area for years; already undoubtedly notable. Notability likely to grow greater with time. Encyclopedic details can already be conveyed in this article, it's not just a rehashing of news headlines. Of all the AfD's I've seen opened in similar situations, I don't think I've seen one actually close as delete. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The conflict is likely to escalate. It's should definitely be kept for now. If it's over tomorrow, I guess we can merge this to the main Israeli-Gaza conflict article.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major event in the ongoing Israeli-Gaza conflict timeline. Will have major international consequences if it continues to escalates. -- Luke (Talk) 02:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major international event; WP:NOT#NEWS would apply to otherwise non-notable subjects. 99.0.80.70 (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand the desire to delete given the blatantly Israeli POV, but readers just need to understand that there is a disproportionate number of editors on Wikipedia who are pro-Israeli military, so much so that articles like these do not differ much from official Israeli military and U.S. press releases. Mr G (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep summarizing ongoing events is one of the things Wikipedia does best. GabrielF (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:CSK#5: The article is currently linked from the Main Page. If someone else wants to confirm this and close it as such; it doesn't require an admin to do so.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:12, 16 November 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 El Rancho High School. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

El Rancho High School Teen Court Program[edit]

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

Prod contested on the grounds of efforts to show the program's impact on the community. However, the added sources are court documents, and the only notability asserted throughout the article is that of the program's founder Raul Elias. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search indicates that a lot of counties in the United States have teen court programs. The scope of this article is ridiculously small, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--xanchester (t) 05:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete as we would for any such high school group DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly merge/redirect to El Rancho High School. Even if a redirect is not left, I would suggest adding a paragraph about this program to the high school article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I notice that the article was written by an WP:SPA, and that its largest section is a full resumé of the founder. Just saying. --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I will do it if nobody else will do it. Clearly run of the mill, unless a future president was the advisor or it has won some national awards, there are no reasonable claims to notability. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. You all are welcome. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 19 November 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. Notability, editors noted or alluded to a lack of sources which would evidence notability under GNG/BASIC j⚛e decker ^talk 06:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moe Diab[edit]

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

A "writer, poet, peace activist, fashion/fitness model and entrepreneur." No independent, reliable sources are available for anything. Refs in article are social media, own website, a model listing and links to main page of agencies. Prod was contested with "Some of the references and sources for this article are from Moe Diab's personal website. However, Mr. Diab publishes many of his articles and poetry on his website. Diab gained popularity from his website." Bgwhite (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete promotional and based entirely on directories, non-notable blogs, and the subject's website. Mangoe (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources confirm notability. See rules WP:GNG and WP:42. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing there, fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO and everything else. Maybe later if that clothing line takes off on Instagram... §FreeRangeFrog 21:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability claimed in several fields, but there is no WP:RS to support notability. Qworty (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources to indicate any notability, more than likely self-promotion. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:18, 19 November 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. High schools are notable, but their existence needs to be proven. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Balwantrao Yadav High School[edit]

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

Notability, relevance, no links or reference of any value. besieged^talk 23:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles on secondary schools are invariably kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...only if its existence is verified --Anbu121 (talk me) 05:33, 10 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as violating WP:V unless sources are produced to establish existence. An attempt to find a non-English source was unsuccessful. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not spotting anything providing verifiability of existence. Do you suppose the name of the school might be spelled wrong? Carrite (talk) 17:44, 18 November 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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 02:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Mailman[edit]

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

fails WP:AUTHOR -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 17:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google shows mostly self-references and promotion by her publisher, plus some basic local coverage. Not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. §FreeRangeFrog 21:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails general notability guidelines and fails WP:AUTHOR. Holyfield1998 (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, her work has been significantly reviewed, was a finalist for a major award, and was a best book for a major newspaper. Yes, she gets local coverage, but Bay Area local coverage is like New York City or LA local coverage, it matters. she has had publishing contracts with 2 significant publishers. its not a lot, but i believe its more than enough to let the article stand.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Mercurywoodrose. Coverage is beyond "local" it is global. Coverage is more than promotional, they are legitimate independent signed reviews with (some) critical commentary. She has also published many articles in journals, magazines and newspapers not currently listed (mainly as a historian of Oakland). Her debut novel had a six-figure deal which PW considered notable. Overall I think this is enough to keep for now. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [19], [20], [21], [22]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:33, 9 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her works have been covered by the San Francisco Chronicle, the Boston Globe 's Boston.com, the Oakland Tribune, and others listed above. One of her books was nominated for a major award. The subject passes the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 05:22, 16 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sites[edit]

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

Sites is an artist who has done album covers. No independent, reliable refs to be found. I'm only able to find sites that list some of the album covers he has done. Prod was contested for unknown reasons Bgwhite (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: OK, he's no Hugh Syme, but he has done cover art for several notable bands. I'd be interested to see what other works are out there. Faustus37 (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:34, 9 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He may have done album covers, but there is no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 02:46, 17 November 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puppala complex[edit]

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

Article about a commercial building with no references and no indication of notability. Keihatsu ^talk 08:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scarcely even an article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:24, 10 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Building with no indication of importance. No sources at all. Run-of-the-mill commercial complex.--xanchester (t) 05:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mall with no indication of notability. The Interior (Talk) 08:36, 16 November 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. Spinning Spark 21:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Pulizzi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I see mentions and sources, but no substantive independent content suggesting that this individual and/or his business venture is notable per WP:GNG. Note that the article has previously been deleted; while this version is different enough to warrant a discussion, it does not address the causes put for deletion in the past. Kinu ^t/_c 02:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ (vote changed) ~~Notable enough to me, judging from content. Innovator Of the Year and stuff. Are we looking at the same article?~~ Staszek Lem (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. After wasting my time on article trimming and careful investigation, prompted by insistence of Niado, I concluded that all his awards are from marginally notable committees. His "365th fastest growing" because of growth from 100K to 2M in three years is slightly impressive only in terms of %%, but not in $$. One book self-published, another one looks cheap and I see no notice of it. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Created by ABM’s Custom Media Committee (http://www.abmcustommedia.com), the Custom Media Innovator of the Year Award recognizes a custom media individual who has made significant impact on the growth and development of his or her company, organization or industry over the past year. I personally don't see how much notability such a niche award conveys (i.e., it's not one of their Jesse H. Neal Awards, but rather a new award presented by a subcommittee), but I'll leave that open for discussion. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it is not Nobel Prize or something, but it is not a "Campbell School District Freshman of the Year Award" either. Industry niches have reasons to issue their own awards precisely because they compare among their own peers. I understand that some awards serve more for promotion of awarders than awardees, but as you say it was by a solid organization, albeit by a subcommittee thereof. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In desperate need of a rewrite, but not a deletion. Published by McGraw-Hill among other things. The notability is there. Faustus37 (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 9 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Honestly, this article should qualify for WP:SPEEDY as it is a blatant advertisement, created to generate hits for the subject for SEO purposes. The subject might be notable but the article would need to be rewritten from the ground up so that it is not promotional Niado (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide evidence that it is "blatant advertisement". Please cite the passages which you think are advertisement. I will happily delete them from the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article contains the phrase "content marketing" 21 times. This is about 5% of the word content of the article, including the references list. External links seem to all be promotional venues for the subject, including his personal social media pages. References are primarily links to the pages for awards the subject has won, and links to buy his books on Amazon. The prose basically just expounds upon the evidently copious merits of the article subject, and provides biographical information directly from the bio section of his personal website. The creator of the article, User:Cmcphillips is a new user and has created the page in question as well as the content marketing article. I suspect that he as a particular wp:agenda here. Niado (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The %% is probably because it is all what this guy notable for. You cannot forbid personal webpages, as well as his businesses and books. What's wrong with "copious merits"? The article does not "expounds" upon them; it merely lists them, with references. According to wikipedia rules, personal website is a valid source for bio info. If you think that the term "content marketing" a nonnotable neologism (which I doubt), you know what to do. However you seem to be mistaken about who and when created and edited the CM article.Staszek Lem (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are correct, I was mistaken about the CM article, my apologies! I agree that content marketing is not a neologism (otherwise I would've nominated that article itself for deletion based on those grounds). But really, the article is basically a resume for Joe Pulizzi. I do not see how he is possibly notable enough, based on lack of reliable sources. With a quick search, I didn't find anything that would qualify as a WP:IS, and do not expect to. The fact that the subject is a lecturer and has written 1 non-self-published book does not make him notable. I find my own opinion here unfortunate, as I consider myself an inclusionist, but I believe that wikipedia is being abused in this particular case. Niado (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, please take a glance at the discussion from the previous time this article was created (and subsequently deleted). My interpretation of that discussion is that someone working in the same industry (or perhaps more closely) with the subject created an account with the sole purpose of creating a promotional page for him. I believe this is the case with the current iteration of this article as well. Niado (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article certainly has an over familiar and promotional tone to it. This individual does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines, eg; no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Rotten regard Softnow 02:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One book only, in less than 200 worldcat libraries. Not every author even a major publisher publishes is notable -- the publisher presumably hopes they will become notable, but if the book doesn't sell significantly, that's what happens with most books and most authors. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 23 November 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. Spinning Spark 21:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Khoker[edit]

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

Single time reality show winner. No other notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 9 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very less notability. -- I'm Titanium ^chat 12:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus is that there is no reliable evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mandrake (wrestler)[edit]

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

Incomplete AfD submission - reason was given in the article talk page quoted below. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Top profesional wrestler in Ireland" is a personal opinion and does not have any source to back this claim up. The subject of this article does not meet guidelines set out by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. The Irish Whip Wrestling website is the only reference given & only confirms his titles in IWW & nothing more. There are no citations for any of the apparant martial arts accomplishments. Article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.161.6 (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't able to find anything to show he's notable except for the claim by an online columnist saying he's the IWW (Irish Whip Wrestling) Zero Gravity champion (whatever that means) and that "Mandrake is probably the best Irish-born wrestler that you didn't know about five minutes ago." That's not an overwhelming claim of notability. I don't know if that's a reliable source and the article's only source is the IWW website. I'm not a wrestling fan, so perhaps someone can find some reliable sources that show notability. If the article is kept it should probably be renamed to "Garth Kidd" since that's his actual name. Papaursa (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject does not have significant independent coverage that shows he is notable. Mdtemp (talk) 22:39, 13 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent secondary sourcing. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:11, 22 November 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. Spinning Spark 16:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victim (Album)[edit]

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

Unsourced article on a non-notable demo album. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Prod removed by author with no improvement. Tassedethe (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found in reliable sources for this demo; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 17:45, 9 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:06, 16 November 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. sufficient consensus for deletion DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media Logic[edit]

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

Completing nomination for IP editor 99.231.22.54, who posted the below rationale on the article's talk page. On the merits... No recommendation, but do note that the most recent edits to the article were by User:Media Logic Inc., who was blocked shortly thereafter. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing relevant about why this company should be on Wikipedia. An orphan page too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.22.54 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 8 November 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I really don't see much that even asserts notability here. Sources provided (and everything else I've found) is either routine local coverage in the Albany newspaper or promotional/press-release material that isn't independent. There's a slim chance I've missed something due to conflating hits: the Media Logic Group is a different entity, and it doesn't help that "media logic" has some currency as a term of art in marketing literature. But I'm very much not optimistic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:22, 9 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - There is some coverage in Albany biz journal and coverage / references to coverage in 3 or more industry magazines. The coverage all seems to be in passing rather than with any focus or depth. Unless I see something better, I have to say Delete. Celtechm (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having lived in the area my whole life, I have read the occasional article about Media Logic, and when I did a cursory search I only came up with articles showing that the company is a run of the mill PR firm with a focus on social media, and not one that stands out even among Capital Region (New York) firms. Doesn't seem to fulfill notability requirement. I would move to delete. Younvrknow (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)younvrknow[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 redirect. Article no longer exists at this title (has been redirected) — foxj 17:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography of Shivaji[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no references, no content of any value, at best should be merged to parent Shivaji article. besieged^talk 23:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: great, now we're getting IPs dropping in to blank the page and create wrong redirects. The same editor that created this created yet another article, equally poor and uncited, with the same data in table format, and then another editor (more experienced) moved it to Shivaji in popular culture, but it's still just as bad. So this initial article is apparently no longer an issue. The originator of this article, by the way, is about to find himself blocked if he spends another few hours blundering around like a bull in a china shop and wasting other editors' time cleaning up after him. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:18, 12 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguous speedy delete per the A10 criterion; requesting early admin closure per WP:SPEEDYCLOSE. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 02:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Page has been redirected (which I didn't propose only because at the time that I suggest speedy deletion, the page title was a non-plausible search term; it's since been moved). I don't have any problem with a redirect consensus... anybody else? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 19:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really amused by what appears to me to be a deceitful attempt to circumvent the article deletions and review process. I'd have been ok with a merge and/or redirect to the parent Shivaji article, but I'm not sure that redirecting an article that was nominated for deletion to a nearly identical article authored by the same original editor is appropriate, as it would seem to demonstrate that one can get their way here by maneuvering around or circumventing the process. besieged^talk 20:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the article to which it's been redirected is by no means good, it's a more complete, more Wikified article; this means that this article either had to be A10 deleted or redirected. I wasn't trying to circumvent anything. I did some of the original cleanup on Shivaji in popular culture, and when I saw this AfD, I thought I'd save y'all some time by pointing out a speedy deletion criterion. Then it got moved to a better title, which made a redirect appropriate (I didn't even do the redirect, so if you want to accuse me of circumventing the process, you'll have to accuse me of conspiracy too). This AfD should be closed because a redirect was the only acceptable alternative to speedy deletion; if you'd like to nominate Shivaji in popular culture for deletion or merger, I may very well endorse it. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 21:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My sincerest apologies. I clearly misread your statement and didn't have a lot of time to try to check histories: I thought you were implying the original author had done the redirect. Clearly I was wrong, my sincerest apologies and I have no contest with the action you took. besieged^talk 04:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite fine! Better to do the wrong thing for the right reason than to not try to do the right thing at all. Two questions now, though: 1) Should someone just go ahead with a non-admin closure of this AfD, since there's no reason to undo the redirect, and this doesn't meet the criteria for RfD? And 2) Should we nominate Shivaji in popular culture for AfD now, or is it a significant enough improvement on this version that it doesn't meet the criteria? (I'm indifferent.) And if the answer is "yes" to the first and "yes" or "maybe" to the second, then let's pick this discussion up over at Talk:Shivaji in popular culture. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 04:45, 17 November 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. Unanimous and obvious keep, based on arguments and precedence with referenced city articles. (non-admin closure) First Light (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadole[edit]

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

Article has no content, no references (of any relevance or value), does not explain why a small city in India is notable enough to warrant its own page, not enough content to be worth merging. besieged^talk 22:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep True that the article does not have reference. But it is a village with a population of 10,331 (please check under Hatkanangle subdivision in here ) and seems to have a post office. So it is notable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aren't inhabited locations inherently notable? References can surely be found, but the place definitely exists. Google Maps, in any case, recognizes its existence. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 02:18, 12 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Village that exists and is thus notable per WP:NGEO. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:45, 16 November 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 (G12) by User:RHaworth. Gongshow ^Talk 02:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iope[edit]

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

Dwaipayan (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT No evidence of why this item deserves its own article instead of merely being mentioned in the appropriate section of the parent article about the school. besieged^talk 23:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio. Text has been copied from http://www.dbatu.ac.in/# -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 12 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:04, 16 November 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. Although no one actually called for a redirect, it is obviously a plausible search term and could have been added by any editor regardless of the AFD result. Spinning Spark 16:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanaji Jadhav Monument[edit]

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

Notability, relevance, content, references. besieged^talk 23:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 10 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Site given is not a valid WP:Reliable source. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The monument is already referred to in the article of the noted Maratha leader Dhanaji Jadhav from the 17th century. It perhaps doesn't makes sense to have another article just for the monument without adequate content. Recommend that it can be expanded in the original article. Arunram (talk) 13:26, 23 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Vision of Children Foundation[edit]

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

No evidence that this organization meets notability criteria. A few write-ups exist in local (San Diego-area) publications, but not enough third-party coverage to support an article. Most coverage is in the form of press releases, information about fundraisers, one-line mentions about being a funding source in research paper acknowledgement sections, etc.; also, many references provided do not even mention the subject of the article. Created by editor whose username suggests conflict of interest. Proposed deletion contested. Kinu ^t/_c 21:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 10 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real claim of notability -- almost an A7. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 23 November 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 original article is userfied at User:Sitush/List of Jat clans to allow the category to be checked against the list contents. Spinning Spark 18:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jat clans[edit]

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

This article has a peculiar recent history. It spent a long while as an unreferenced article full of names of what were, presumably, Jat clans, but were not cited as such. Editors tightened up on the requirement for citations and random new names were refused unless cited. After a long while an editor made a bodl edit and removed all uncited names from the list. At this point new additions virtually ceased, as the history shows. The few that arrived uncited were rejected.

Enough time has passed since the deletion to make the deduction that the article is a list too far.

What seems apparent is that this article is not required. A valid outcome is to remove it and to merge its content insofar as it is valid and valuable, to Jat people, the stated main article, and set this article as a redirect to that one. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist? It seems that editors who have seen this page have little interest in the article one way or the other, so relisting would be advisable at the expiry of the normal listing period, unless a flurry of activity says differently. A valid assumption could be made because the article is flagged correctly at its head that no editors are interested in its retention. The article history shows supreme apathy after the large excision of material. To me it looks as if relisting in order to do our best to build a consensus one way or the other is the most useful approach for Wikipedia. Your mileage may vary, of course. I'd consider relisiting it myself, but I have no idea how to handle the obviously simple formalities. But, since it's a procedural matter, someone versed in procedure might be the better choice. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:59, 15 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily meets the criteria for a notable list. There are sources correctly listed at the end of the article with clear indication that the items were derived from them, and the list contains a large number of bluelinked Jat clan names - I have checked several of them and all appear to be genuine Jat clan articles. I do not wish to comment on the article's history in any detail as it is not relevant here, but I do not agree with nom's deduction that some unjustified content deletions, time passing and few available editors add up to reason for deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more reliable published sources to the list, and have created some dozens of individual name references. Anyone with the energy to scan through Rose will find many more, though the spellings vary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete - H. A. Rose is not a reliable source, nor is Ram Swarup Joon (an article about whom was deleted earlier this year). There are also doubts concerning Thakur Deshraj. I could go on and, yes, I do accept the issues relating to systemic bias, but the article history is directly relevant here. This is one of many absolutely appalling lists in the Indic caste sphere. - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've just stripped most of the sources out of the thing. For example, Tyagi's Martial Races is a known mirror of our content; Rose's work was based on the extremely inaccurate scientific racism methods used for British Raj 19th century censuses; both Dahiya and Joon are fringe theorists, etc. The fact that the article has a lot of blue links is itself of little significance because most of those links are generic across numerous castes/communities - it's like saying "Smith is an English name, but it is also found in the US, Canada, Australia". I am changing to delete - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article in this state after the excision f the many links now has references, but these are only for the opening paragraph, a paragraph which is, in various forms, part of the many other articles dealing with Jats. The article now contains (again) a welter of buelinks, but these are not stated with any verification to be Jats. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see how this would not be more useful as a category, which by the way, is not my usual stance. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and that is not my usual opinion either. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to close this if one of you indicates you are willing to do the necessary work to create and populate the suggested category. Otherwise a relist may be more appropriate. Spinning Spark 15:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide me with a copy of the article then I'll do it in batches over the next few days. I probably know more about the subject matter than do the others here anyway. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, see Category:Jat clans. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]