< 2 November	4 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 as G5. It's probably unlikely there would be additional details about the crash. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1943 BOAC Lockheed Lodestar crash[edit]

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

Notability - originated from a banned user sockpuppet - wartime crashes are ten a penny , this accidents only claim to fame is the Norwegian crew Petebutt (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was a military combat flight and not a civilian courier flight to neutral Sweden?--Oakshade (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G5 - denial of speedy because "others have edited it" ignored fact that others' edits were very minor. WP:DENY the community banned sockpuppeteer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per The Bushranger...William 12:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DENY and because it doesn't meet the WP:GNG. This sockpuppeteer chooses very obscure crashes to write about, presumably in a bid to escape attention from the community; the status of the flight has no relevance and does not confer notability, this event has no widespread significant coverage, only a database entry. IMO a G5 Speedy would have been appropriate, as the edits by others were not significant. YSSYguy (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The one and only source for the article, ASN, doesn't name the plane, say icing was the cause of the crash, name the airplane, etc etc....William 02:45, 5 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. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss & Tell (1996 film)[edit]

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

Part of a spamming campaign for non-notable and unreleased or flop films by the obscure Jordan Alan. Orange Mike | Talk 23:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What Orange Mike says is true of other Jordan Alan films, which I've marked for deletion in a couple of cases myself. And, yes, Alan is unquestionably creating spam articles and has generally been using Wikipedia for his own promotional ends. This particular film, though, does seem to have been released, was taken seriously by the Los Angeles Times, and does contain a cast of recognized, notable actors. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - like albums, this film, in order to have a separate article all its own, must have notability all its own. One review in one paper ain't it; neither is Alan's own (marginal) notability, per WP:NOTINHERITED. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep: I personally warned the author for conflict of interest, but this film is undoubtly notable. It received significant coverage and multiple reviews by reliable, notable and independent sources. Cavarrone (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per this one meeting WP:NF and WP:GNG. Problems with actions of individual editors or groups are dealt with means other than deleting otherwise notable content. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:35, 4 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. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gentleman B.[edit]

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

Part of a spamming campaign for non-notable and unreleased or flop films by the obscure Jordan Alan. Orange Mike | Talk 23:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Los Angeles Times, Variety and AllMovie are all reliable sources, and sources of high profile. The RottenTomatoes page shows the film was also reviewed by Emanuel Levy, The Hollywood Reporter (David Hunter) and New Times (Luke Y. Thompson). It sounds clearly notable to me. Cavarrone (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this one meeting WP:NF and WP:GNG. Problems with actions of individual editors or groups are dealt with means other than deleting otherwise notable content. What is discernible as notable is kept and concerns with content or sourcing is addressed through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep, enough evidence to be notable. --Shorthate (talk) 21:53, 10 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. The article's "Reception" section provides three reviews from reliable sources which should be sufficient. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 21:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal Bliss[edit]

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

Non-notable flop film. Orange Mike | Talk 23:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This movie is notbale as it has reviews from mainstream sources to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I'd mentioned at the deletion discussion for Kiss & Tell, Orange Mike has rightly noted Jordan Alan has created spam articles and has generally been using Wikipedia for his own promotional ends. I've marked a couple of his in-development projects for deletion myself. This particular film, though, does seem to have been released, was reviewed by mainstream sources and does star a recognized, notable actor. I don't think it being a flop really enters into it — lots of movies flop. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per Tenebrae: yes, the director himself has edited an article about one of his films, but the film is indeed notable, and he basically just added the plot and a few technical data to the infobox. The film is indeed notable, and I don't understand why nominating for deletion an article that, at the time of the nomination, already listed four reliable sources in support of its notability (and more are available and easily foundable). Cavarrone (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As already mentioned, a film being a flop doesn't make it not notable, nor does someone with a COI editing an article.--Michig (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep per Tenebrae. Garion96 (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per this one meeting WP:NF and WP:GNG. Problems with actions of individual editors or groups are dealt with means other than deleting otherwise notable content. What is discernible as notable is kept and concerns with content or sourcing is addressed through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:40, 4 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 copying makes it very clear that this is a hoax. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Central Committee of the United Russia[edit]

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

Non-existent organization. Óðinn (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article appears to have been based on and copied from, in part, the article Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This, and the below General Secretary article is a pretty clear hoax, inserted by User talk:Августу. I can find no evidence there has ever been a General Secretary or Central Committee or Politburo of United Russia. It might be speediable as G3 - anyone? Morwen - Talk 23:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed references to this hoax from everywhere else - Vladimir Putin and Template:United Russia Leaders. This was not our finest hour. Morwen - Talk 23:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 4 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. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Secretary of the United Russia[edit]

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

Non-existent office. Óðinn (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we consolidate this AFD with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Committee of the United Russia? It seems pointless to have both discussions. Anyway, this is a pretty clear hoax, so delete. Morwen - Talk 23:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article provides no references, which is a huge minus in establishing notability. I did a Google search and found a few short mentions of Mr. Putin being the General Secretary of the political party United Russia. However, I found nothing else. If someone can locate relevant material on this subject, it should be placed into the article and referenced. Otherwise, I cannot see anyone wanting to keep this article. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:17, 4 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 June 2011 Peshawar bombing. Meeting WP:GNG is not itself a guarantee that something should have an article; enough clarity in discussion to delete; I'm going to leave behind a redirect to the bombing article Qwyrxian (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shafiullah Khan[edit]

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

Merged this article and Asfandyar Abid Naveed with June 2011 Peshawar bombings. A separate bio on each journalist lacks notability and shifts the focus away from the suicide bombing incident. Crtew (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 30 October 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, ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 22:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seem to pass WP:GNG. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the above editor, has !voted almost the same argument in the last 8 AfDs. no evidence of actually reading the article. just a WP:VAGUEWAVE. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article does not meet WP:GNG when it hinges on 2 sources. WP:BLP1E applies here which overrides WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 7 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:Mr. Stradivarius under criterion G5 (creation of a blocked user in violation of their block). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey M Marchetti[edit]

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

Contested CSD with the comment "working on the Sopranos is a reasonable claim to significance" Like most of the articles created by Big Paul99 (talk · contribs), this one is of questionable notability and fails WP:NACTOR. The user account is also under investigation for being a suspected sockpuppet of an account that created essentially the same set of minor Sopranos actor stubs, which were mass-deleted at some point. Regardless of the user's identity or intentions, I feel this does not meet basic notability criteria for actors. §FreeRangeFrog 22:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 4 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Amanda Todd[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a procedural nomination following the request from an IP user on the article's talk page, reproduced verbatim below (including date and timestamped signature). As nominator please do not accept my nomination as agreeing with the motion. I will express my own opinion below.

BEGINS "What's the point of this article? She's not only victim of cyber-bullying nor only girl who killed herself. She wasn't even famous, just regular teenager. So, every teenager who suicided deserves an article here? I have razor on my desk, I can cut my throat for decent article.

I wanted to nominate this article for AFD, but article's semi protected, so can anybody do this for me?

And for all of you, please, consider if Amanda, her suicide, stupidity and weakness deserve an article on Wikipedia, encyclopaedia.

Sincerely, 83.28.130.30 (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)" ENDS[reply]

Procedurally nominated by Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC) on behalf of the IP editor.[reply]

Strong Keep as properly sourced, notable and verifiable article. I'm very much hoping the outcome will be a snowball speedy keep. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - If anything, rename to 'reaction to the suicide of Amanda Todd' or something. Royal Mate1 22:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Enduring in that it resulted in a parliamentary motion and an ongoing federal police investigation, the outcomes of which have yet to be determined. Also, a black mark on Anonymous, showing the hazards of false doxing. It is also notable as the first, large scale incident of its kind in Canada, and likely one of the first to be publicized on a massive, global scale, as evidenced by the fact that it this article got far more page views than Death of Osama bin Laden and double that of Hurricane Sandy. (Todd, Laden, Sandy) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep per the simple fact that the first AFD reached no consensus and was closed with the intent that the notability of the article would be re-evaluated in a month or so not a mere 16 days later. ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 22:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep This never should have even been out forward at this time. Nothing had changed since the first nomination and the IPs reasoning for it should have been dismissed for presenting nothing new. Let alone its offensive tone. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, nothing mind-blowing has been presented/occurred since the first nomination — is there a procedural close for this? Almost like a WP:TOOSOON, just for AfDs? —Theo polisme 23:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Anna Frosediak. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Per WP:ONEEVENT. It was heavily covered in the news for two weeks or so but that does not justify the creation of an article. The reaction on Twitter and Facebook also does not justify this. Todd is not the first teenager to commit suicide as the result of cyberbullying. The notability hasn't endured for very long, it's not a hot topic anymore. This suicide is not more significant than any other suicide. We shouldn't create an article for every suicide. teammathi (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above assertion that the notability hadn't endured is so far simply incorrect. A google search shows newspapers articles referencing the suicide within the last 24 hours. Also Canadian provincial and federal government are currently debating ways of dealing with cyber bullying primarily due to the Todd case. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Why are we going through this again... It's a notable event. --Rockstonetalk to me! 04:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the closure was reverted after this diff with the authority of the original closer . The full rationale is discussed at length here Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the "authority of the original closer"? Where on earth do you see that? I have no authority over your actions on Wikipedia--the reopening of this AfD was entirely on your own accord, and I have no responsibility —authority — for it. —Theo polisme 22:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You stated "You're more than welcome to reopen it. I, however, shall not, for reasons stated above. (see also)" in this diff. I see your words as abundantly clear. Please feel free to ask for administrative views on this. We can use the word 'consent' if you prefer. The sense remains the same. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The arguments in the nomination are weak, largely a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but to the extent that they include the idea that there is insufficient sourcing, or insufficient enduring interest within reliable sources, I don't think that the page really supports that characterization. In the discussion above, WP:ONEEVENT is also cited, but it does not really apply here because that's a part of WP:BIO, whereas the page is about the event of the suicide, not about the person. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep While it clear that the nominator simply doesn't like the article, the fact remains that Todd's suicide received significant coverage across multiple news sources, sufficent to pass the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 01:04, November 6, 2012 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep Per above agreeing consensus, the article and the event also is very notable. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 11:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep I think it's a bit too soon to renominate this article for deletion. Wait a bit longer (maybe the full month that the closure of the first AfD recommended) and try again. Legoktm (talk) 13:31, 6 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—Kww(talk) 21:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hegarty (Northern Irish footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 was contested on the grounds that he has played for Rangers. However, as Rangers currently don't play in a fully pro league and he has still not received significant coverage, the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per GiantSnowman $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 13:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing has changed in the past two months: article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:26, 7 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. Note that WP:SOFTDELETE applies in this case. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Worship[edit]

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

Compilation album that does not seem to meet basic requirements for notability. Found anything significant in my searches. Cavarrone (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 4 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. Note that WP:SOFTDELETE applies here. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Estelita Bell[edit]

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

No assertion of notability and actress produces no substantial secondary sources upon research. Has never won any awards of any kind that I could find and has not played in any significant movies (secondary voice acting parts in several Disney films) ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:15, 3 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 by Mr. Stradivarius (non-admin close). Stalwart111 (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Albanese[edit]

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

Contested CSD. Actor whose assertion to notability are minor movie and TV roles, an interview in FilmArmada.com and a "Best Staten Island Short" award. §FreeRangeFrog 20:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, many of these pages were at one time mass deleted; Big Paul99 (talk · contribs) is a suspected sockpuppet of a banned account.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 4 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 Heart of the Matter (TV series). Sandstein 09:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Heart of the Matter: God Under the Microscope[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject of a previous AFD and (contested) PROD. After all this time, remains a 4 sentence (at a pinch) ultra-stub, completely failing to even make an attempt at explaining why it might be notable. Mais oui! (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per zero notability. --GSK ● talk ● contribs 20:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Heart of the Matter (TV series) of which this was one debate. Warden (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Heart of the Matter (TV series) -- there's very little unique information in the individual episode article, and no apparent reason to keep the individual episode separate. --Lquilter (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Worthy of a mention at Heart of the Matter (TV series). Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:38, 6 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. Sandstein 10:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hunter (novelist)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Novelist whose assertion to notability is the association with a magazine that existed for three years. The rest of the references are self-published serial novels. Can't find anything else on Google, though the search is cluttered due to similarly-named people. I think this deserves a redirect to the magazine article at best. §FreeRangeFrog 19:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to Noggin Magazine, "The magazine and its founder, Tom Hunter, appeared in three profile articles in the Daily Iowan, the Cedar Rapids Gazette and the Iowa City Press-Citizen." I left a request for sources here[1]. His position as founder and editor of Noggin may be notable if the three profile articles can be found. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only able to verify the existence of one source. I have a copy if anyone wants to verify (thanks Churn and change):

Ann Scholl Boyer. "Tom Hunter Creates Noggin in a Bubble", Cedar Rapids Gazette, March 25, 1992.

The creator of the wiki article says there are more sources but has not provided citations and searches have come up empty of anything in-depth coverage. The Gazette source is in-depth, but not sure a single source is going to be enough. Maybe more sources will show up. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I see a slew of newspaper articles by the subject, but nothing about him. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Looks like a promotional entry designed to build up a non-notable writer. We should also look into deleting the article about his non-notable, defunct magazine. I still have no idea why people write promotional articles for defunct entities that weren't notable to begin with. Qworty (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barring the presentation of sources about the subject rather than by him (as indicated above), I see no evidence that this author meets WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. No prejudice to a separate deletion discussion about the magazine itself. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:32, 9 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. Spinning Spark 11:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Bin Nasser[edit]

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

"Famous" for just one event. damiens.rf 15:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A football player who played a single game in the World Cup would generally be considered to meet the WP:ATHLETE inclusion standards. Does the same apply to a referee who officiates a single game in the World Cup? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, see WP:NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. TV | talk 18:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup)#"Hand of God" goal. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTY, as he has officiated in the FIFA World Cup. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Please don't forget that GNG trumps NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it seems to me that the football-projects is the only projects that got this interpretation of WP:NSPORT. Besides, what's the point of even having referees included in a notability guideline if we are going to delete the article about the referee that officiated the most memorable match in the FIFA World Cup. This is only guessing, but I believe that this referee got a lot of media attention in 1986, even though it's impossible to find online sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This interpretation of WP:NSPORT is only used by the football project for certain articles. I have never seen that project's regulars pile on to support deletion of a British footballer or official, or one from a major European footballing nation, who meets WP:NFOOTBALL, but such behaviour is the norm when it comes to non-Europeans. At best this could be described as systemic bias, but some might consider it racism. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a participant in the World Cup. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets NSPORTS and meets GNG (even with only online sources – check the news and books links above). The fact that the majority of this coverage is due to one decision he made is irrelevant. Jenks24 (talk) 07:01, 3 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, MBisanz ^talk 19:45, 3 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. Sandstein 10:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Down[edit]

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

Deprodded with an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale which we all know isn't valid. This has been nothing but miles and miles of unsourced fancruft, and I see no valid sources forthcoming. Rather than mass-AFD the episodes, I felt it best to try just one first. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the whole I'm inclined to agree with you that the majority of these episodes probably don't meet the notability guidelines. I removed the prod as I felt that afd is a more apt venue for articles of this nature. Though having said that, I really, really, really don't care if this article is deleted or kept. Rotten regard Softnow 20:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, the article is badly sourced. Seems to be a standard, as a lot of them have only two: Imdb.com and TV.com (broken). But a quick search on google with Angel+"Deep Down" gives more than 5 mio. hits. I've watched the show, but I have never attributed to a single episode article. If you want to get rid off them (maybe I would !vote for you), don't start with one of the geeks favorites, i.e. Buffy, Angel, Lost, TBBT or Dr. Who. Their fans have a high affinity to the net, means millions of sources for every single quote in it. It's like writing Star Trek is not notable in the Guideline, try it ... --Ben Ben (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOSE and WP:OSE? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dismounting my high horse of indifference to actually venture an opinion. This article clearly doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. I could find no indication that this episode has been significantly covered in reliable secondary sources. The content would be better suited to imdb or a fan Wiki. Articles already exist that cover each season of this series, I think it highly likely that all (bar a very few) individual episodes would fail to meet the notability guidelines. Rotten regard Softnow 20:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not notable TV episode. --Shorthate (talk) 21:51, 10 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. Sandstein 10:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kyocera KX5[edit]

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

WP:PRODUCT suggests being bold and merging product articles into the company's site. After merging this to Kyocera, I was reverted and asked to take it to AfD. This product does not seem notable on its own.

I would also like to propose Kyocera Slider into Kyocera as well. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not notable product. --Shorthate (talk) 21:48, 10 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:Jimfbleak under criterion G11. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toontown : The Movie[edit]

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

delete, wp:crystal and no references online to prove it. Was nota hoax ot the point of vandalism so I didn't speedy Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:05, 3 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. Possibly also rename to List of computer algebra systems, but it's not clear whether we have consensus for this here. Sandstein 09:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of computer algebra systems[edit]

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

This article has multiple issues:

It is pure WP:OR: Although there are published papers that compare some computer algebra systems, none is cited and the content of the article is not based of existing sources.
Several of the cited softwares have nothing to do with computer algebra. "Computer algebra" implies the ability of doing some algebra on a computer. This excludes formula editors and software making only numerical floating point computation.
Several of the cited software are experimental software, that have not been published nor cited in scientific publications, and therefore do not satisfy the General notability guideline.
The article does makes any hierarchy between the systems, presenting at the same level widely used systems and confidential software (fringe software). Therefore the article does not satisfy the policy WP:NPOV.

It is not possible to rewrite this article for satisfying WP policies because of the lack of convenient sources. The only possibility that I see is to replace this article by sections in computer algebra systems, presenting the main computer algebra systems (with ((main)) template), explaining why there are important and summarizing their main abilities.. D.Lazard (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep -- I was surprised to see this article up for deletion, as I found it a useful CAS survey for an academic project two months ago. Regarding the issues raised,

The main content of that article is a set of tables summarizing CAS software package properties and capabilities. If summarizing other sources is original research, then all of Wikipedia is original research. It's true that there are likely no primary sources comparing this particular set of computer algebra systems, but simply listing software properties is not original research.
I have at least passing familiarity with about 60% of the programs mentioned, and all of them I know of have some computer algebra capability associated with them, as seen in the Functionality table. If some entries (please be specific) do not belong, that argues for the removal of those entries, not deletion of the whole article.
It's true that some of CAS entries do not have links to original sources, and may or may not have citations available for them. Again, I cannot tell because specific examples were not mentioned. Links should be added, or perhaps these entries should be removed if they have insufficient citations/notability. But again, this does not argue for removal of the whole article.
Lack of hierarchy is a good property of this article--it indicates a neutral point of view.

No, neutral point of view implies due weight D.Lazard (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. I agree, a hierarchy, if justified, is consistent with a neutral point of view.Mark viking (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to merging this article with computer algebra systems, but only including a subset that are deemed important is a violation of a neutral point of view. As long as the CAS systems pass a notability threshold, they should be included/retained.
I'll note every Wikipedia page of comparison of software system, e.g., Comparison of numerical analysis software, has the same lack of original article/citations giving comparisons of the exact set of systems in the tables. The article under discussion is no worse in this regard than other pages.

Mark viking

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If as the nominator suggests "there are published papers that compare some computer algebra systems" then the topic is probably notable and the remedy would be to (re)write the article in accordance with the reliable sources. Deltahedron (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the published comparisons are old (more than 10 years ago) and obsolete. The field is now sufficiently large and active that, apparently, nobody is able to make a general comparison of all the existing systems. Moreover, comparing general systems like Maple and Mathematica with systems specialized in some specific area like, for example GP/Pari (Number theory) and GAP (group theory) makes no sense. Therefore, the recent comparisons consist essentially in what I have sketched for expanding computer algebra system. D.Lazard (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep -- There is clearly interest in this kind of information as people keep trying to insert it into the individual systems pages. Better to collect it in one place. I would be happy to advise on some of the issues that affect the page, but have felt powerless to do so due to significant COI status. JonMcLoone (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rename to List of computer algebra systems. I think the OR problem is if this is though of as a comparison, trying to evaluate the pros and cons of the systems. As a simple list it has encyclopedic value showing the range of specific tasks under taken by CAS systems, the fringe systems are important here as mathematical problems often require dedicated systems, such a calculating Gröbner bases, which are beyond the remit of a general purpose system are are often where the real theoretical developments take place. It also illustrates the history of development starting with Reduce in the 1960's to modern web-based systems like Wolfram Alpha. --Salix (talk): 04:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of computer algebra systems. I agree with Salix. I think the directions to readers to use the information to "compare" caused writers to believe they need to provide comparison information, leading to OR problems. Articles should merely present information, not give instructions to the reader on what to take away from their reading of the material. Change the name to "List of computer algebra systems," give it a few months to improve, and revisit AfD if still needed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk)
Rename to List of computer algebra systems seems the best answer. The subject is notable enough for a list at least Deltahedron (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could be better referenced but the subject is notable and references for most software listed are probably easy to find. I would also keep the name "comparison", since it's what it is. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:34, 11 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 10:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of International Lease Finance Corporation customers[edit]

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

Unsourced list that also fails notability. Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nominator.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list of customers of a leasing firm is not really encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic, any more than such a list would be in the article on the leasing firm. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with DGG & MilborneOne this doesn't really seem to belong in an encyclopedia. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:47, 9 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. There seems to be consensus that what (relatively little) content there is specifically about this aircraft is better suited for inclusion in the parent article. Sandstein 09:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ruptured Duck (B-25)[edit]

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

Non-notable aircraft. one of sixteen in the Doolittle Raid, none of the others have an article. Most of the article makes very little mention of the actual aircraft and gives no indication of individual notability. Sections of the article repeat information from pilot's Ted W. Lawson article and the Doolittle Raid. Notability is not inherited from either the pilot or the raid. The Doolittle Raid article already says as much as needed on the Ruptured Duck. MilborneOne (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In what possible way is the encyclopedia improved by deleting articles like this?

A rationale of "Not notable, because other potentially related articles don't exist" is nonsense (and an experienced editor should know better).

As to basic notability, this is a 70 year old aircraft that's still recognisable by its name. Does the nominator really claim that it doesn't meet WP:GNG? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment) I cant see any evidence that the actual aircraft is any more notable than the others in the raid that requires it to have a stand-alone article. If I felt it met the GNG I would not have raised the AfD! Nothing in this article that cant be (or already is) in the Doolittle or Lawson article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a vast number of articles that are "not required" - pretty much anything that's not on the "vital articles" list. However not having a requirement to do something is a long way from being compelled to, or it even being a good idea to, delete something that does now exist.

"Being required" is an irrelevance here. The only question is, "Is it permitted?" Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not sufficiently individually notable in terms of the GNG, any more than thousands of other named aircraft during the Second World War. Indicative of our overwhelming U.S. WP:Systemic Bias. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual aircraft have a very high notability threshold. This, one of sixteen in a raid, however notable that raid, doesn't meet it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while notability is not inherited, that does not mean that the "child" subject is automatically not notable. Yes, this is one of 16 aircraft involved in the Doolittle raid and the other 15 do not have articles; however, the other 15 didn't have a book written or multiple films made in which they were a central "character" (for lack of a better term). I think there is enough here to meet the individual aircraft notability threshold.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - google books does not throw up any independent reliable works of which the aircraft is the subject in the first 100 or so entries. Which suggests a failure to meet GNG. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the requirement for the aircraft to be the subject of a work for it to meet notability? The requirement per WP:N is 'significant coverage'. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I'm seeing is toy models and forum discussions. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The why did a reputable museum, in possession of a perfectly significant B-25 with its own history, chose instead to display the aircraft under a "false flag" (something that's hugely controversial in museum circles) as this particular aircraft? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the sources appears to provide in-depth coverage of this aircraft (I know for a fact that The Doolittle Raid 1942: America's First Strike Back at Japan doesn't). Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since I originated the article, I wish to provide some background. As it was derived from the host articles on Ted Lawson and the Doolittle Raid, the notability that was seen was that it was the aircraft that featured most closely to the account in Lawson's book, as well as the accompanying film, Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo. The recently opened Pacific Aviation Museum Pearl Harbor on Ford Island, Oahu, Hawaii also features a 1942 exhibit in which the centerpiece is a restored B-25 in the markings of "The Ruptured Duck", the most prominent aircraft used on the Doolittle Raid. The recent cursory google search of the aircraft, "The Ruptured Duck" identifies five separate reference sources that include an account of the aircraft, a link to the B-25 featured in the wartime film, nose artwork and models based on the aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment I know how much you love all things aviation-related, but none of these constitute anything remotely close to reliable sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BillZ, you made the statement "a restored B-25 in the markings of "The Ruptured Duck", the most prominent aircraft used on the Doolittle Raid." Is this actually something that the museum has stated? If so, and if it's been reported in a reliable source somewhere, then that would assert notability, and probably satisfy GNG. The article itself also makes a similar unattributed statment, which also needs to be supported. - BilCat (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to give an article/articles where this should be redirected, and a rationale as to why which gives releveant guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only thing I need to do is stay black and die. I'm not in the habit of playing connect the dots very often, especially when it's blatantly clear on the discussion about the airplane and the Doolittle raid. Currently the overall sentiment on the Doolittle raid and participants is redirect to that article, nothing about the airplane is all that notable, I realize you may in good faith trying to meet a end for the encyclopedia but if I wanted to be detailed I would have written more. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm going back to my coughin'. - BilCat (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides being Lawson's aircraft that is prominently described in both his book and the film adaptation, the "The Ruptured Duck" was chosen to commemorate the Doolittle Raid at the Pacific Aviation Museum, and appears as the example for artwork, models (both in scale and in electronic versions). "The Ruptured Duck" also appears as the subject of a stamp issued to commemorate the Doolittle Raid. A macabre connection is that Doolittle Raider David Thatcher is one of the last survivors and in recounting his story aboard aircraft #7, "The Ruptured Duck", he essentially links the story of the aircraft and its role in the raid to his personal recollections. Finally, the choice of the "ruptured duck" symbol for the aircraft nose art was important as it represents a highly esteemed U.S. military award, officially the National Defense Lapel Button issued to personnel honorably discharged from service. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Weak Delete - Per nom. No reliable sources cited to give indication of notability, merely primary sources, models and pins, which of themselves don't provide notabilty as required by WP:N. The article itself is more about the raid and the crew, which can be, and probably are,covered elsewhere. The article does claim notability for the subject, so if the citing issues are addressed on time, I would support it being kept. - BilCat (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting suggestion that the markings/scheme of The Ruptured Duck was specifically chosen at the Pacific Aviation Museum, led to a contact with the curator and staff at the museum. The curator indicated that the aircraft itself was to be a representative aircraft, essentially a display piece that would dramatize the Doolittle Raid. In choosing the colors and markings, the choice was to portray in his words, the most prominent or "best known" of the B-25s in the raid. When asking for a direct quote, the curator indicated that he would respond via email. The very colorful markings were recreated by an actual wartime illustrator who was brought into the museum; the nose art is now further recreated by other artists, again choosing this scheme over all others in the Doolittle Raid. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

That's original research, and we can't cite that in the article. However, if it were to be published in a reliable source such as a book or newspaper article from a reliable publisher, it would be usable then, Know any authors? ;) - BilCat (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The topic meets WP:GNG, but the article focuses on everything but The Ruptured Duck. For example, "Doolittle chose the relatively new B-25B." - that focuses on Doolittle. A sentence "The Ruptured Duck was chosen by Doolittle" focuses on the main topic, namely, The Ruptured Duck. The section on Preparations for the Doolittle Raid should only focus on how The Ruptured Duck was prepared for the Doolittle Raid. The Origins of the name section focuses too much on Lawson and not on the plane. The Doolittle Raid section should be limited to The Ruptured Duck's role in that raid. The Crew of The Ruptured Duck should focus on the plane as well. Instead of "Ted W. Lawson was the pilot.", it should be "The Ruptured Duck was piloted by Ted W. Lawson." Ted W. Lawson's birth date of 7 March 1917 listed in the article has no relevance to the plane. There appears to be no effort in the development of the article to focus on the plane. This has lead to using source material for its content on everything but The Ruptured Duck. I iVoted weak keep because the topic does meet WP:GNG but deleting the article and starting from scratch to focus on the plane is a viable option. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, article isn't about the aircraft. --Shorthate (talk) 21:46, 10 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 01:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Windows 8 devices[edit]

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

This list is loosely associated by its use of a certain version of a certain operating system; its scope is way too wide to be useful. As just about any company could release a computer or mobile device shipped with Windows 8, this is essentially a directory of just about every new Windows computer released after October 26th, 2012, which is way too general to be encyclopedic. We do not do the same for Windows 7 for the same reason. A category for notable Windows 8 devices would be a better option.

Now, a list of Windows RT devices can be more manageable because of its special scope and the fact that Microsoft is only allowing certain OEMs to actually make devices for it (and having a list of RT devices is more encyclopedicly useful because of the confusion we've seen surrounding it). ViperSnake151 Talk 15:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks like few of these devices have articles? I'm also not finding any similar lists for prior versions of Windows. It does seem to be too indiscriminate; any arguments to the contrary? postdlf (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete Windows 8 is a mass OS. It will be available on a vast range and number of devices. Any tiny list like this is inevitably some hugely editorial subset selection. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Nothing more to add, Andy hit the nail on the head. --JetBlast (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Guys, do you think its a good idea if this article is changed only for Windows RT tablet (which is comparatively manageable)? --Pak1standby (talk) 12:38, 9 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. I think that G4 actually did apply, BTW—Kww(talk) 22:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Crawford (footballer)[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted per AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robbie Crawford), but the G4 was declined with the rationale "page is not identical". The article is about a footballer that fails WP:NFOOTBALL. The references in the article is just match-reports and a player-profile in addition to one news-story after he signed a new contract. But it's not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so the article fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He still has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:46, 5 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parasmani Dangal[edit]

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

Reason Not a notable person's biography created and edited by himself Bhawani (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless more is found, the question of the subject's notability probably hinges on the award noted in the article. I've sourced this and added a reference which clarifies that it is for "upcoming young journalists" in Sikkim. AllyD (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 20 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:50, 27 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found one result here where he is congratulated for the award and this announcement supporting the Press Club of Sikkim position. While continuing my search, I found a blog that referred to him as "Parasmani Dungal" and I found another link with "Para Smani Dungal" so it's possible there are several variants of his name (not surprising, considering this is very common with Indian and Middle Eastern names). I would be satisfied if the article listed any of his most known stories or anything else significant pertaining to his career. I attempted to search for evidence supporting his two books but found none. As with all foreigners, it is certainly possible that sources may not be English or Internet-based. Curious to see if the award was notable itself, I searched with Google News and found one result but a main Google search provided several results, mostly blogs, suggesting this award is widely given to journalists, which the journalists probably aren't all notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the question here is whether or not the subject meets notability based on this recognition, which aside from self-references seems to be the person's only claim to fame. I don't think that's enough. §FreeRangeFrog 21:54, 3 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 deletion per WP:G4. The same article was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reginleif Trubetsky. This page has been restored to the original redirect. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reginleif[edit]

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

I don't think Reginleif Trubetsky passes WP:BIO - the sources in the article are not reliable as defined by WP:RS, and I couldn't find any other sources online. Trubetsky was a member of this notable band, but as a redirect I think Valkyrie would be more appropriate, because that is where the name comes from in the first place. I don't think this page should be deleted outright, but I am sending it to AfD because my redirection has been contested. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be at Reginleif Trubetsky. It was created by hijacking the Reginleif article, with this edit on 30 September]. There is a pre-existing disagreement over whether the article should redirect to Valkyrie or to a list of game characters; it was created to be about the game character. Clearly if this gets kept there needs to be a disambiguation page. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:04, 30 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:33, 3 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natural breast enhancement[edit]

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

As the article states, there is something professed here. This is fringe science along the lines of Extenze and all that, but without the coverage. FWIW, there is of course a natural breast augmentation: pregnancy. BTW, there's inherent POV in the title ("enhancement")--not everyone agrees that bigger is better. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Inherently fringe-y and completely unsupported (hah!) by any evidence. Ironholds (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete:~~ See below. Unsourced and unsourceable OR. Pure claptrap. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as subjective and lacking corroboration. Mephistophelian (contact) 15:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
~~Deflate~~ Delete as fringey nonsense. Prioryman (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sort of one part how-to guide and one part unsourced original essay on herbal supplements. Neither of these are acceptable under WP content guidelines. Unencyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep ~~Yeah, there doesn't appear to be the coverage here. There are hints at some sort of article that could be made on a more general, related topic, but it's certainly not this one.~~ Impressive improvements to the article. I would also suggest a title move to breast enhancement supplements. Silver seren^C 18:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As is, this article is a poor starting point. However, the topic should remain open to serious documentation. This includes both documentation of actual biological effects (which are possible, though there's not a lot of research) and historical or cultural practices (i.e. documenting which herbs are actually being sold for this purpose, even if you believe they're worthless). Wnt (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier just to delete this article and recreate it from scratch at this point. Silver seren^C 02:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Major editing or starting it over from scratch is fine. Lucy346 (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Talking of POV in the title (as mentioned by the proposer), "Natural" is also a questionable word. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: noninvasive? (nonsurgical concepts) and a better word for enhancement? There are now at least 3 good scientific sources, and it has been restructured, since the first proposal. Lucy346 (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ this twaddle. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that IRWolfe has deleted the twaddle. The replacement article is much better - unless, of course, you are trying to sell bullshit herbal breast enhancement scams. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think the topic is notable. If not, I suggest WP:IAR, since some of the products are dangerous and it's good to have an article that highlights this. I've removed all the rubbish that was off topic or just crap and replaced it with two peer reviewed articles dedicated to the topic (i.e substantial and extensive coverage meeting WP:GNG and WP:FRINGE#Notability). I also suggest renaming the article to Breast enhancement supplements IRWolfie- (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

alternatively, Non-invasive breast enlargement. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IRWolfie's reasoning and his improvements. ~~I'd stick with this name, though, as it's what they call it in spam emails and in those little ads at the back of magazines~~. Move, with redirect, to Breast enhancement supplements, per rationales below. IRWolfie has now moved, with a redirect, to Breast enhancement supplements. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Amended 12:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a massive thing, a huge industry. I added in a bit I found about using stem cells for natural breasts enhancement. The media does provide coverage of this, be it what works, or what doesn't. Dream Focus 07:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is about non-invasive breast enchancement supplements and creams. The Stem cell technique happens to sound similar, but it's a different topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep: as long as the article stays focused on supplements and creams and the like. Support renaming to Breast enhancement supplements, as the word "natural" is basically meaningless. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep how that the fat has been trimmed, IF it will be renamed to Breast enhancement supplements. It is a huge industry, notable in and of itself, but as others have pointed out, "natural" is misleading and is used solely as a marketing term, making it not encyclopedic in nature. I would be against "non-invasive" as that is not specific enough and there are actually other unrelated methods of breast enhancement that are actually non-invasive, ie: pumps.[2] and other somewhat similar methods. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've performed the move. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Wolfie's rationale, and based on improvement during AfD.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:00, 3 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article was rewritten on November 2; relisting to get consensus on the new version. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is now a sensible article on a defined, and notable, topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Those alterations mitigate my concerns regarding the subjectivity of the article, yet the content nonetheless requires attention from specialists in nutrition, oncology, and pharmacology. Mephistophelian (contact) 16:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: it now seems to be the start of a good article on a notable topic, and the renaming helps too. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously, Natural breast enhancement isn't a good choice for the topic name since there's no proof of actual enhancement and "natural" seems debatable. However, "Breast enhancement supplements" brings forth only a handful of source material, none of which describe what breast enhancement supplements are.[3] It is a better title. The topic does meet WP:GNG and the title breast enhancement supplements will help focus the article development as a good temporary fix. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After extensive changes and a rename, this is now a reasonable starting point on having a well documented and informative article on the topic. This article is informative as a warning of the potential hazards of this class of dietary supplements, but so far being useful in that way has not been accepted on Wikipedia as a good reason to retain an article. I believe that all useful articles should be kept if there are reliable sources with correctly done inline citations. This article is notable and worthy of retention, even if being useful is not considered. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. Enhancement does seem POV but maybe that's the correct title. Otherwise sources do seem to support an article. Insomesia (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be well sourced, quality cites, and an improved article page. — Cirt (talk) 03:14, 6 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 and redirect to Rite-Hite. Spinning Spark 00:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael White (businessman)[edit]

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

Head of a company that employs only 200 people. The principal information in the article is that he made a campaign contribution over the legal limit, and may have unduly influenced his employees. Though the article is worded not to give the actual negative implication, it's clear in the reference. DGG ( talk ) 15:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could go either way. I had to write the article to see what there was on the guy. He is a fairly big fish in a small pond, but that may not be real notability. Maybe we could give it a day or so. Or not. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 30 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rite-Hite (the article about his company), where the Anti-Obama letter could be briefly mentioned. Cavarrone (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rite-Hite where this info could be incorporated. Vacation⁹ 23:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the article on his company. This is a close call to me but I think he will be remembered as a WP:ONEEVENT. The anti-Obama letter belongs in the company article anyhow. Royal broil 05:22, 11 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. Sandstein 10:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abe&tell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Abe&tell

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

fails WP:BAND. could not find coverage besides their shortlived "viral" video. needs more than that to meet WP:BAND. LibStar (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline - at least they actually have third-party verifiability - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 29 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – insufficient material available per WP:BAND. Need more noteworthy activity.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable (fails WP:BAND) and no purpose here. Vacation⁹ 23:16, 7 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. Sandstein 10:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Z8D[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 30 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not notable product. --Shorthate (talk) 21:39, 10 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 00:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Lyman[edit]

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

Minor regional British radio personality. No evidence of enduring notability, and no references. Fails WP:GNG. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not notable --Shorthate (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Only one working ref which doesn't display notability. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 20:45, 11 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—Kww(talk) 03:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Gough[edit]

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

Minor regional British radio personality. No evidence of enduring notability, no references, and seriously out of date. Fails WP:GNG. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Only one working ref which doesn't display notability. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 20:45, 11 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.—Kww(talk) 03:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Allen (broadcaster)[edit]

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

Article about a minor British radio personality. No evidence of notability from the one reference. Fails WP:GNG. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not notable --Shorthate (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Single ref doesn't show much notability. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 20:45, 11 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.—Kww(talk) 03:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitry Michann[edit]

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

Non-notable actor with no reliable references. Also tagged with ((notability)) since december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 13:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable as an actor and personal trainer and Google News only found one relevant result for his time with the improv troupe here, nothing else relevant to Dimitry Michann. I found a website for his most recent film, Pawns, here that briefly provides information about him. Considering he has only had five roles for the past ten years, he must not be a serious actor. SwisterTwister talk 19:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable [voice] actor. Full of non-reliable references. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 20:01, 11 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 by an administrator. Non-admin housekeeping closure.--xanchester (t) 13:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Climax movie[edit]

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

The film is not note-worthy. I visited the official site and I cannot see any info about its release dates that maybe the film is not filming yet or unreleased. Even on IMDb, I cannot see any results. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 13:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I would like to withdraw this nom. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 13:17, 3 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—Kww(talk) 03:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Millicent Collins-Forbes[edit]

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

Fictional character with no external references. Only listed references are to episodes from the TV-show. Tagged with ((notability)) since december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 13:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to the series article, or perhaps if there is a list of characters, to that. Any relevant information could be included in either of those articles. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteSome of the more significant characters are listed and have own pages. Clearly this character lacks notability for such. The criteria for a fictional character to be notable is somewhat high and that is a good thing.--0pen$0urce (talk) 14:30, 7 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 01:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eamonn Kelly[edit]

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

Minor British disc jockey. No evidence of enduring notability. Fails WP:GNG. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: without any significant WP:RS to support his notability it should be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 21:22, 10 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 "keep" opinions only address the issue of notability, which is not contested in the nomination. They however don't address the more serious problem given in the nomination, namely, that WP:BLPs require reliable independent sources, which are not given in the article (even the two links to the subject's university website are dead). Sandstein 10:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S. Sadagopan[edit]

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

person is notable,but article is not referenced and lacks reliable sources can be merged with the IIIT article. Harishrawat11 (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 3. Snotbot t • c » 12:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Founder director of a University, has served as Professor at IIT Kanpur and IIM Bangalore, senior member of IEEE. Passes WP:Prof. Salih (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Renowned academic. Head of IIIT Bangalore, a premier institution. Noted speaker. The article could sure use some focussed improvement. Harishrawat11 Please do validate prior to nominating for Afd. If unsure, please ask at the India notice board. Thank you. Arunram (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 5. Snotbot t • c » 15:25, 5 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thirumalachari Ramasami[edit]

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

This article has no reliable references nad the person is not notable.awards have no references and cannot be believes.should be speedily deleted Harishrawat11 (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 3. Snotbot t • c » 12:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recipient of Padma Shri and Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Award. Suggest a speedy close as keep. Salih (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the nominator: Please do not nominate the articles for deletion indiscriminately. Salih (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep on the basis of the awards. The nominator should read WP:BEFORE and act upon it before considering nominating any more articles for deletion. AllyD (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is currently the Indian secretary for Science and Technology - a key position in government. Awarded Padma Shri. Eminent researcher and scientist in the leather industry. Led the world's largest leather research institute for 10 years, has many patents to his credit. Note for Harishrawat11: please do review and verify notability prior to Afd nomination. If articles need improvement, kindly assist than nominate for Afd. Thank you. Arunram (talk) 03:53, 5 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 by an administrator. Non-admin housekeeping closure.--xanchester (t) 13:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The History of Touchline Throws[edit]

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

List of info. Does not seem necessary. Vincent Liu (something to say?) 11:59, 3 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. Clearly a hoax, have deleted under WP:CSD#G3. I've also deleted another hoax article of theirs: Disney/MGM Studios Motion Picture Morwen - Talk 12:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Dwarf XI[edit]

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

Looks like a complete hoax to me. No sources to back up this article and a quick Google Search brings back nothing. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:43, 3 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. Sandstein 09:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Velociudad Speedcity[edit]

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

WP:Notability. WP:CBALL. No evidence has been provided that this is anything other than a proposal. Creation of this article is premature and should not be started unless the facility is confirmed to be created. Falcadore (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, but may be recreated when the project is built and used for races. Cambalachero (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 3 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. CSD G5. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Cucci[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability in accordance with WP:NACTOR or generally notability guidelines, which requires significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Cindy(talk to me) 09:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the articles this person has created are for minor actors in mob-related roles that were probably redlinked in the list of Sopranos characters. There's about a dozen of them and very few of them meet WP:NACTOR. I've CSDed one or two that were AfDed previosuly, PRODed a few and AfDed at least one. Some of them do merit standalone articles, but most don't. §FreeRangeFrog 21:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, many of these pages were at one time mass deleted; Big Paul99 (talk · contribs) is a suspected sockpuppet of a banned account.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 3 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 Stubbed. Copyrighted material has been removed Mark Arsten (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal Army[edit]

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

Copyright material from www.indianetzone.com/37/military_organization.htm Baloo1000 (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 3. Snotbot t • c » 08:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup The subject is important. Mughal Army has been subject of scholarly studies. But, copyvio is an important issue too which needs to be fixed! --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all copyright material and stubbify - we cannot allow copyright material in the encyclopedia, and indeed, I am just about to remove most of the copyvio material, an action which can be taken by any editor. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now copyvio material has been removed this is a perfectly encyclopaedic topic and should have an article. Frankly, the nominator should have done this. It would have taken less time than nominating for deletion! -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Books have been written exclusively about mughal army and warfare. I don't know why the editor who removed copyvio removed references too. --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:14, 5 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. Michig (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mantak[edit]

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

"This band is considered as the most successful and controversial Metal band in the Island of Borneo. Some said Mantak was also one of the most successful Extreme Metal band from Malaysia." No evidence of this. Mentioned here in Encyclopaedia Metallum, which is promising. Website non-existent (or they haven't paid the site fees in a long while), which is not promising. Shirt58 (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7. No supported claims of significance or immportance. No in depth web or press coverage. In this day an age a notable band would also have at least a free hosted web site of some sort. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - being signed to a notable label, Drakkar Productions seems like a credible claim to significance, enough to pass A7, even if the claim that they are "the most successful and controversial Metal band in the Island of Borneo" seems not to be credible. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 10:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And where's the 3rd party, reliable, independent source that confirms that they are signed to Drakkar? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A claim of significance does not need to be sourced to pass A7, per the policy: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source...". I am not arguing that the article be kept, just that it not be speedily deleted. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 16:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't answer my question. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question is: I don't know. I've looked, but haven't found any third-party sources verifying that. In the reply, I was merely expressing the opinion that your question is irrelevant to the argument made in my comment. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thoroughly disagree with the idea that a band is notable simply because it happens to be signed to a recognized record label that has a standalone article in Wikipedia. That's exactly how dozens (hundreds?) of bands have squeaked under basic notability criteria to enjoy their own unmerited articles, which in turn cascades to their own unmerited album and single articles. §FreeRangeFrog 22:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being signed to a notable label is not a strong enough claim to notability. Does not appear to be the subject of enough reliable or significant coverage either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:59, 8 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. Sandstein 10:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Net channels[edit]

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

Current channel listing that clearly fails WP:NOTDIR, a constantly changing directory like an electronic program guide. See overwhelming consensus for deleting channel lineups at other recent AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List_of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd bundle of channel lineups, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:NOTDIR, generally. Fails policy by replicating an electronic programme guide. doktorb _words^deeds 03:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Dokorbuk I can't see any TV programmes listed in the article only TV channels, therefore how can it be considered to be replicating an EPG? IJA (talk) 06:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Textbook example of what we are to avoid per WP:NOTDIR... Carrite (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with WP:NOTDIR these tend to drift as editors quit or move to other things and they always wind up being out of date and full of incorrect info. MarnetteD | Talk 03:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another article that fails WP:NOT. Mt king ^(edits) 03:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete - purely a directory -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just another channel lineup for an individual cable provider, just like all the others deleted per NOTDIR. The key point is that this is a directory for one company's services, just ephemeral data. postdlf (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the channel number allocation may be considered a little crufty, and a longer term view than simply the current line up would be an improvement, the channel mix is an important part of the business model of television companies. Changes in packages bought and sold between media companies reflect huge valued deals, and are important parts of the businesses that employ tens of thousands in any large country, and have customer bases in the tens of millions. The package is also a culturally important artefact, reflecting the national socio-economic and cultural situation. Channels are well documented in industry journals. To argue that this is a directory, simply because it is a list is to miss the point of what a directory is. Doubly missing the point "Wikipedia is not a directory" does not mean that there cannot be commonality with a directory, just as the fact that we tended to move "dicdefs" to Wiktionary does not prohibit an article from starting with a definition of it's title. Rich Farmbrough, 04:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

the packages and comings and goings of stations could (if reliably sourced, which this is not) provide insight into the business and history. however, which ephemeral channel a particular station is assigned to today, does not provide any such insight and that is solely what a List of X channels article can do. any encyclopedic content would need to be a text based (not list) History of stations carried by X. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Duh! How many more are there left? Also, Rich could not fully grasp why the list does not belong to Wikipedia, even when he types in 1,000 bytes of one commentary. Obviously, these lists direct readers to wherever a network is. Brazillian free channels may be all right. However, the channel lineup is of cable company from Brazil. --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as falling foul of WP:NOTDIR and completely unsourced. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - for the reasons explained over and over, of WP:NOTDIR, which trumps the feeble WP:ITSUSEFUL we hear with each losing batch process. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not an 'Electronic Programme Guide' as it doesn't list programmes (thus not violating WP:NOTDIR), instead it is a notable list of channels by a major television operator in South America. IJA (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, I missed the early part of the debate when the precedent and momentum for mass deletion was set. However, I feel the argument for deletion in some cases has been flawed. Whilst I accept consensus can change. My understanding of the original meaning of WP:NOTDIR was that it was to combat a trend in TV/Radio station articles to publish the entire schedule of the station in question. In that case I agree that Wikipedia should not try and replicate that. However, I feel that channel line-ups are not the same thing. In many cases they are sourcable. Furthermore, whilst subscribers have ready access to some (i.e. the EPG position) of this information, non-subscribers don't. A further argument presented is that they are purely "marketing tools" of the platform provider. I don't believe this is necessarily true. On services where you dont actually have to subscribe to receive some (of even many) channels the articles shine a light (in a way that service providers never would) to what a subscriber is actually paying for. This may not be true of the article in question and this may or may not be fixable (cable is probably more closed than a satellite platfrom).Pit-yacker (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your comments _still_ place the channel directory solely as a marketing instrument or shopping guide. do you have any basis for _encyclopedic_ application? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. This is an encyclopedia, not TV Guide. - Mr X 14:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cable and sat lineups are too ephemeral to be encyclopedic. Broadcast channel lineups are long-lasting and are suitable, but cable and sat are not. Disclosure: I was notified of this discussion. Gigs (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- It seems Gigs makes a valid point (which I mentioned) about the time-dependant nature of these lists - although we can see there have only been a few changes in the years this article has existed. That however is not a reason for deletion, it is a reason for good curation.
- I am wary of the suggestion that "Broadcast" is legitimate, where "cable and satellite" are not.
  - Portions of the UK, for example, were effectively cable-only for decades, and satellite systems were available to all with the equipment with far more ubiquity than terrestrial signals.
  - Moreover the US model has hundreds, if not thousands of "broadcast" television operators, as I understand it.
  - In the UK there are currently effectively only three operators, Virgin Media, Sky, and the terrestrial digital consortium. The terrestrial consortium, and its technology are newer than the other two, while all three have roots going back decades.
  - There also seems to be anti-commecial sentiment "free to air" is ok, "paid for" is not. Again, while Wikipedia is not a marketing tool, we do not suppress information simply because something might benefit a commercial organisation. WP:NOTCENSORED
- Programme guide: This is a chestnut that is repeatedly brought up. Perhaps the confusion is because in the UK we refer to a BBC 1, as a programme, not a channel, traditionally. This is not a programme guide (which is listing of shows and times) by any stretch of the imagination.
- Sourcing. Poor sourcing is never a reason to delete of itself.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

That's a rather poor straw man you're setting up; no one is saying we should not have articles on commercial entities, or anything cable/satellite provider-related. We have plenty of articles on individual notable cable networks just as we have articles on individual broadcast stations, cable TV series just as we have articles on broadcast network series, and plenty of articles on notable cable and satellite providers. Broadcast networks in the U.S. (with the exception of PBS or NPR) are also commercial ventures, and subscriber-only cable and satellite providers also carry free-to-air broadcasters (cable companies are actually required to in the U.S.). So the dichotomy you are trying to set up here to explain away the deletion rationales doesn't hold up, and it should be obvious that's not what any of this is about. postdlf (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think made any such straw-man argument. I can quote Gigs word for word "Broadcast channel lineups are long-lasting and are suitable, but cable and sat are not." From a position of relative ignorance, delivery technology looks like a poor distinction. Audience size might be more relevant. Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You're actually continuing the same straw man by describing this as a delivery distinction: it isn't, because no one is disputing that there are notable cable networks or notable cable providers. And there are many possible valid lists of cable networks (by type, by owner, by market). The difference is this list, like all the others deleted, is specific to the service provided by one company. So yes, a list of all broadcast stations licensed and operating in a particular region is long-lasting; a list of all stations carried by an individual cable provider are not. There simply is no comparison there. Look at it from the point of view of the station listed if you want another way to illustrate the relative weight of the information: While one of the first things you'd say about WNBC is that it is a broadcast television station in New York City, would it be as important to point out that HBO is a channel carried by Net S.A.? postdlf (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rich you make points which have been explored in numerous AfDs which saw directory type articles deleted en masse. This is not about censorship, it's about WP:USEFUL and WP:OR, as much as it is about WP:NOTDIR. We don't refer to BBC 1 as a programme in the UK, I should know more than most editors here. We know "The BBC" as being channnels 1 and 2, or channels 7 or 8. That's on the remote control we use, it's on the screen we access, it's sometimes in listings magazines. All of these places can't be replicated on Wikipedia - it's not useful to have them on here, when they're easily available at a push of a button. It's not accurate to have them here - they are likely to change first on-screen rather than through editing a page. The US model is very different to the UK, of course it is, but that doesn't mean we can fit policy around anomalies. doktorb _words^deeds 23:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not OR in the slightest, these are clearly documented facts. I would agree, as I said, that channel/transponder numbers are less relevant today than historically (but having said that people are interested in UHF/VHF channel numbers "from back in the day") though I would not be surprised to be proved wrong. As for usefulness, if I am looking at a content company like Flextech and wish to understand who buys their content, this is important. Murdoch's media control is spread through these sorts of deals worldwide. It might be OR for us to research this for an article, without secondary sources, but it's certainly not OR for us to report on the programming. Bringing information together in a common format is part of what encyclopaedias do.

As to the use of the word "Programme" you are perhaps a little young to remember the days before Channel 4 which probably marked the watershed in the terminology. Take a look at BBC Light Programme for example. Anyway the distinction between a channel list and a program guide is very clear, yet many delete !votes have stated that these articles are programme guides.

You state that "they are likely to change first on-screen rather than through editing a page" -that's fine. This particular list will never be on my screen, and is hence an improvement as a source over my screen. NOTNEWS means we don't have to be bang up to date, in fact it is crying shame how much content has been lost due to people who think only the current state of events is relevant (particularly in commerce where there used to be a habit of merging articles when companies merged).

I'm not sure which model you think is the anomaly, the UK or US. Regardless this is about a Brazilian carrier, which seems to serve a significant part of that market. Saying that we cannot report on the channels that they provide (or provided) seems counter productive. Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that OR isn't the problem here at all. postdlf (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's another angle that hasn't particularly been discussed here. Broadcast licensees often build their brand identity around their broadcast channel number. This makes their broadcast channel numbers more relevant, as well as more lasting. If you asked me what cable channel I get Comedy Central on, I couldn't tell you. It's a nearly useless piece of technical trivia that I rarely even encounter anymore, now that I have a Tivo. The ephemeral nature of cable and sat lineups also carries more implications than mere maintainability.

Our encyclopedia should converge toward enduring facts. A constantly updated list doesn't do this. If we dated and saved each version it would address this concern, but it would clearly create new problems in that the old lists would be trivia that no one would much care about. To me that's the most telling thing... it's not an enduring subject, it's only useful or interesting in the current form, which tells me that it's not suitable for an encyclopedia. Gigs (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When we delete a substantive article it should be done respectfully and with regret and so I find the tone of some of this discussion rather distasteful. Whether or not there is a breach of WP:NOTDIR seems to be purely a matter of subjective opinion. I can't see that the "deletes" (here and at the other AFDs) are any more policy-based than the "keeps". To my (UK) mind the argument that the list is equivalent to an EPG seems utterly bizarre—the material here is not subject to constant change. Or maybe channels change constantly in Brazil and lineups vary from place to place across the country, I don't know. The article has not had a huge number of edits but this may be lack of maintenance rather than an indication of stability. Sadly, the article has serious shortcomings: no references, context or historicity. If there were a channel list at http://www.netcombo.com.br (I haven't found one) or some other reliable place I'd suggest creating a new section at Net S.A. linking to the external source and redirecting this article there. Otherwise, as an editorial matter, this list could be merged into Net S.A.. Whatever happens, a bald "delete" is not where I think WP:NOT policy or WP:GNG guidance should lead us. I was notified of this discussion. Thincat (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment This one seems to have a no consensus ora slight consesnus to delete. if this oen isnt deleted all the previous one will have to be undeleted will a wider debate on this is done via RFC on wether notdir really is valid reason to delete all of these as point out ther enot a epg and ther enot advertising a business, some did have business information that should be removed if restore but none where violating notdir. if the consensus is deelte a rfc is not required , but it is required if no consensus or keep is reach and the previou one need undeleted as we cant have one remain but the toher not, and we cant relist it for afd just because the consensus didnt go in on parties favoure.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One AfD does not weigh upon the others. They've been deleted, that's the end of it. doktorb _words^deeds 12:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does have a relevance in terms of some sort of general precedent that is being challenged, as the articles which have been deleted earlier could go before a deletion review and become undeleted and restored. That is sort of a foundational principle of Wikipedia, where changes that are made should be reversible if consensus can be achieved to reverse course. That doesn't say anything about the merits of this particular AfD in regards this specific article, but since all of these related articles seem to have the same format, cover roughly the same rationale for existence, and portray similar kinds of information it is reasonable that their fate should be tied together regardless of whatever the outcome of these AfDs and larger RfCs finally decides. It certainly seems inconsistent to have some articles like this existing and others being deleted. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you robert for understnading wha ti meant and making it clearer.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Unlike some of the above comments, I don't see this as a "clear cut example" or "textbook example" of anything like WP:NOTDIR, as lists of related subjects is a long standing tradition on Wikipedia. I know there are some who would want to get rid of all lists on Wikipedia, but that is a fight that has been around for nearly a decade and won't go away any time soon. That said, I don't see anything in this particular list that is tying these various television networks together or provides any value over the List of Brazilian Television Channels. Compared to other lists, I really don't see anything of substance being offered with this particular article other than perhaps acting as a guide for somebody who may have this particular cable provider. Other lists can and often do have additional pieces of information associated with them. As perhaps a compromise, if some of these various lists were merged together and had something like that Brazilian Television Stations list which also listed channel numbers for various major cable providers associated with those networks... could that provide some of the same sort of information that is currently being displayed on this page but in a more useful format? I do think some room for compromise is definitely available where this kind of article could at least be removed but the useful information be preserved in some fashion and remain on Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that compromise would make the data much more suitable for an encyclopedia. To me a good analogy would be lists of company phone numbers. They are somewhat enduring, but unless they are worth discussion in their own right (like 1-800-FLOWERS for example), once they are out of date they are nothing but trivia that has no lasting historical value. The fact that univision was channel 135 on a certain carrier, and 156 on another as of 12/2012 is not of much or any enduring relevance. The "no enduring relevance" test to me is an excellent test for the spirit behind WP:NOTDIR. We shouldn't focus only on the words that are written there, WP:NOT can never describe all the things that Wikipedia is not. It's meant to describe general classes of items that are unsuitable. Gigs (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there a big difference between phone numbers ( and phone number in american style ie ferw numbers and thena word that you have to convert to numbers doesnt happen in teh uk) and a list of channels with a channel number next to it, why dnt we go down the line of deleting ever tv station article? because that advertise a company and it gives the channel number so it giving the epg.... i think you should go learn whata epg is and what adirectory is, a list of channels with channel number is not a directory but sadly to many here can not see that, i agree with robert this one is mroe deleteable because it poor layout and because there multi cable companeis in america an brazil so list them under one page, but other one sthat have been deleted could easily pasted a afd if policy wasnt getting took out of contextAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:NOTE, but especially WP:NNC (within the notability guidelines), I should point out this guidelines explicitly states: "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation."

I mention this because is it sort of a false notion that information worthy of deletion as an article topic ought to be applied to content within. Indeed I fail to see why company phone numbers couldn't be included within company articles... to use this analogy. If it is factual and verifiable, it certainly can be included... but that is for another forum to discuss that kind of issue other than to say that your analogy is flawed. There is nothing wrong with the data itself being included... just as links to "official websites" are included in company articles. If the list is already going to exist, and the list itself is justified in and of itself, adding information like what broadcasting channel a network or television station is located on is very much relevant to any such list. I'll use List of television stations in Utah as an example, where I think common channel assignments on major cable providers would very much be in line with the rest of this kind of information. It sounds like any similar kind of list of information is something you would want to have deleted including this particular list of TV stations. I am suggesting there may be another route to go here. I certainly do not understand why this information must be discarded from Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk)

The whole point of WP:NOT is to point out that there are things that are factual and verifiable that don't belong here, because this is an encyclopedia. Ephemeral information that ceases to be useful, relevant, or interesting after it is out of date doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Web addresses are part of a company's identity and branding, and are usually historically relevant even if the organization moves to a new domain. The IP addresses of their servers are usually not. Cable channels are more like the IP address than the domain name. No one is arguing to delete this information on notability grounds or lack thereof, the people arguing delete are arguing that the data is unsuitable for inclusion, period. Gigs (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am offering this as a compromise, if you haven't been able to get with the picture here. It is a 3rd alternative to leaving this alone or having an admin press the delete button. As for if this is appropriate on the page itself, that is sort of outside the scope of this AfD and much more appropriate on the talk page, other than I happen to disagree with your sentiment about comparing cable channel assignments. I am not nearly so familiar with Brazilian television station and network in terms of how they advertise their cable channel numbers, but I know a number of "satellite networks" and even terrestrial broadcast stations that make active declarations in their advertising for what cable channel (or even channels as in different assignments on different cable networks) in promotional literature. I think this sentiment simply doesn't fit reality in how the information is actually being used. The IP analogy would be good except that the domain address is the IP address, or very easily translated in a one to one relationship. The cable channel, for notable (aka major representing a significant viewership in the market) cable networks and befitting WP:UNDUE and other standard Wikipedia policies. To include the cable network in a motel, I'd agree that is stupid. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

very clear delete, unencyclopedic directory content that belongs on the company's own webpage. Not even a single reference given; surprised that this even merits debate. Hairhorn (talk) 03:44, 11 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. Sandstein 10:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NetAuthority[edit]

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

Promotional page for non-notable company, with only first party sources. (except for CRN item, placing it 7th among the 10 "coolest Security startups" of the first 6 months of 2012, which is too trivial an award to count., even if it had been 1st place. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:22, 29 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable --Shorthate (talk) 21:00, 10 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. Michig (talk) 09:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ganam (Ganasaraswathy)[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability, contains promotional content. Has been PROD three times, once right after creation and twice for BLPPROD, however the external link is to the subject's website. Inline links are promotional. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News found absolutely zero evidence of reliable and significant sources. I found one link here that is really a copy of her website's biography, and a brief mention here. Despite the article claims she has won several awards, it never lists any of these awards. It is certainly possible that any significant sources may not be English but probably not, considering India's Internet system is not as advanced as other countries and anything about her would probably be paper-based (if existent). For any other users who want to continue searching, you may find better results searching with the surname first, Lakshminarayana. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:14, 29 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced BLP. This is also Sven Manguard 19:16, 6 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, mostly on the grounds of the sources found by Lukeno94. They really should be worked into the article. Spinning Spark

Lingenfelter Performance Engineering[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. This company enjoys some press coverage in its locale as do many other businesses, but it does not stand out. There's nothing particularly notable about it. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The ref presently in the article is not a local magazine; what others did you find that you judged insufficiently discriminating? DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The ref presently in the article does not discuss the company in depth, or as a matter of fact, at all, as far as I can spot. The article is mainly about cars. Company's staff was mentioned in a brief passing, but not as the company, so even if he does have some notability, LPE is not necessarily so as per no inherited notability. "John Lingenfelter agreed to enlarge an all-aluminum SB2 ("small block, second generation") to a historic 427.6 cubic inches. " That's all there is to it in 3 pages of article, in other word, a mention as a mere service sponsor. Other coverage on this company, which you may search yourself is local papers in Indiana. Local papers are where many small businesses are expected to be mentioned.

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John Lingenfelter, at least until acceptable sources can be found. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 09:14, 24 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article, as it stands at the moment, is poorly sourced and poorly layed out; the company IS relatively notable, however - Car and Driver have a few articles on a few of the vehicles [4], [5], [6], [7], as have Motorweek [8], AutoGuide [9], and Automobiles Review [10]. As to which of these are notable and reliable enough sources to use (surely Car and Driver is, at the very least?), well, that's for a more experienced editor than me to decide. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:59, 26 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 07:12, 3 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) Mdann52 (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World of Springfield[edit]

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This product line fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Neelix (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I would be very surprised if a years-long toy line with licensed celebrity voices and ongoing collector interest, based on one of the most successful, pop-culture-influencing TV shows of all time didn't get at least the low bar of coverage that we require for the GNG. This LAist piece may be a start. So might this piece, although I cannot peek behind the paywall from my current location. Mention of the toy line even starts off this journal article. And I suspect that action figure collectors guides and the endless array of books examining Simpsons minutiae will cover this toy line as well, but those types of works tend not to be searchable as easily online. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are a number of unofficial books about Simpsons collectables[11][12][13], so it's likely to be a notable topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:31, 29 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 07:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above and what looks like an academic paper discussing them. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Between the Scholarly Journal Images of Organizing in Popular Culture Organization September 2008 15: 627-637,[14] noted by Cyclopia and Squeamish Ossifrage above and the rest of the source material now in the article (Refereneces and Further reading sections), there appears to be enough source content to meet WP:GNG. One of the lists was too big, so I posted it at List of World of Springfield figures and playsets per WP:SPINOUT. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Cyclopia and Uzma Gamal. Seems to meet WP:GNG with the extra material that has been added. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 19:37, 11 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. Michig (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What lurks among saints[edit]

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

Non-notable original college production —teb728 t c 06:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked to see if there were any sources and other than one lone article, there's just nothing out there that would be considered a RS. It's ultimately just what TEB said- a non-notable original college production.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete student performance, no notability DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 7 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarlok Singh (economist)[edit]

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

The above person is not notable and the article is badly referenced.The person does not merit an article on wikipedia (Harishrawat11 (talk) 05:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 3. Snotbot t • c » 06:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete only 1 source and that too some minor norwegian source, seems hes not notable in india. Unless something/someone shows that every member of the planning/commission /civil service si notable this is not WP contentLihaas (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This probably hinges on whether the Soderstrom Medal is a notable award. Elsewhere, in relation to Piero Sraffa, I can see it specifically mentioned and described as "a precurser to the Nobel Prize in Economics" [15]; if that is the case then it will have been a notable award. AllyD (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject was recipient of some of India's highest awards, as shown by the page's links to Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan Awards (1960–1969) and Padma Shri Awards (1954–1959). I've added various references to the article, found through Google searches on his name. AllyD (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am surprised by its nomination for deletion. He got Padma Vibhushan.Shyamsunder (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Awarded Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan, Padmashri. If this is not notable in India, what is? Inappropriate AFD nomination. Must keep. Arunram (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS h-index of 10 in old non-science subject passes WP:Prof#C1. Prizes add to that. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

comment: if he was so notable then why isnt he broadly mentioned?Lihaas (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per all the above. Salih (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The various positions listed are sufficient for notability, in addition to the academic & other credentials. --Lquilter (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS -- The Soderstrom in Economics was the highest economics award prior to the endowment of a Nobel Prize in Economics. Keynes won it, among others, and it came from the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences. I don't know the history of the awards here but it's definitely a strong contender. May I suggest to the nominator that if you see someone getting an award from the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences (especially a non-Swede!), you carefully consider it before deciding the person is non-notable. --Lquilter (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep 24" blizzard pile-on. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:58, 4 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. Michig (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Riyadh truck crash[edit]

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

This is a NEVENT and NOTNEWS. No indication of lasting notability. The sources are only current news stories and not even analytical works on what the repercussions are. The content of the page is 1 paragraph that only details the accident and the police actions an hour later. No reactions or anything. Its less than a news article even. Lihaas (talk) 06:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing any indication of notability and how this would be different than any other collision involving deaths and injuries. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The article may not be fully developed with reactions yet, but such coverage exists. "Analytical works on what the repercussions are" and other reactions can be found in sources. Additionally, a "collision involving deaths and injuries" having its own article is quite common. See Okobie road tanker explosion, Yaoundé train explosion, Oswego-Guardian/Texanita collision, 2010 South Kivu road tanker explosion, and Venpet-Venoil collision to name a few. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OSE is not a reason for excusing such discussions. Case=by-caseLihaas (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that, but I was using it as refutation of SwisterTwister's point that "any other collision involving deaths and injuries" does not deserve its own article. In that case, his main argument is actually OSE, so it should be disregarded. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - It's always weird to me when somebody nominates something per WP:NEVENT and doesn't bother to read far enough into that policy to hit the entire subsection titled: "Don't rush to delete articles." Also, Bzweebl's argument that this is already receiving a range of coverage is persuasive. Perhaps this discussion could be usefully revisited in a few weeks or a month when it's clearer what long-term coverage this will receive. -- Khazar2 (talk)
Keep - Notable event. Worthy of having an article. Jus da fax 06:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 26 dead and 135 injured. Of course it's notable. If it was in Britain or America it would never have been nominated in a million years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously, routine traffic accidents aren't notable, but an accident which 'killed 23 people outright and injured 111' is far from routine. I don't think there's a strict guideline on how many deaths are required to make an accident notable, but if there were I'd say that should certainly qualify. Robofish (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is notable and worthy of an article. It killed 26 and injured 135, and has significant news coverage. Vacation⁹ 23:18, 7 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. Spinning Spark 01:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madhav Das Nalapat[edit]

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

no reliable sources.looks like a elongated version of a resume. Most of the edits are done by contributors who seems to have a WP:CoI regarding the subject matter. (Harishrawat11 (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 3. Snotbot t • c » 05:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep:... but the Google web search and Google Books search shows he holds a high position in UNESCO! --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep UNESCO Chairholder, UNESCO Chair for the Promotion of the Culture of Peace and Non-Violence[16]. Not sure which this qualifies him under but could be:
- WP:SCHOLAR #3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association
- WP:SCHOLAR #5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
- WP:SCHOLAR #7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

There is also "Editor of the Mathrubhumi a Malayalam-language newspaper that had a daily circulation in excess of 500,000" which is a major position. He also held other significant publishing positions.

There is his Political and Diplomatic work. Per WP:DIPLOMAT.

There is "Daxina Fellow at University of Bombay" which might qualify under WP:SCHOLAR #3.

There is much here to work with looks like a keep in total. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Partial notability, not small enough to be a delete. UNESCO chairholder and other positions. Vacation⁹ 23:20, 7 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. Jenks24 (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Tour (Lana Del Rey tour)[edit]

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

The tour will be held in April 2013. Unfortunately, there is a content on What Wikipedia is not that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The tour is also somewhat not note-worthy. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 04:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pages about tours are often created months in advance. The page for P!nk's Truth About Love Tour was created on September 18th and that tour doesn't start until February 2013. And what may not seem noteworthy to you may be noteworthy to another.

The page for Taylor Swift's Red Tour was created on October 27th and that tour doesn't begin until March 2013.

Please sign your posts. Thanks.

Delete. Far too soon. Tours by contemporary musicians and artists are notorious for being changed or even cancelled. An encyclopedia deals with facts and not predictions on the future, and is not a publicyty stunt. See: Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Inclusion criteria WP:ROUTINE, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:ADVERT. And see also: WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The tour is note-worthy but it has never been officially called the "Paradise Tour." The article for the tour next year should be created as soon as it has a name. teammathi (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vacation⁹ 23:21, 7 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 nomination withdrawn. Apparently I can't spell, hence why I had difficulty finding sources. Facepalm --Kinu ^t/_c 07:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blackvoices.com[edit]

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

The only source provided is merely a brief (literally less than one sentence) mention, and I am having trouble finding other sources to show how WP:GNG or WP:WEB are met. Kinu ^t/_c 02:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to:

“AOL acquires Tribune Co.'s BlackVoices Internet site.” Chicago Tribune.
“BlackVoices Web site faces shutdown.” Chicago Tribune.
“Recruiters Discover Diverse Value In Web Sites .” Information Week Magazine. pp. 2-3.
“AOL Appoints New Chief of Black Voices Service.”. The Washington Post.
“Black Voices heard on the Web: Lack of competition helps fuel growth of service for African-Americans.” Journal Sentinel.
“BET and Partners to Launch Black-oriented Portal with a $35 Million Investment, BET.com Aims to Attract One of the Fastest -Growing Segments of Online Users.” Philadephia Inquirer. Google search summary: “Blackvoices.com, the current leader, which boasts 15 million page views a ... Now he's the CEO ofBlackvoices.com. He was scheduled to appear last night on ...”

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find ample results to sort through. The CEO did a lengthy interview about his company on The Cavuto Business Report on Fox News Network [17]. Dream Focus 06:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references added to the article since its AfD nomination demonstrate the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Gongshow ^Talk 06:59, 3 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. Michig (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Mason[edit]

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

Contested PROD (detagged without comment) ; non-notable model. GHits are minimal, and the assertion of notability via a management company founded by her doesn't seem to fly either. Fails WP:NMODEL. Also mostly unsourced BLP to boot. §FreeRangeFrog 02:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The company has a valid DBA issued through the Erie County Clerks office and was legitimately founded by Ms. Mason on July 14, 2011 I do not feel the page should be removed ^[1] In this image Mimi is the model wearing the shorter skirt ^[2] Article Image Mimi Mason ^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgoodman15 (talk • contribs)

Information about the company is not relevant or notable to Mimi Mason herself. Although these images show her, it never actually mentions her therefore not useful. To learn more about editing, please visit Wikipedia:Introduction. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although there are some photos, the links never actually mention her and the few links that mention her are irrelevant to her modelling career and refer to her as Shamiqua Mason, I'm assuming she used her full name prior to her career. Google News found nothing relevant and my own search provided a social network profile here which, of course, is useless. She certainly has potential and may be notable for the near future but there isn't anything suggesting notability at this time. Please note that I have trimmed the article from its current promotional state as shown here. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As indicated by SwisterTwister, the mentions of the subject in the sources provided and those I can find are trivial and not particularly substantive. She exists, but does not appear to meet WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:57, 5 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. Michig (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Parisch[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Thomas Parisch" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

No indication that the subject is notable. Sources are primary or just mention or list subject with no significant coverage. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 02:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 16:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG by way of WP:COMPOSER. Similar to or exactly the Laurent Zilani AfD, no one has shown the Resi6 soundtrack to be a notable composition. Vanity page and not encyclopedic. czar · · 16:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little different from Ziliani, for instance Parisch is featured on the website of Variety, which is a very solid reference.107.200.61.89 (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC) — 107.200.61.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as not notable. Obviously part of an effort to gain free advertisement for PearUp Media related people as evidenced by the spa accounts involved.--Atlan (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources. The Variety item noted above is (I assume) this item which is not coverage about the subject, but rather an ASCAP profile and is simply a directory entry amongst many other ASCAP profiles. -- Whpq (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:GNG, same concerns as on the other AfD. I see directory entries and listings with short description, but no in-depth coverage as required by GNG. WP:COMPOSER#1 also is not met at this time. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:54, 5 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. Michig (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Science (video game)[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Applied Science (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

I couldn't find any secondary sources providing coverage of the game. Also, the author's edit history is only related to the game. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to editing wikipedia and yes my only edits have been to making the page for my game. This is something I know about and can contribute on, anything else I would consider myself an expert on is already well written in wikipedia. If the page does not meet standards I'm happy to fix it up, please let me know what needs to be changed. There are many other games on wikipedia, why should Applied Science not be allowed a page? User:Reaper1906 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, you would have to show notability for your game by showing where it's been covered in multiple independent and reliable sources. While this doesn't automatically mean "mainstream coverage", this is usually what it boils down to for a lot of games. Blogs don't count towards notability, nor does being entered in any sort of routine database type scenario. A reliable source would be something along the lines of PC Gamer writing an article about your game, but even then you'd have to have multiple independent and reliable sources about the game. As far as other games having articles, the presence of other games on here doesn't mean that every game should have an article. There are a lot of articles on here that do not pass notability guidelines, so all that an article for another game might mean is that it hasn't been nominated for deletion yet. Of course it could also mean that the game passes notability guidelines, but either way WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't usable as an argument for keeping an article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and ultimately couldn't find any coverage in any independent and reliable sources. I see where it's available for download, but the stuff I'm finding only shows that this exists, not that it's notable. Reaper, please don't take this as a personal slight, as the vast majority of games out there on the internet do not pass notability guidelines in general and that includes a lot of games that would otherwise be considered well-known.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Going going gone, Not notable, also couldn't find any verifiable references.--0pen$0urce (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 16:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG is how WP determines which topics/ideas get article space (encyclopedia, not directory). This game does not yet meet this criteria. czar · · 16:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:31, 7 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. Michig (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AVReporter Energy Management and Monitoring[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Non-notable software. Article written entirely by COI author, who removed the PROD template ~~without explanation~~. No indications of any independent coverage of this software anywhere. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I had not noted the author's talk page comments, so the PROD was not removed without explanation. Does not change the basic rationale for deletion though. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete per nom. Reads like an brochure; no citations or coverage.--E8 (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not Delete~~ I am software engineer in industry, in my opinion this documentation is included technical details about AVReporter software. It is very important and useful for engineers how can select appropriate versions. Anyway AVReporter is industrial software that's why It is not well known by casual people, but in industry well-known. You can get more information about AVR in industrial software forums (OPC connections, PLC communications, etc.), for example: http://www.control.com/thread/1280824575#1280905358— Avreport (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The unsigned vote above was placed by the WP:SPA user, Avreport, who clearly has a WP:COI username.--E8 (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I would like it to be noted: the aim of the article was to give a description and has no promotional purposes. Please, do specify within the text where you can see promotional style. - Some of the independent media sources: http://www.hircity.hu/cgi-bin/hircity/index.cgi?view=ck&tID=610&nID=278729 http://www.hircity.hu/cgi-bin/hircity/index.cgi?view=ck&tID=610&nID=225124 --81.182.242.251 (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete Because It is a key technical documation for engineers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.175.185 (talk) 12:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC) — 91.82.175.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment This is basically an "I like it" argument. What criterion for inclusion does this article meet that would allow it to be kept? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It should be noted that both the anonymous user's IP's trace to the same city, Budapest (which is quite close to the KONsys's headquarters). It might be useful to have an admin with privileges check them against [18] and [19] to see if there is meat- or sock-puppetry at work (indicating strong WP:COI).--E8 (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In my opinion fictitious accusations are not right. I am electrical engineer about twenty years experiance at multinational factories. I plan energy management sytems. I suggest focus to topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.175.185 (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete - Technical documentaion about energy management software. This solution is very ipmortant for environment protection. - software developer from London — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.236.214 (talk • contribs) — 90.202.236.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Not Delete-Den ovanstáende är en teknikal beskrivning. De som är av motsatt mening är inte kompetenta gällande temat och har inte tillräckligt kunskap. Det vore bra om man resonerade klokt med motivering (WikiDan61)-det är inte faktainformation. frán Göteborg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.194.51.149 (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC) — 46.194.51.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of significant coverage by even one reliable source to establish notability. Wikipedia is not a repository of technical documentation on any subject; it is an encyclopedia. The article appears promotional and based largely on original research, both violating WP policy and guidelines. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 03:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete This documentation is same category as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnergyCAP, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_PowerMeter , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chellow — Preceding unsigned comment added by KONsysInternational (talk • contribs) 08:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC) — KONsysInternational (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No reliable sources to help the article pass the GNG. Article seems highly promotional. Buggie111 (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete It is engineering documentation not included marketing sentences. Energy management is very young, important topic is now and future. /University teacher - Budapest/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.43.1 (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC) — 195.70.43.1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, there are no reliable sources referenced to help substantiate the product's Wikipedia:Notability. Not even a list of clients or how it's being used - and let me make this point clear - I do not mean how it can be used, but how it is being used. PK T(alk) 13:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Including list of clients would make it promotional, which seems to be the main concern... we would appreciate specific suggestions on how to make the article better. As far as I am concerned Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. "Word History: The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is enkuklios paideia, made up of enkuklios, "cyclical, periodic, ordinary," and paideia, "education," and meaning "general education." Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense "general course of instruction," first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge. The first such use in English is recorded in 1644."- the description placed on Wikipedia contains only educational explanations for those, who are looking for it. There is nothing promotional in the text, if anybody feels different then should point out where exactly it is promotional. Wikipedia should be a source of information and the guardians should help making this wider and fuller.KONsysInternational (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails all the WP:NSOFT inclusion criteria. --Drm310 (talk) 19:37, 6 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 situation seems clear DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson Church[edit]

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

Biographical page with no assertion of notability; sources include interviews and publisher pages for the subject's books, nothing in independent, reliable sources. In particular, does not pass WP:PROF as a "researcher on energy fields". Recently removed "sources" included "search for this on pubmed" and a single primary source conducted by the page's subject. We do not have a wikipedia page for everybody who has ever published a journal article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass any of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. He is not an WP:ACADEMIC; he has a pseudo-doctorate from a non-accredited "university", and Google Scholar finds only a few, minimally cited publications. Does not pass WP:GNG; Google News Archive found only articles about churches, nothing about this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 30 October 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. In fact, there is no WP:RS whatsoever. Looks strictly like WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 23:47, 8 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 01:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xuitlaltzin Vázquez[edit]

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

Insufficient claim of notability. No substantial coverage in third party sources. Swayback Maru ^{Mufka's alternate account (talk)} 19:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello. I am Miha, and I created that article. I do not understand this term, "third party sources". I think that a screenwriter and manager can be notable, since there are many who have their articles here. I need an advice, because I am not clear what to do now.--Miha (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miha, more info at WP:RS and WP:V. In general, newspapers and magazines are the best sources to use on Wikipedia for topics like this. Even better if available are citations to books and academic journals. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I used several pages about telenovelas and from Internet Movie Database. For information about her marriage and her birth date, I used her Facebook account. She is not mentioned in any free book, but only a queen with the same name. Xuitlaltzin on Facebook

List of sources

(1)Cuatro grandes dinastías mexicanas en los descendientes de los hermanos Fernández de Lima y Barragán by Matilde Cabrera Ypiña de Corsi, page 14. She mentioned that name of Xuitlaltzin is the Aztec one. She was named after one queen.
(2)Marisol en alma-latina.net, the most famous work of Xuitlaltzin
(3)Marisol at IMDb
(4)For her personal life and details of it: Xuitlaltzin on Facebook, See also her Twitter account. and My Life. Xuitlaltzin made all this accounts by herself.

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.104.242 (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, unfortunately IMDB and Facebook are not considered Reliable Sources, see WP:RS (and WP:SPS). The reason is these sources can be edited by anyone, just like Wikipedia, we have no idea who made those pages, there is no reliability. What is needed is professional publications: newspapers and magazines. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except her Facebook and Twitter accounts, I can only find her name on several pages, but it was just copied there. It seems that her personal web pages are not reliable, but her existence and fact that she is a part of crew are proved by this photo. See also opening of Marisol, where Xuitlaltzin is mentioned. (See rain and lovely couple :) (1:11)--Miha (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of any coverage in reliable sources turned up in a search. Delete for failing WP:GNG and the other guidelines unless Spanish-language offline sourcing can be found or there's an indication that it exists. Twitter, Facebook etc. are not reliable sources. --Batard0 (talk) 16:00, 26 October 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, SarahStierch (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I found some Spanish sources. Please wait.--Miha (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TV Azteca telenovelas. Please see "CONTRA EL DESTINO".
Balada Por Un Amor at Alma latina
Los padres más famosos de la TV. See "El abuelo". Please use Ctrl+F.
Biography of Xuitlaltzin Vázquez --Miha (talk) 14:34, 29 October 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the links you've brought are useful to verify that Vázquez has indeed worked on these productions, but they do little to let us know whether Vázquez is notable. Note that notability has a specific meaning on WP; follow the link for more details, but the short version is that we need to find sources that discuss the subject and/or her work in a significant manner. Coverage doesn't have to be focused on the subject exclusively, but it has to be more than a passing mention — Frankie (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any sources online to support notability, and I think the chances for offline sources to exist are slim — Frankie (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't think they are notable. --Shorthate (talk) 20:58, 10 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 Saratoga, California#Saratoga Union School District. Michig (talk) 08:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argonaut Elementary School[edit]

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

Delete non notable elementary, possibly merge into overall school district article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saratoga, California#Saratoga Union School District. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saratoga, California#Saratoga Union School District per standard procedure for nn schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saratoga, California#Saratoga Union School District - Google News results provided brief mentions and an API score here. I haven't found any evidence of history particularly the 1959 establishment but Google Books provided a result (fourth from the top) that suggests they have existed since the 1966-1967 semester. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: for closing admin. If this is closed as 'redirect' please remember to add the ((R from school)) templeat to the redirect page. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:30, 5 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.