Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 29: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Mark Arsten (talk | contribs)
131,188 edits
Mark Arsten (talk | contribs)
131,188 edits
Line 42: Line 42:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Hermon Christian School}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Hermon Christian School}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hark Lung Mun}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hark Lung Mun}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nyrthos (the game)}}
<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nyrthos (the game)}} -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie Rivera}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie Rivera}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Boots}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Boots}}

Revision as of 15:13, 6 December 2012

< 28 November 30 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. The original author, S. L. Lopez (talk · contribs), requested deletion on 2011-07-26. It was declined on the grounds that other editors had touched the page. Of those seven other people, one also wanted the page deleted and disputed its entire contents on the talk page, and six made no content contributions and were only adding tags or fixing links. Indeed, two of the six were robots. Given the OTRS request, I've belatedly fulfilled the speedy deletion request from a year ago, with no prejudice against a properly written article that addresses the complaints of advertising, copying non-free content into Wikipedia, and blatant hyperbole that were raised on the talk page by Swanson16 (talk · contribs) a year and a half ago. Uncle G (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Living Bread International Church

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

OTRS Ticket 2012112910007208

Please nominate the article about our Church Living Bread to be deleted.
This is not who we are or what we represent.
We are sorry that your company is being used for ugly gossip against us.
thank you for the consideration
Apostle Karen Dunham
Living Bread International Church Jerusalem

 Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure if this church is notable, but I don't think the nomination reason is valid for deleting an article according to our policies. In any case, I didn't see the "ugly gossip"—perhaps it was revdel'd or removed by an oversighter. There is a similarly named church in Florida, USA, so I'm not sure if the one in Israel is notable. - MrX 03:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Some one has reduced the contnet to a stub. The previous text does not look controversial, or particularly differnet from what appears on their own website. Unfortunately, there is no indication of size or the extent of the church's ministry. I thus have nothing by which to judge whether this is or is not a notable church. The person requesting deletion may or may not be connected with the church - one just cannot tell. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We gave this another week but we still have no cast iron reliable sources to rely on for this product. Keep arguments are mostly vague waves at sourcing or assertions and neither of these are sufficient to overcome the clear evidence from the delete side that reasonably thorough searches have failed to turn up anything substantial we can rely on. S.marshall has found a product comparison chart that he views as one source but has nothing more. Dreamfocus provides what they assert is a second source but this is debunked by Phil Bridger as an advertising supplement so this isn't enough. What else here? I can't accept DGG's argument that we can simkply fill the article with manufacturer sources product description as is skirts over the requirement to first show notability to keep the argument. With regard to a redirect, I don't think I need to find on that as its an editorial action not an adminstrative one but I am taken by DGG's argument that we should not merge to the main article as this material is too product specific for that. So, on balance, the consensus based on policy is that we do not host this material because there is not quite enough sourcing to meet GNG/N although V is met. I find no consensus on a redirect so will leave that for editorial judgement. Spartaz Humbug! 09:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Avaya Definity

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

Disputed prod, difficulty in locating RS to establish GNG, written somewhat as an ad Nouniquenames 23:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A SET does not prove notability. Reliable, in-repth coverage is required. --Nouniquenames 20:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Highbeam articles appear to be nothing but press releases. These are not "historical products". They are not notable. These wiki articles appear to be created by ad agencies. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could point to a few such sources? --Nouniquenames 22:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notable based on what standard? Specific sources to pass notability guidelines have not been provided. --Nouniquenames 20:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that nobody in this discussion has addressed the potential sources found by the Google Books search linked in the nomination statement. Those links are there to inform the discussion, not to be ignored. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not equate to notability for a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying we should ignore all the specific notability guidelines and the WP "case law" that has been built up? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, which specific references did you see that were significant enough to meet WP:GNG? VQuakr (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read them, because this subject bores me. I was just pointing out that nobody can come to an informed opinion that this article should be deleted without first checking them. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you consider the possibility that those of us who did look at such results found nothing supporting a keep? --Nouniquenames 11:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a mind reader. If you don't explain where you have looked for sources then I can only assume that you have have looked nowhere beyond the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Instead attacking each other for sources both of you arguably haven't seen yet, why don't you both find any potential sources, link them here and then discuss/rebut the sources. This is just silly; both of you who should know better, this is going nowhere. Secret account 01:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Secret, I asked based on my previous experience seeing BEFORE thrown about with any hint that an editor didn't check for sources. I did check and did not find anything acceptable. When I ascertained that Mr. Bridger did not seem to mean anything unpleasant but simply did not know that I had checked, I did not feel it necessary to push the issue. Others are free to repeat my sources or any other, as I'm as capable of mistakes as anyone and may have overlooked something. --Nouniquenames 03:21, 8 December 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, Spartaz Humbug! 10:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting directions To establish consensus we need specific discussion of what sources are independent and reliable and how this pages meets the GNG. Assertions are worthless arguments and do not count to consensus. Evidence your opinion with reference to policy or the closing admin will ignore your vote. Please note that this has already been listed at DRV over an NAC close so this should be left to an admin to close. 'k? Spartaz Humbug! 10:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Avaya and Lucent are basically the same, this shouldn't be a reason for deletion or keeping. Someone with knowledge on this subject needs to find sources, because a quick Google search by me didn't show very much at all. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lots of WP:GHITS, but I am unable to locate any reliable, non-trivial, independent sources that would satisfy the general notability guideline. VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @:VQuakr, I am trying to understand the rationale for your Delete vote – are you saying that this article should be deleted because you have not found any online refs?
For those who think this is a reasonable approach, I dare you to look at the history of the IBM and check after how many edits the first online reference was introduced to the article. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IBM was notable - sources unquestionably existed whether or not they had been added to the article or not. However, looking at other stuff will not help achieve consensus for the notability of this article. The general notability guideline is the most basic standard we use to determine if a subject is notable enough to warrant an article; if you are aware of sources for this subject that meet the guideline, please share them so I can reassess my opinion. VQuakr (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Once the hype is removed, there is absolutely nothing here. It's all just ad-agency fluff. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been unimpressed by the quality of this debate so far. I find the view expressed by Alan Liefting significantly at odds with Wikipedian norms. Alan Liefting's statement that sources do not equate to notability for a WP article is bizarre, and it's not the first time I've seen him say this either. I'd be grateful if Alan Liefing could desist from saying this in future. Sources are the essence of notability, full stop.

    I also find little merit in the view expressed by Sue Rangell. Her comments focus on the current state of the article rather than its potential state, which is clearly the wrong approach. We don't delete material because it's bad. We delete material because it's bad and unfixable.

    Many of the google books results are passing mentions of no interest, and a significant number of them arise from full page ads in networking magazines that were taken out by Avaya. However, I see that on page 45 of Network World Magazine, Vol 19 No 8 dated 25 February 2002, there is a clear product comparison in tabular form; this is in large type on a coloured background and very clearly treats at least one variant of the Avaya Definity as a significant type of product. I also see that the independent reviewer scores it well against its competitors. If I'd found a second such thing, I would take that as clear evidence of notability. I have not.

    I also want to say that if we distilled everything from those sources into an encyclopaedia article, we'd have about four sentences. Tops. It's right that such things, even when they're notable, should be consolidated into another article that contains a more useful amount of information.

    From the fact that I can find one but only one source, I conclude that this article concerns a subject which is verifiable but not notable. It should not have a standalone article. The outcome of this debate cannot be "keep". However, per policy we should exhaust the alternatives to deletion before turning this title into a redlink, and I observe that there are good alternatives available, so the outcome of this debate cannot be "delete". I conclude that we should replace the content with a redirect to Avaya#Products.—S Marshall T/C 12:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't make something notable. In depth coverage in reliable sources makes a subject notable. Note that such is lacking for this product. --Nouniquenames 20:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is informative not promotional. Basically straightforward information can be supported by manufacturer's sources. Merging into ayala is excessive--they have so many products that the article could not possibly deal with it. The existing merges into Ayala are a one line listing for each product, giving only its name. With that sort of way of handling merge conclusions, a merge is inappropriate. A merge into the general type of product might be, for the detail is more extensive than we usually have. I cannot understand how any of this is "ad agency fluff " or "hype" -- it's simply product details, not claims for the product's excellence or reasons why someone should buy it. I ask Susan, above to indicate just what part of the material she thinks other than purely descriptive. (It's true a technical advertisement would contain a detailed product description, but it would contain much else--pricing, contact information, praise of the product. An overlap between encyclopedic articles of products and advertising is inevitable, & the overlap will be greater for technical products, which are normally advertised much more soberly; but eliminating a description of the product would make any article on a manufactured substance impossible and meaningless.) DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Implying that there is some sort of sinister conspiracy is hardly likely to help persuade other editors to take your arguments seriously. A perfectly clear explanation was provided above of why the "keep" close was reverted and the discussion relisted. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorting through all the Google book/magazine results, I came across this. [1] It talks about the "Avaya Definity" and also mentions: Nearly a million customers -- including 90% of the FORTUNE 500 -- rely on Avaya solutions. Page 15 of CIO magazine, Jun 15, 2002. It mentions what the Avaya Definity servers can do, in sufficient enough detail. Dream Focus 00:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 complete lack of non-trivial independent sources make keeping this BLP untenable. — Coren (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Grody

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

No indication of notability as a martial artist or "graffiti documentarian." There's nothing to show he meets the notability standards for martial artists (WP:MANOTE) or anything else. The article's sources are blogs, an article on one of his martial arts instructors, and a PR release for an exhibit he was involved with. Notability is not inherited and I don't see any signficant independent coverage of him. Mdtemp (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless we can come up with more independent citations I would agree with the nom. Certainly if half of what is claimed is true there should be more out there.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sourcing problems have not been addressed since the previous marginal keep, and notability cannot be established. — Coren (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Award

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

Tried finding sources from both web and books; 25 years should produce some publicity if the award is notable. The only hits I could find was various short articles/mentions from the various winners, but with no background information on the award. This was also a problem on the previous AfD.

Finding so little information on an award spanning so many years with so many different winners doesn't really add up, so I believe that it's non-notable. Bjelleklang - talk 22:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This could almost certainly have been speedily deleted as advertisement. — Coren (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Goo

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

Non notable BJJ fighter. Winning underbelt championships is not fighting at the highest level. The article's only source is a two line mention of him winning those titles. Mdtemp (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be nothing more than an advertisement.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EFax

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

Speedy declined. Advertising of a non-notable Internet business. Wtshymanski (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Falls far short of notability requirements, and no independent sources. — Coren (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hops Sportswear

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

Non-notable comapny and brand. Essentially spam. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I agree. Tried that. So now we waste our time here.... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coren (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Lletget

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

Article about a footballer who has not played in a fully pro league and also fails WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Playing for West Ham United, a professional football team in the top national league is a claim of importance, may even be enough for notability"
And I'm pretty sure that's not true. – Michael (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I sorted everything out with him regarding whether or not this met the criteria of CSD A7. It turned out it didn't meet the criteria. – Michael (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The denying editor was right, "importance" is of a lower standard than "notability". Cheers. – Kosm1fent 08:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Michael (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's incredible in every place that have a article nominated to be deleted, Sir Sputnik is there. He lives only for delete article instead of create it.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should give credit to Sir Sputnik for doing an incredible job on deleting articles about non-notable BLP's. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

he don't care about nothing. He just want to delete.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In particular, there is concensus that this person does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, making it a coatrack for his conviction. — Coren (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mintz

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

This was nominated for deletion before, and was kept for no consensus. I am nominating it again now because it has been several years and I don't feel that this person is really notable per WP:POLITICIAN or probably any of the notability guidelines. He has only been a candidate for a couple of offices and lost those. Concerning the section on his conviction I'm not sure if that is really notable enough of an incident to include either. If the article is kept, yes, that should be included, but don't think that merely running for office and being convicted of something really, truly adds up to notability. Thank you. JoannaSerah (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak delete - While I'll stipulate that he meets none of the three criteria of WP:POLITICIAN (he wasn't elected to anything, he wasn't a major local figure who received significant press coverage, and he was an unelected candidate) but I think the better argument is WP:GNG. I'm not convinced that the sources alone in the article quite meet the threshold for notability, and I'm not finding too much else, but seeing that there is another, more-famous Chris Mintz, that could just be that I haven't gone deep enough into the Google search pages, though I didn't find anything noteworthy in the archives. If someone finds a couple more sources, I would be willing to change my !vote, but until then, I must !vote delete in this borderline case. Go Phightins! 20:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Go Phightins, not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Shorthate (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He doesn't fill the WP:Politician requirements. Stowonthewolder (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coren (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COST Action FP1105

COST Action FP1105 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD; WP:NOTJOURNAL and not much else. §FreeRangeFrog 20:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even without the clear consensus to delete, this article is an OR nightmare at best, and a partisan screed at worse. — Coren (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Influence on the 2012 Presidential Election

Foreign Influence on the 2012 Presidential Election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the topic may warrant a Wikipedia article this page is too much of an opinion piece, and an essay, and a synthesis. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup If the topic may warrant an article and your only concern is that it includes opinionated material and synthesis, then why didn't you just tag it as such? Remember, AfD is not for cleanup and that there is no deadline. While I understand these are both essays and not firm policy, I think they are both solid principles. Therefore, though the article is an absolute mess, this has the potential to be a readable article, so I would !vote to keep and cleanup. Go Phightins! 20:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I saw this unsourced opinion piece earlier on and watchlisted it, not really knowing what to do with it. No sources, and even the title is wrong (the election? Y,ere must have been multiple presidential elections in 2012, France, for example). Paranoid navel-staring essay. Does not meet any notability guideline that I am aware of. --Randykitty (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty much random thoughts and minor incidents and statements. Secondary sources have not said that people outside of the USA had much influence at all on the election. Some of the examples probably had the opposite effect intended, for instance Hugo Chavez's "endorsement" of Obama. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I'd normally agree with Go_Phitins! view, if you stripped away the OR, SYNTH and COATRACK, there'd be nothing left. --Dweller (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 29 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. Uncle G makes a strong argument that the subject is notable. I also hope Uncle G uses his clearly very good library to improve the article.  :-) — Coren (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting correctly

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

After a brief search, I'm not confident this is a notable concept in the sense that multiple reliable sources have substantially covered this as a phenomenon. The main article that it refers to is very interesting, even credible. But unless it picks up greater commentary, it remains closer to something WP:MADEUP than something we can write a real article about. Vcessayist (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and consider salting per Bearian. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer to Colapeninsula's question is "Yes.". It is a distinct concept that has been discussed in political science literature (such as Boudreau & Lupia 2011, p. 179) for over a decade now. This is a stub that barely even explains the concept — as can be seen by the several people above who, not knowing or having researched the subject themselves (or even having read the citation in the article), make such wholesale errors as Sue Rangell erroneously thinking that it was made up by the article's creator and Steve Dufour erroneously thinking that it's a combination of two words.

    In fact, it was made up in 1997 by Richard R. Lau, who is now Professor of political science at Rutgers University, and David P. Redlawsk, who was a professor of political science at Iowa and who now is also at Rutgers. It was published (Lau & Redlawsk 1997) in The American Political Science Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal, and has been discussed in the literature many times in the years since. A full article would, for example, include (University of Arizona) ethics professor Jason F. Brennan's taking Lau's and Redlawsk's definition to task on ethical grounds (Brennan 2012, pp. 166–167) or the analysis by (University of Amsterdam) politics professor Catherine E. de Vries's and (University of Twente) political science professor Martin Rosema's application of Lau's and Redlawsk's experimental model to real election data from the European Union (de Vries & Rosema 2011), amongst other things. I don't know what Vcessayist's search was, but my search turned up university press book after university press book referencing and discussing Lau's and Redlawsk's notion. I didn't even need to check the academic journals at all.

    Let's not delete an article on a valid subject in political science because Wikipedia editors didn't do their research and reading at AFD.

    • Lau, Richard R.; Redlawsk, David P. (September 1997). "Voting Correctly". The American Political Science Review. 91 (3): 585–598. doi:10.2307/2952076. JSTOR 2952076.
    • Brennan, Jason F. (2012). "How Well do Voters Behave?". The Ethics of Voting. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691154442.
    • de Vries, Catherine E.; Rosema, Martin (2011). "Assessing the Quality of European Democracy: Are Voters Voting Correctly?". In Rosema, Martin; Denters, Bas; Aarts, Kees (eds.). How Democracy Works: Political Representation and Policy Congruence in Modern Societies : Essays in Honour of Jacques Thomassen. Amsterdam University Press. ISBN 9789085550365.
    • Boudreau, Cheryl; Lupia, Arthur (2011). "Political Knowledge". In Druckman, James N.; Green, Donald P.; Kuklinski, James H.; et al. (eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521192125.
  • Uncle G (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coren (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Snell

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

I took notice of this article by way of an IP attempting to add this to the list of AfDs for today. I'd initially just directed the IP to the part of the deletion page for IP users to nominate an entry, but after further inspection I don't honestly see where this guy is particularly notable. Of the sources given, many are dead links and in some of them he's only mentioned briefly and is not the focus of the article. One just goes to a page that isn't even about Snell (being a list of tips/links), and one is by a magazine that probably wouldn't count as a reliable source. It also has problems with being overly promotional. It was declined as a speedy for G11, but just barely. I know that being promotional or in bad shape isn't in itself a reason to delete, but it seems to be one of many issues with the article. A search didn't bring up anything that would show that he's overwhelmingly notable. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This one is a bit more difficult to assess. On the face of the discussion, there may be no immediate consensus to delete; but it's clear that lacking some plausible sources in Korean, what little coverage there is does not meet GNG (in particular, none are about the group itself). Given that this has been listed for a month with no improvement, delete now without prejudice for recreation if sources can be found in the future. — Coren (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Youth Fellowship

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

Organization does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. There are two pieces of news coverage that I'm aware of: [2], and [3]. While this technically meets WP:GNG, I still don't think it really indicates notability. The first article is about one specific event in India, and it's published in the city section of TOI. The second covers a trivial "controversy" involving a couple of event attendees. As such, I don't think this organization is notable enough for inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A search for "International Youth Fellowship" and a couple follow-up clicks brings one to material such as THIS PIECE from the New York Times about International Youth Fellowship/Good News Corps. Based upon this, I would suggest a name change to Good News Corps. Here's a blog post on "THE GOOD NEWS CULT", which doesn't count towards notability but should be of help in digging up additional published material on this New Religious Movement. THIS BLOG POST, which does not count towards notability, alludes to published coverage on the IYF in The Daily Pennsylvanian, which does. Although not showing sufficient sourcing in the piece, this is pretty obviously a group which is the subject of multiple instances of independently-published coverage in the mainstream press. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I now see the nominator has already provided the NYT link. One would think this would have deterred the initial nomination. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there is probably massive amounts of sourcing in Korean. Someone capable should investigate that. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was aware of the NYT post. And, having read it, we can't use it in the article, because doing so would violate WP:UNDUE. The article is a one-off complaint by 2 people who claim that they didn't know the group is religious before going to one of their camps. No corroborating evidence was provided, no investigation was begun, and the group itself denied it. We cannot include negative information about a group based upon the passing claims of two people. Had the article been an in-depth analysis of the group, or showing some sort of overall trend, it would indicate notability, but as written it does not. It seems odd to hang notability on a source that WP:NPOV says we can't use. However, on the Korean sources issue, you could be right--if someone can find said sources and provide trustworthy partial translations, we could consider keeping the article. Care would be needed to ensure the sources meet WP:RS, since it can be a little tricky (in my experience) with Korean sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 8 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, —Theopolisme 01:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 17:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Philipp of Hesse (b. 1970)

Prince Philipp of Hesse (b. 1970) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A contested prod. Subject doesn't appear to meet the general notability guidelines. All news archive coverage seems to be about his grandfather of the same name. Rotten regard 17:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not many of us can read Finnish. The short-lived attempt to instal a monarchy in Finland in 1918 is pretty obscure in itself, but even if it had some validity, the head of the Finnish royal house is this person's father. "Potential claimant" is open to interpretation. PatGallacher (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Election of his ancestor less than 100 years ago to become King of Finland is covered in the relevant Wikipedia articles as a noteworthy event. Article cited above provides coverage of descendant's connection to/prospects for that throne. Additional references to him are made in such reputable Burke's Guide to the Royal Family, Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Le Petit Gotha, Queen Victoria's Descendants and other reputable on royalty. As a photographer who's been published in Vanity Fair, there's potential for discovering more noteworthy coverage. FactStraight (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see that Savannah Phillips, a great-granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth II of the UK, redirects to her father Peter. So if even the great-grandchildren of the best known reigning monarch at the moment are not regarded as inherently notable (they may be notable for additional reasons e.g. being high up the line of succession) then I question whether we should regard very minor royal figures like this person as notable. PatGallacher (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence has been provided of the subject passing the general notability guideline, and I can see no reason why a "royal" without any past, present or future constitutional role should be considered an exception to that guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Razzle Bam Boom

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

Non-notable entertainment organisation, no independent references. Taking straight to afd as the article has been around for a while. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable organization. Mostly, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as no secondary or third-party sources discussing the organization exist. — ṞṈ™
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ADAPA

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

At first look this article seems to have some good citations, but they're all written by employees of the software developer, Zementis Inc. The one exception, ' Rattle: A Data Mining GUI for R', is a trivial mention. I've looked but haven't located any better independent sourcing. Given the lack of independent sourcing I think this fails the general notability guideline and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It looks like this article was tagged for speedy deletion, which was rejected as not blatantly promotional. In my opinion, this article still reads like an advertising whitepaper. The main contributor to this article, Sunsetsky, has almost exclusively only contributed to this article and the closely related PMML article; there are possible WP:COI issues here. But the main problem is lack of independent reliable sources for ADAPA. I could not find any independent sources in Google books, Google scholar, or a general Google search. While I consider the peer-reviewed publication references in the article to be reliable, with the single except noted above, I could not call them independent. If independent sources are found, I would change my recommendation to keep and improve the article. Mark viking (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator, not notable. This is a puff piece that should have been speedy deleted. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable and promotional. Stowonthewolder (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promo spam. Bruddersohn (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 page blanked by author. JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lovesick (album)

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

non-notable album Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put up a speedy delete tag since the author blanked the page. -24.101.193.186 (talk) 17:06, 29 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 AFL Darling Downs. SarahStierch (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coolaroo Football Club

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

Contested PROD. This is an amateur club that's not even in the top level league of its state. There's no independent sources for its notability and it fails the general notability guidelines. Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Otto Heinrich of Hanover

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

Contested prod. PatGallacher (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case of "deposed-monarchy-cruft", one person endorsed the prod before it was contested. The Kingdom of Hanover ceased to exist when it was annexed outright by Prussia in 1866 (not just incorporated into the German Empire as some smaller kingdoms were around that time). This person is a rather minor figure even within the former Hanoverian royal family, he is the son of a younger son of someone who was the head of the house, as such he is not even a pretender to the throne and unlikely to become so. PatGallacher (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Bunte published a piece on him earlier this year, the younger generation of the House of Hanover are becoming more public and Prince Otto has been accompanying his cousin to events recently that get reported on.[5][6] Not sure what relevance Hanover being annexed in 1866 has but the Duchy of Brunswick which his family ruled "only" ceased to exist in 1918. - dwc lr (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The minor coverage is mostly fluffery and in no way the significant coverage required to meet the general notability guidelines. Rotten regard 17:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per dwc lr's comments above. In addition, he became the object of considerable interest when his parents died unexpectedly on the same day during his infancy, and there was coverage of his needs, prospects and surviving family during the bitter, public custody battle which ensued over him between his maternal grandparents, who won, and his paternal uncle, Prince Ernst August of Hanover in light of his father's desperate final plea to the latter to provide care for the about-to-be-orphaned child. Periodic coverage of his subsequent fate can reasonably be expected, so the potential for article expansion is substantial. FactStraight (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dale J. Stephens

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

Lack of notability: subject is not encompassed under the Wikipedia Notability Criteria WP:BIO or WP:BLP given WP:WHYN and WP:N (and some instances of WP:SPIP) Steuben (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recommend SPEEDY KEEP as per WP:BASIC, at least presently. While the sources are all dated within the past two years or so, they meet the aforementioned criteria without the "additional criteria" from WP:BASIC. However, as the sources appear to be temporal, it may be possible that the subject becomes ineligible for the WP:BASIC criteria if he disappears from the news. When, or if, that reaches a triggering threshold is for discussion. Steuben (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section includes the discussion from WP:PROD


Looks like the page was automatically deleted after the tag WP:PROD had remained on the page for seven days. Checked google archives and the page has sources from CNN, The New York Times, ABC, among others, so it meets the notability for WP:BLP. -Godfatherscookies (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: after discussion on the Talk page, Stephens failed to meet the basic criteria for WP:BIO or WP:BLP given WP:WHYN and WP:N (and some instances of WP:SPIP). Coverage in the media is not, in and of itself, sufficient criteria for notability. Further, specifically on his book, it must actually be published before he meets the criteria for being an author. Steuben (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephens has an overwhelming quantity and quality of press to meet notability for living people. These are from the most credible, reliable sources publications possible: Inc. Magazine: http://www.inc.com/magazine/201109/peter-thiel-college-dropouts.html CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/18/opinion/bennett-thiel-education/index.html Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/youth-radio-youth-media-international/creator-of-uncollege-gets_b_871214.html?ref=tw The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/dale-stephens-unschoolers-create-their-education/2011/08/22/gIQAp3VMjJ_story.html ABC: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/education&id=8151836 New York Magazine: http://nymag.com/news/features/college-education-2011-5/index4.html

The page should be restored based on those sources alone. Godfatherscookies (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We did consider that, but the sources had no further insight into his notability other than a self-appointed expert. The number of sources (and quality) still, in this case, don't justify encyclopedic record—at least not until he's accomplished something "notable," which the discussion failed to show. Again, this seems to be rehashing what was actually in the article and not discussion of the article itself; these arguments were made and addressed in the Talk page so until something changes, it doesn't belong. I'm actually actively looking for someone who knows him (and I know people) to try to see if there's something to be revived here, but no luck thus far. Steuben (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was various debate—some old, some new—in the Talk page and quite a bit of editing about the relevance of Stephens, the legitimacy of the coverage, and quite a bit of messy edits. This AfD was instituted so people could either air their grievances coherently and timely, or put the issue to rest for now. Of course, it doesn't preclude another AfD from appearing in the future if the article stands (which, unless the critics appear in force here, now, it probably will stand). Steuben (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tweetware

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

The article do not meet WP:NEO. It is relatively new term for a new license term which do not meet the threshold of being NOTABLE. Amartyabag TALK2ME 15:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nantucket#Education. SarahStierch (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nantucket Lighthouse School

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

This is a private PreK-8 school with 82 students as of the 2009 school year. (http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/privateschoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&Zip=02564&Miles=10&ID=A0990071) , and 16 teachers, 5 of whom are not permanent staff. Does not meet the General notability guideline, nor the guideline for organizations (which includes non-profits such as a school). Suggest deletion, with a redirect to Nantucket, Massachusetts as a distant second choice. There is no school district to which to merge the article, and it's unlikely to be searched for independent of the town itself (or the island, since the town is located at Nantucket (CDP), Massachusetts; the island is the subject of the suggested target). Horologium (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 29 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) 15:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Murphy

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

Except for Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive, Murphy has not done any significant acting roles (I cannot find proof that she even performed in the theater/Internet/film shows mentioned in the article). She also has not made any huge contributions in the entertainment world, as searching her name on the Internet comes up with a whole bunch of other people who have the same first and last names. Furthermore, her official website has been deleted, likely an indication that she has no intentions of doing any more acting in the future. Very clearly fails WP:NACTOR. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Muhammad

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

Delete, non notable artist sources don't show notability speedy was declined Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 14:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything but the usual social/promotional stuff on the web. The vague claim to notability in the article, "In July of 96, The Source Magazine featured Nutmeg as a promising new talent for the Southwest rap scene!", is probably enough to decline the speedy, but I'm not seeing anything that meets WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism hey! 14:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It seems she is not active enough to receive significant attention. After searching "Nutmeg rapper" and receiving irrelevant results, I added "Connie Muhammad" where I found this which provides a little bit of information but not enough. It seems she "is currently nominated as Best Female Vocalist, Best Female Singer, Ans Best Solo Artists by fans and the IMEliete Radio Polls for the AZ Music Awards" but I haven't found any reliable evidence to support this. Emphasising how she is not very active and well known, her official website is a MySpace profile. I also found a minor mention here. She is simply not notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator, not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bulleted list item

Close discussion;In regards to Connie Muhammad article delete nomination.She is notable and has been nominated as Arizona's Best Female vocalist. http://imeliteradioazawards.blogspot.com/ Also Phoenix best female hip-hop artist of 2010 http://www.phoenixhiphop.net/tag/connie-muhammad-aka-nutmeg/

Thanks but they are both insufficient to support the entire article. I think another problem here is that she hasn't been very active to gain much attention. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He fails to meet the correspondent guidelines of notability for musicians. For what I can see, he has no notable album releases, nor singles. And anything he may have made have charted anywhere, which are notability requirements. — ṞṈ™ 03:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Hermon Christian School

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

Small, private elementary school that fails WP:ORG. There is a lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Most of what I am seeing would fail WP:ORGDEPTH. It's minor mentions and superficial announcements. Mentioning two notable people that went there for some period of time in grade school doesn't make them notable, nor does a visit from a governor that was campaigning for school vouchers. Tried looking at this under the WP:NONPROFIT guideline and it still won't pass. Author was a SPA that indicated he was part of a media campaign. Has been notability tagged for over a year. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Although the article indicates that the school covers classes through 12th grade, for which longstanding consensus indicates a Keep should result, THIS states that the school covers Pre-Kindergarten through 8th grade. Consensus is for redirection of all but the most exceptionally noteworthy elementary schools to their school district or town and failing that to delete. I see no redirect targets here. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Page blanked - G7  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hark Lung Mun

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

Not convinced of notability. Of the sources provided, none meet the requirements for WP:RS, and I haven't found anything better. While it's possible more appropriate sources exist in Chinese, searching 少林黑龍門 has also failed to locate anything that would be admissable. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Rivera

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

Non-notable singer, tagged with {{notability}} since december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 18:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. In addition to the source already present, these two are the best I could find in terms of coverage, but it isn't too significant, and both articles from El Comercio are more focused on Aníbal López instead. There's also a series of passing mentions [8] [9] [10] [11]; they're not exactly trivial, but still fall short of what we need. Going for a weak !vote because while notability is not clear, the links do show that the subject is a somewhat recognized salsa singer in Peru, so no prejudice to revisit this if better sourcing becomes available — Frankie (talk) 14:51, 14 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, KTC (talk) 01:12, 22 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 12:24, 29 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. Much as I am consternated by the result going against the (presumptive) wishes of the family, I agree that BDP does not stretch far enough to cover this article. That said, and while I am closing this discussion as no consensus, I would nevertheless recommend that the content here be merged with the disaster's article with a redirect to the appropriate section. There is no policy that compels us to do so, but it seems to be that common decency and compassion should encourage it. — Coren (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Boots

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

Forwarding this nomination by request. I'm procedurally neutral.

Marginally notable corpse known best for the location of his body. WP:BDP states, on the applicability of BLP outside living people: "However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends . . . is covered by this policy". I argue that an article about a corpse, which includes a photograph of said corpse, in fact has those implications for any such living relatives. And given what I perceive as marginal notability limited essentially to this fellow's death, I argue BLP1E (in view of BDP) applies.

If the general information on the 1996 disaster (which makes up more than half the text of the article, but says nearly nothing about Paljor) isn't duplicated elsewhere, I'd have no objection to appropriate merging/reframing/what have you of that information. j⚛e deckertalk 07:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amending my !vote, see below. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !vote per my comments here and the ticket details below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG with multiple independent reliable sources discussing the subject, most recently a day ago by the Smithsonian. The corpse is so well known that the nearby cave is named Green Boots' Cave. Attempts to recover the body have further cemented notability.
A merge to 1996 Mount Everest disaster is not recommended because it is not certain that Green Boots belonged to that expedition. As the article states, while the body is presumed to belong to Tsewang Paljor, it is by no means definitely him. WP:BLP1E is inapplicable here because the subject is not a living person. Similarly, it's a stretch to apply WP:BDP, as it is meant for recent deaths and suicides and is reserved for material that is contentious or questionable or for individuals who may still be alive. Paljor died over 15 years ago and applying WP:BDP here would be an overly broad interpretation, tantamount to censorship. Perhaps concerns over implications for any potential living relatives can be addressed through editing the article instead of outright deletion. Gobōnobō + c 20:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability beyond question in my opinion. Many people with an interest in Everest climbing history would have heard of Green Boots. The well known incident of David Sharp involves Green Boots Cave. Oppose merge per Gobonobo's comment and add that even if the body is determined to be that of Tsewang Paljor, the other members of the Indo-Tibetian Border Police expedition have their own articles. Paljor would be at least as notable as those individuals, though admittedly this is an 'other stuff exists' argument on my part. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 23:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have also listed the photograph of the corpse at FFD. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But I do wish there was a larger article to merge this with, there's over 200 more bodies up there and some probably more notable. Cowicide (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: no opinion about keep or delete, but if this is kept, I'll strongly advocate moving back to the proper name Tsewang Paljor. This article is about a person, not about a corpse. "Green Boots" may be common, but is still nothing more than an informal and irreverent nickname for what are, after all, a real human being's mortal remains. We don't write about human remains as if they were mere objects. If this guy deserves an article, he deserves an article as a person, not as a piece of ice that serves as a macabre "landmark" among climbers. The page was recently moved to the present title on grounds of "common name", but that doesn't apply to human beings in this way – a human being has a right to be treated under their real name. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, I disagree with you since I moved the article. :) But beyond that, I don't think WP:V allows us to move it to that name when the source naming him says he is "presumably Tsewang Paljor". It doesn't seem to accord with WP:V to assert positively that he is this person when he hasn't been positively identified. Beyond that, the living people in this case would prefer to draw less attention to him, not more. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • One other factor in terms of the naming. While it's my preference that the article simply be deleted (I still haven't seen two sources that offer more than 2-3 sentences of coverage to the person, and I feel that BDP has some weight here), or, in lieu of that, at least the photograph removed, there is an additional problem, in my view, with including a photograph of a corpse on an article named "Green Boots". See the Wikimedia resolution supporting the principle of least astonishment. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I noted on the OTRS ticket, I have some doubts about its deletion under WP:N (due to the icon), but I'm sensitive to the way his family must feel. :( The changes I made to the article were done certainly with that in mind. Sorry for not noticing that the image was non-free; it didn't even occur to me it might be. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep This article is important and improves wikipedia. The image doesn't show much more than a boot, it's not as if the corpse image was phantasmagoric. The article is very informational and interesting. I also agree with Cowicide's thoughts. There should actually be more articles, or a larger article covering these bodies. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Can someone explain to me how the BLP (or BDP) aspect has a bearing on this AfD? The BLP policy doesn't mandate the deletion of relevant, well-sourced material, except in cases of marginal notability, upon the subject's request. So if it was Paljor's family that requested this article's deletion, that needs to be clarified. If not, then BLP concerns aren't really relevant. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer Fair question. As Moonriddengirl has previously noted the existence of an OTRS ticket, and given the original request, I feel comfortable saying that I responded to said ticket from a family member of the subject of the article there, and that deletion was requested. I apologize for the nomination obfuscation, but in general, OTRS agents are required to maintain privacy for those whose tickets they're working, this creates somewhat awkward conflicts at times. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. In that case, I'll !vote delete, out of respect for the family. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that "they can get..." as that living people who through no fault of their own find themselves with an unwanted and upsetting article here can politely request its removal, and we consider it on its merits. Still more tricky is the WP:BDP case, as here, where family make such a request. It behoves us to consider it sympathetically. If it was the president we'd likely refuse as it'd be in the public interest. If it's you, me or John Doe I hope we'd agree. That's my understanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not trying to be insensitive, but if the subject is notable, I think there should be an article. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No implication. Just to be aware that whereas 99% of the time, AfD is all about notability, in this rare case the desires of the millions of silent readers to know the notable must be weighed against the desires of the family. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Appropriate Target: I would be in favor of removing the photo (which may be deleted anyway), but we have many articles on unfortunate notable deaths, I would suggest most every day some are created, and these deaths caused real pain to living people. That is why we have a responsibility to be accurate and respectful in our writing, but does not extend to a duty to erase reference to these subjects.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD:G5. Article created by sockpuppet of CollectorOfSouls.—Kww(talk) 19:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Brittain (Web designer)

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

WP:N Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only see one reference about him. More is needed.--Mjs1991 (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mr Brittain is only notable because of IsAnybodyDown? which is already listed and for no other reason. Shritwod (talk) 09:44, 29 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 per CSD:G5. Article created by sockpuppet of CollectorOfSouls.—Kww(talk) 19:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Trahan

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

WP:N Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Notable person referenced in numerous interviews in major media outlets including NPR and Huffington Post. -TheWesternWorld (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Add citations from them sites so he becomes notable--Mjs1991 (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mr Trahan is only notable because of IsAnybodyDown? which is already listed and for no other reason. Shritwod (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how is designing their app and website a notable association? Lukeno94 (talk) 13:59, 29 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 per CSD:G5. Article created by CollectorOfSouls.—Kww(talk) 20:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Alan Levy

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

WP:N Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Notable lawyer and often a spokesperson for Public Citizen. Referenced in numerous notable publications. The only reason his article is stub quality is that the sources have not been fully added at this point. Techdirt (notable) is a starting point. -TheWesternWorld (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There doesn't seem many references for him, and he'd be more notable if he was the lawyer for bigger well-known cases. And if he is, add refs for them--Mjs1991 (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I would note that pretty much everything User:TheWesternWorld has created from scratch is in an AfD. Besides that, I've been through the article, it has one source (which is not enough), and the only attempt at showing notability fails WP:INHERIT. I can't currently check the single source in the article (damn web filters), but it doesn't look to me like a reliable source, in fact it looks to me like some kind of blog-site from a brief Google search. In fact, it seems like this guy may even be more of a news reporter/spokesman only - [12] does not remotely seem like a lawyer's type of report. I can find nothing on Google that makes him seem notable - the fact that the top searches on him include a Facebook profile/page and a Twitter account speaks volumes. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And your grounds for this are? Lukeno94 (talk) 13:59, 29 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) 15:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Amstislavski

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

Non-notable artist. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided Lousy article, no clear sourcing, no attempt to explain him as an artist. This article would be no loss if deleted.
However if you read the article, rather than just weighing the reflist, then this is an artist with exhibitions on two continents, as well as vague claims to his work being sold and collected in a substantial way. Maybe these don't pan out - they certainly need some sourcing. However this is nowhere near a clear "Delete as just not notable". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of people-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gardenist

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is just a definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of extreme weather events

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

The most commonly used definition of extreme weather is based on an event's climatological distribution. Extreme weather occurs only 5% or less of the time.[clarification needed][when?] Extreme events, by definition, are rare. That kinda explains it all, according to who, seems like pure WP:OR on what a "extreme weather event" is, if it includes most natural disasters like this article seems to be, this list is clearly unfocused and potentially endless Delete Secret account 04:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 30 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 Closed - now the subject of a consolidated AFD here (non-admin close). Stalwart111 05:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kahani Comedy Circus Ki

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

Non-notable season of the show Comedy Circus. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:20, 29 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 Closed - now the subject of a consolidated AFD here (non-admin close). Stalwart111 05:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Circus Ke Ajoobe

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

Non-notable season of the show Comedy Circus. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:20, 29 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 all articles. Salix (talk): 09:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Circus Ke Taansen

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

Non-notable season of the show Comedy Circus. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also enlisting following articles for AfD....
  1. Kahani Comedy Circus Ki
  2. Comedy Circus Ke Ajoobe
  3. Comedy Circus Ka Naya Daur
  4. Jubilee Comedy Circus
  5. Comedy Circus Ka Jadoo
  6. Comedy Circus Ke SuperStars
  7. Comedy Circus Maha-Sangram
  8. Comedy Circus 3 Ka Tadka
  9. Comedy Circus 3
  10. Dekh India Dekh
  11. Comedy Circus 20 – 20
  12. Comedy Circus 2
  13. Comedy Circus 1
  • Question What's wrong with these page titles or with old revisions in the histories? If the answer to both questions be "neither", we'll do better by redirecting them to Comedy Circus than by deleting them. I've not looked at the articles, so no opinion on keeping or deleting. Nyttend (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Neither" is the answer to your question. But the show comes up with new season like every three months and hence with a new name. And it's not like the season ends and there is a gap of few months or so. There are same old judges and same old competitors. Plus the gags from this show are used as time-fillers by various other channels also. It is aired anytime and anywhere. I am doubtful whether people even notice what season it is. Hence i don't consider them worth keeping even as redirects. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the acts booked. Otherwise a non-notable business (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Concert Commission

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

Cornell University club/organization. Insufficient significant coverage in independent third party sources to engender notability under the general notability guideline, or under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

Coverage is limited to self-published sources; Cornell-related media, which does not show "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large" (as described in WP:N); or mere tangential coverage in reliable sources (which fails the Significant coverage" requirement). Basically, organizing cool concerts doesn't mean it's notable. Previous AFD expired w/o comment GrapedApe (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close Seriously, the previous AfD closed today with no consensus... Relisting it now will make absolutely no difference. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No consensus closes due to a lack of quorum are, technically, WP:NPASR (no prejudice against speedy renomination). This is ... a really speedy renomination, but I guess that's what it says on the tin, so I don't think it's grounds for a procedural close. On the merits, I'm pretty ambivalent about the article. There's quite a bit of coverage of their hosted concerts in general, but I don't really see reliable third-party sources about the commission. I'm not quite sure I'm willing to firmly advocate deletion here, but if this AFD doesn't attract a quorum on what is effectively its 4th relist, WP:SOFTDELETE may be the way to go. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 30 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 01:24, 7 December 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 19:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: 2nd nomination not a problem. Its borderline, but I'm not convinced its not notable either.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. The only notability is the acts they book, but that sort of notability is not inherited--it's like saying a bookstore is notable because it has books by famous authors on the shelves. Otherwise it's just a routine student organization, and the absence of any real content in the article shows it: If the individual concerts discussed are notable enough, then there can be separate article on them, or a mention of them in the articles on the group. That the Agency booked the Grateful Dead doesn't make the agency notable. It is not too soon for relisting a no-consensus close a month afterwards; it would have been wrong had it been a keep. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin's world

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

Appears to be a self-published series. Doesn't meet notability criteria. maclean (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur with the nomination statement. Appears to be self-published. I did a quick filtered Google search and struggled to find sources related to this topic. — ṞṈ™ 03:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There seems to be consensus not to delete, but no consensus as to whether this should be kept or merged. A merge discussion would be preferable over a second Afd. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FTM cross-dressing

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

Unnecessary and unreferenced fork of cross-dressing and drag king. Essentially a dicdef. Pburka (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 30 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 Cross-dressing. There's consensus that this variant of cross-dressing doesn't need a separate article. The two "keep" opinions don't address the issue of content forking. Whether there's anything to merge is not clear from the discussion, but can be done editorially from the history.  Sandstein  10:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MTF cross-dressing

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

Unnecessary fork of cross-dressing. All reliably sourced content has already been merged into the cross-dressing article. Pburka (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with a redirect page. According the the nominator sourced content is already merged. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 30 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 01:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to cross-dressing. It's reasonable to have articles on distinct cultural phenomena like drag queens and drag kings (and other cross-dressing subcultures or behaviours), but MTF cross-dressing can be done for many reasons, and therefore it's better dealt with in an article on cross-dressing in general. Since there are only 2 types of cross-dressing, there's no argument that a split is needed for length or comprehensibility. Additionally, for many people cross-dressing is synonymous with MTF cross-dressing (i.e. they don't think of women crossdressing) so covering the topic under cross-dressing is what would be expected. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP --게이큐읭 (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

María Susana Flores Gámez

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

Contested PROD; textbook WP:BLP1E in my opinion, plus WP:NOT#NEWS. §FreeRangeFrog 02:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Worldwide press coverage. Maybe rename to Murder of ... NickSt (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - currently, the article only has American sources; however, I've found [13] which, being British, shows a wider spread than just the neighbouring countries. I'm sure there are foreign language sources (beyond Mexican ones), but I don't speak the languages. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So I waited for a bit to see what kind of arguments would be made for this and I guess I wasn't disappointed :) Here's the problem: Move it to something like Murder of María Susana Flores Gámez and we have WP:NOT#NEWS, plus as someone already pointed out, it's not a murder. I'm seeing hints in some of the articles that she probably was involved with one of the cartels, so that also complicates things. So 'Death of X'? Still WP:NOT#NEWS, because it wouldn't qualify as a major event anyway. Let's face it, tens of thousands of people have died in Mexico in the last few years - this makes the news because the girl was attractive. So what then? Do we leave it as a bio? It's still a textbox case of WP:BLP1E. Those are the reasons I brought this to AfD, so please consider them when casting !votes. §FreeRangeFrog 19:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear obvious WP:RECENT violation. She wasn't notable before her death, and then she was only in the news because she was a beauty queen that was shot and killed because she was with the cartel and starting shooting at police. Other than her being a "beauty queen" her death wasn't notable at all. Secret account 00:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think it deserves an article. It got a couple of days of coverage in Mexico because she was a beauty queen that happened to be with a cartel. Most sources talk about the same thing, so it won't be able to stand on its own and will have to remain a stub forever. There have been a few other beauty queens that have been linked to the cartels, so maybe a separate article about the "narco-culture" behind that would be interesting. If the article manages to stay, let me know so I translate the Spanish-language sources to English ... I'll probably may be able to get a few paragraphs on the incident/investigation. That's pretty much it. ComputerJA (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mansour Amer

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

3 refs given, one active, only shows the company and person exist. link to porto marina doesnt show any further notability. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:30, 22 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, —Theopolisme 01:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MKTO

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

Contested PROD. While the members of this group seem to meet WP:GNG, the group itself does not seem to meet WP:BAND, and notability is not inherited. Beyond self- and fan-generated content and the usual twitter/facebook/myspace links, there is minimal independent coverage [14] [15] [16] that is hardly WP:RS. §FreeRangeFrog 21:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Minor Contributor. MKTO meets the first criteria for the musicians and ensembles, which states: 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. MKTO has covered by the following independent sources:

1. http://www.arjanwrites.com/arjanwrites/2012/10/mkto-thank-you-free-mp3.html 2. http://www.arjanwrites.com/arjanwrites/2012/05/hot-new-pop-alert-role-models-tony-oller-malcolm-david-kelley.html 3.http://www.arjanwrites.com/arjanwrites/2012/10/hot-new-pop-alert-welcome-to-the-world-of-mkto-video.html 4. http://www.twitmusic.com/wearemkto 5. http://elbo.ws/post/4574378/mkto-premieres-highly-anticipated-debut-single-thank-you-download-free-mp3/ 6. http://www.last.fm/music/MKTO?v=enabled&utm_expid=64146835-2 TonyFollowOller (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The twitmusic and Last.fm links are not relevant; they only show that the song somehow exists. They don't represent reliable-third party sources (see WP:RS). The elbo.ws 'article' is a self-referral back to arjanwrites.com, which would be the only source to possibly consider here, and I did find it - however, it is neither notable nor does it establish sufficient notability for the group on its own. §FreeRangeFrog 21:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Minor Contributor. Listed below are additional sources that covered or featured MKTO. While you may not consider Arjanwrites.com to be a notable source on its own, in combination with other cutting edge music blogs that have featured MKTO there is sufficient evidence to identify the group on its own.

1. http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/news/rumormill.cgi?50 (MKTO is featured on the bottom of this page) 2. http://thekollection.com/artist/mkto/ 3. http://poponandon.com/discover-download-mkto-thank-you/ 4. http://missexclusive.com/tag/mkto TonyFollowOller (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC) — TonyFollowOller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You can't vote twice, so I've struck the second keep vote. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:54, 29 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 01:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


MKTO meets the qualifications for WP:BAND with the first criteria which states: 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. The following articles display the independent sources, as well as a Just Jared feature on the band:
1. http://www.teen.com/2012/11/21/news/celebrity-news-roundup/miley-cyrus-shaved-hair-buzz-cut/ (MKTO is the third item featured) 2. http://thekollection.com/artist/mkto/ 3. http://poponandon.com/discover-download-mkto-thank-you/ 4. http://missexclusive.com/tag/mkto TonyFollowOller (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC) 5. http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/news/rumormill.cgi?50 (MKTO is featured on the bottom of this page) 6. http://elbo.ws/post/4574378/mkto-premieres-highly-anticipated-debut-single-thank-you-download-free-mp3/ Crowdsurftn (talk) 21:01, 27 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, —Theopolisme 01:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that TonyFollowOller (talk · contribs), besides for being an SPA whose only contributions have been two posts to this discussion, is named suspiciously similarly to TonyOller (talk · contribs), the SPA who wrote more than half of the MKTO article, and to Tony Oller, singer of the MKTO duo. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Hope

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

This topic about a Hong Kong television series appears to fail WP:N. After source searching, haven't found significant coverage in reliable sources. Google News archives has zero results other than this Wikipedia page. Posting this at AfD, rather than prodding the article, in hopes to avoid the potential for systemic bias on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a known series in Hong Kong. It's very old, I'm pretty sure I still see posters of it sometimes at old video shops, but other than that I don't think there will be any internet references for it. Maybe in very old print gossip magazines. Dengero (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)}[reply]
  • Keep: Not sure what the guidelines are for notability of TV shows, but this was a reasonably well-known show, still recognizable and "referable" as a pop culture artifact. Regarding systemic bias, I'm fairly sure that a US TV show with similar impact and audience would be covered (extensively) in En-wikipedia, for whatever that's worth. That said, not many reliable sources in English (search "The Green Hope TVB" and a number of blogs and the like appear, which speak to lingering interest, which suggests but does not prove notability). Obviously a lot more in Chinese, probably sufficient if anyone wants to do some digging. BTW, 2000 is "very old"? I feel ancient now...
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:34, 22 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, —Theopolisme 01:15, 29 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. No prejudice against the opening of a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slut-shaming

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

Per WP:NEO. "Slut" is a notable concept, and the SlutWalk a notable event, but this word is not notable. StAnselm (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word "maddening" is also widely used, as even a cursory gsearch will indicate, but that is not an encyclopedic term either. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:39, 30 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 (WP:Non-admin closure) Bruddersohn (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melya

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

trivial recipe, reference is a dictionary definition only. no other sources found of any significance. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 23 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, —Theopolisme 01:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. on 1 December by tucoxn. ʈucoxn\talk 19:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be quite a few sources on the web, although some should be added to the article. ypnypn (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G11 - Once the promotional material was removed, the article no longer met the minimum criteria of CSD A7.. v/r - TP 13:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

24/7 Techies

24/7 Techies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Company already listed on http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/05/247-techies-remote-tech-support-startup-for-smbs-raises-600k-seed-round-led-by-500-startups/ So I guess, this will be enough to considered notable. The article's notability as per WP:CORP cannot be ascertained. Amartyabag TALK2ME 07:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing adminitrator: Obvious sock-puppetry in keep votes. SPAs tagged. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 23 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, —Theopolisme 00:59, 29 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 01:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatant self-promotion of non-notable start-up company. Google searches turned up nothing but local, trivial or tangential coverage, far too insignificant to establish notability in accordance with any of our guidelines. Both newpaper articles seem to be more armchair journalism based on press releases rather than actual investigative reporting, and the mention in TechCrunch is far from being substantial. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "SL IT startup 24/7 Techies raises Rs. 80 million in funding". The Sunday Times.
  2. ^ "The first Sri Lankan company to be featured in Tech Crunch". ft.lk November 12, 2012.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will userfy upon request Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dusi Benarjee

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

Bio with scarcely any evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unfortunately, it seems this musician existed at the middle of the 20th century so any sources are probably not Internet-based or English at all, but I searched at Google News and Books with no avail. Emphasizing that sources are obviously not English is the fact that all references currently listed are not English. It saddens me to say this seems to be the case with too many India-related topics. What makes this article worse is that it is written like a personal biography. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have heard about this singer. Searching in Google News and Google Books will not be helpful! He is a singer of pre-internet era! Can you ask someone who knows Telugu ?, he may help to collect sources! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a message on the Noticeboard for India-related topics WT:INB to see if someone can provide some sources. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I saw Callanecc's post on WT:IND so I started browsing around. I was at a library and tried to search few books in which he might would have some mention. I searched about 7-8 books but didn't find anything. The reason was that the books here are having ample amount of sources regarding the culture of Western part of India and this person hails from South. He should have some mentions in books either in Telugu literature or somewhere in South India. I cannot help much because from where I come from, there are hardly any ways to access Telugu works or materials about south in minute details or remotely notable topics such as this bio. TheSpecialUser TSU 03:03, 27 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 00:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2007–08 Delta Ethniki

2007–08 Delta Ethniki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Season article of an amateur football league, which has no notability independent of the main article, that being Delta Ethniki. The scope of this nomination also extends to similar articles (six in total), where the same is true. Cloudz679 12:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following articles as indicated above:
2008–09 Delta Ethniki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2009–10 Delta Ethniki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 Delta Ethniki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011–12 Delta Ethniki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012–13 Delta Ethniki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Cloudz679 12:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 12:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few teams have been relegated from the professional ranks and I have recently identified those clubs that are notable in my sandbox (marked in yellow). These are some of the venues in the Delta Ethniki League Octopus (League Octopus 13:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
2011–12 Delta Ethniki - Lots of references on the equivalent Greek Wikipedia page - Δ΄ Εθνική ποδοσφαίρου ανδρών 2011-12. League Octopus (League Octopus 14:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
comment according to your essay at NCLUB, Central Midlands Football League is in the same grey area yet I am sure that league doesn't have season articles as noone covers that, and even if sources exist, that's not a criterion for inclusion. I am not suggesting the league article is deleted, just the season articles. Surely a club is notable if it's played in a professional league or a national cup, neither of which is related to this AfD. --Cloudz679 13:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nomination. Note, however, that the league is semi-pro, not amateur as the nominator suggests. The Delta Ethniki article itself needs some major work, and only the template of the seasons actually links to them - no links are present in the Delta Ethniki article. (Is it possible to include the template in this AfD as it's a group AfD? If it is, that should also be done.) Lukeno94 (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – this is a tricky one to access. Lukeno94, the Delta Ethniki is in papers at least an 100% amateur competition; most players only get expenses covered, whereas a selected few top-profile players receive 1000 times their expenses under the table, while appearing on par with anyone else. I doupt if this is considered semi-pro since there are zero contracts involved. In any case, the league is considered a national competition one level under the professional leagues of Greek football. Online sources to satisfy WP:V can be found relatively easily for the current season, but they are susceptible to link rot, so older seasons are a trickier to find online. The real problem is if an article about each individual season would satisfy WP:GNG, and this is what's difficult to access, as significant coverage in non-routine reliable third-party sources is a good notability criterion for the competition's article but doesn't work as well for season articles. However, most recent seasons of Delta Ethniki individually receive just enough non-routine coverage in newspaper websites such as sentragoal.gr, especially during seasons where top-profile clubs are relegated to it due to dept, so I reckon those seasons would (barely) pass WP:GNG with a lot of time and effort. Alas, it's a burden which I'm not sure I can undertake considering the poor state of my internet connection at home... *sigh* – Kosm2fent 10:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Normally I would vote based on a policy, but in this case it's rather the other way around. After reading through WP:NOTSTATS I can't say that these articles fails that policy, but rather that these articles should "contain more explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". I would say that season-articles like these are one of the key-articles in the football-encyclopedia with it's wikilinks to every club. Yes, these articles needs improvement and sourced prose, but deleting these article would cause a dangerous precedent I can't live with. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm still saying that a non-fully professional competition does not justify having season articles; however, there *might* be some grounds for having a reference in the 2007-08 in Greek football article, if we must absolutely keep the data (after streamlining it a bit)? Lukeno94 (talk) 09:57, 14 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 00:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ALL per wiki guidlines. No notability outside of the main article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ALL - I agree with others views that the deletion covers a "tier 4" league which is defined as a "Grey Area " in WP:NCLUB.There are many club which are notable and even played first division.It seems very unsound proposal to delete the league below in my view because a lot of work has gone into producing the tables by the relevant editors.Also according to Greek Football Federation the restructuring of greek football championships will happen next season and this league will no longer exist and this is the last season of the league. Papagrikas (User talk:Papagrikas) 09:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - can you explain why you think these season articles are notable beyond the scope of the parent article, Delta Ethniki? Cloudz679 22:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Season articles are an essential element of the football encyclopedia of Wikipedia enabling us to trace the movement and progress of clubs up and down the divisions - they are in my view the "lifeblood" of our football encyclopedia demonstrating the dynamic nature of soccer over time. Yes we need boundaries Cloudz679 but they need to be set at the right level and in the case of Greek football the obvious place to delete season articles is at level 5 which covers the many District Championships. As a general rule in my view if a league is listed in the user essay WP:NCLUB then it should be a strong candidate for a season article. I would exclude Level 11 leagues in England such as the Central Midlands Football League which you rightly refer to above. In the case of Delta Ethniki there is another issue which we have not touched upon and that is that Soccerway only covers 2011/12 and 2012/13. I do not know where I could find similar information (in English) for the 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11 seasons. RSSSF covers 2003/04 and 2004/05 in detail and the seasons back to 2001/02 are covered in Greek Wikipedia (if you can read Greek). We need league season tables to write informed club articles and this is particularly the case for clubs that move between Football League 2 (Greece) and Delta Ethniki. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Reply to Cloudz679: I think these articles are a reasonable WP:SPINOFF of the parent article. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -Thanks for your reply and I can see your point, however I still believe that the articles in question do not assert independent notability from the parent article and a summary on the main page (e.g. winners in each season) would suffice. Cloudz679 20:02, 25 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 00:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect. Without looking at the articles carefully, I can't have an opinion on whether these should be considered notable. However, it's easy to see that they've been around for several years, so it's reasonable for people to have searched for them and to have bookmarked them and linked to them on other websites. Therefore, deletion wouldn't be helpful; if we judge them not to qualify under WP:GNG, we'll serve readers better by redirecting all of them to the league article. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Age of an article is not a valid reason for keeping it. A redirect would probably be fine, but these low-quality articles about a minor league are far from notable. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a valid reason for keeping it as an article, but it's a valid reason for keeping its name a bluelink. As I already said, I don't have an opinion on whether or not it should be kept as an article. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is unreferenced, appears to be no evidence of notability. Eldumpo (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ALL For the same reasons as Mentoz86 said 94.65.184.125 (talk) 12:17, 30 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. Courcelles 06:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Style Foundation

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

WP:NOTABILITY WP:ORG - Nothing in Google News, Article has 1 ref, etc. Google search produces atypical "Web2.0" search padding - LinkedIN, Facebook, Myspace, and various blogs. PeterWesco (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please provide actual sources. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said I was going to add them to the article, and I did so on November 13, eight days before your request. A single article, like this is sufficient to keep this article. There are twelve such citations. This is a slam dunk according to the criteria at WP:N and WP:ORG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete while there are sources, I'm struggling to find significant coverage in the sources, [26] just talks about a blog, FT just says they give awards and have a definition of sustainability and New Yorker says they together with ID magazine and the treehugger website sponsored a prize for a design competition. All these a brief mentions in longer articles.--Salix (talk): 09:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
week delete The seattle-pi article this does count as significant coverage. However this is from 2005 and I can't see that they have really created much impact from there.--Salix (talk): 09:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
why aren't these citations incorporated into text? this is a one line mention. this is another one line mention that merely mentions they sponsored a contest. this is a short mention. this is a blatant self promotional piece.LibStar (talk) 07:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a stub? I contributed to the article by adding some references that demonstrate notability and aid future editors in improving the article. If this article were a higher priority for me, I'd expand it and incorporate the citations. If you think expanding it is a high priority, then be my guest. If not, leave it and let someone else take over. The only relevant issue here is that the notability criteria have been met. Dealing with fixable issues is outside the scope of AfD. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of the references are self promotion. Lifestyle sections of newspapers are paid publicity sections via PR firms. The other one liner mentions do not bring notability. Grist.org is the house organ for the "green economy" and the first stop for spammy PR... When an AfD discussion transcends into sentence counting to determine notability, then it should be clear there is no notability to be found. Especially in an article that has only 3 sentences. PeterWesco (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care that much about the Sustainable Style Foundation, but if you have any evidence to support the accusation of paid stories in the sources cited, such as the Seattle PI and The New Yorker, or your claims about Grist, that would be useful for future AfD discussions. I'm sure similar sources will be cited again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In PR, the deal is made with the reporters and editors rather than the advertising representatives from network and publications. Check out VerdePR's post: VerdePR and how about this: co-branded Skinny Dip beer promotion with the environmental website Grist.org. PeterWesco (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That source says nothing about the Seattle PI, the New Yorker, or any of the sources cited here. It's just a cynical take on how the media works. There's nothing in Wikipedia:Notability that suggests that we have to start throwing out entire sections of newspapers because somebody once said that they are influenced by PR. If you want to suggest a change along these lines at Wikipedia talk:Notability, you can do that, but this deletion discussion depends on the notability criteria as they are now, not as someone might wish them to be. The only evidence against Grist is that they accepted paid advertising on their web site, and had a promotion of some kind. Newspapers are supported by ads. Newspapers have promotions. So what? Sustainable Style Foundation is an environmental topic and it got covered in a newspaper that covers environmental topics. Because it's notable. You've offered no evidence that the Sustainable Style Foundation has been writing big checks to media outlets. They're not that rich, for one thing, making the whole conspiracy theory rather implausible.

And once again, the fact that the article is a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. See WP:NOTCLEANUP.

Also. Susan Orlean and Dorothy Parvaz are respected journalists. You're making a serious charge against them based on zero evidence. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you are a little too close to the subject of the article. 'I made no accusations as you claim. I merely stated that the lifestyle sections are the fodder for PR firms. I made no statement at anytime that this particular article was purchased.' PeterWesco (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did. You said "Lifestyle sections of newspapers are paid publicity sections via PR firms." Paid publicity fails WP:SPS, which is the whole issue here. Either you were saying the articles cited were paid advertising, or you came here to waste everyone's time.

What evidence do you have that I have any connection whatsoever with this subject?

At some point, repeatably making false statements like this is considered disruptive editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:24, 28 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 00:55, 29 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 01:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Delete After a little digging, the sourcing for this article seems 100% PR driven. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — The most significant press comment on the SSF is probably the mention in the New Yorker in 2008. It's a passing mention, but it counts for something. On the other hand, there is no coverage that shows that SSF is notable within the world of 'sustainability' provided there is such a thing. If you do Whatlinkshere in Wikipedia you find no mentions in articles except where the SSF has given one of their awards to some famous person like Pierce Brosnan. This is SSF recognizing the importance of Pierce Brosnan but not vice versa. Even that mention is sourced only to SSF's own web site. The website at sustainablestyle.org has a press page where they list some coverage. That page has no entries since 2008. From their web site you can't verify if they have any paid employees; the impression is that they don't. They seem to be a volunteer-based organization. They sponsor occasional meetings and they give out awards. If you do [links:sustainablestyle.org] on Google it finds 109 inbound links. This is tiny compared to a larger website like http://earth911.com which has some interests in common with SSF, but gets over 200,000 incoming links. The Earth911.com site does not even have a Wikipedia article, though I imagine one would be justified. Earth911.com gets 8,561 views per day according to Alexa; sustainablestyle.org gets 152 views per day. EdJohnston (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC). I struck out my web site analysis; may not have been done correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:Non-admin closure) Bruddersohn (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DOMO Group

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

Non-notable company without sources since tagged with {{notability}} in december 2007 Bjelleklang - talk 13:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep As this is a private company it is not listed in any stock exchanges, but it does seem to be borderline notable. Not sure if revenue in an of itself is sufficient basis for inclusion. WP:CORP has nothing on that. I see some basic third-party mentions [27] and even Business Week has a blurb about it. §FreeRangeFrog 00:33, 22 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 00:49, 29 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/WP:NPASR. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skrijelj

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

Apparently non-notable clan. A Google search for the sources listed can't even confirm that the books exist with the listed title. Bjelleklang - talk 17:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:49, 21 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 00:49, 29 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. Will provide deleted content upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silver bands in County Fermanagh

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

No listed refs, tagged with {{notability}} since december 2007. Article makes no mention of why the subject is notable, and having no sources makes it difficult to verify that any of the bands or this type of bands are notable. Delete, or merge into County Fermanagh. Bjelleklang - talk 17:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:49, 21 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 00:48, 29 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) 19:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luke K. Cooperrider

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

The subject does not meet the notability requirements of WP:Academic - he's been a professor at a good school for many years but that is in itself insufficient to confer notability. JohnInDC (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question does nothing to establish why that role, or that Board, would rise to the notability threshold for WP. -- Scray (talk) 02:51, 25 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 00:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of football referees

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

Poorly sourced, incomplete list with no clear inclusion criteria. If completed, the list would probably be far to long to be of much practical use. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even improving the article with inclusion criteria (i.e. all FIFA international referees) does not inspire confidence - it would still be overly long and of little interest/use. GiantSnowman 15:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize - then later Delete - I agree that this list is overly long, and will never be completed and will get longer in time. However, I have noticed the large numbers of blue linked entries for those football referees who are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. If those entries are catagorized properly, then this list is not needed. Because of American football and European based football are totally different, the category should reflect that. I am no expert on categories and some help may be needed. Example: [Category:Football (soccer) referee] and sub-category by country should be included [Category:Football (soccer) referee#Germany]. And this list should be maintained or moved to the editor's sandbox so the editor can work through the list for categorizing. Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In looking at this category idea, it appears that some related categories are present. For example: [Category:Algerian football referees] - By having a universal category as mentioned above, most of these other (as example given) could be removed. This is way beyond my pay grade - so to speak. This probably could be done by a bot, but it should be done by an expert. Simple category adding is one thing, but copy and replace boting is another.
And the possible replacement of categories by one universal one should first be posted at: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion
Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to List of association football referees (it is currently a list of soccer referees only) and delete the redlinks (or non-notable names). Quite a few soccer referees are notable (see WP:NFOOTY for eligibility), and having a list of them is legitimate per WP:L etc. It is totally legitimate to have both a list and a category for referees - see WP:CLN for an explanation why. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I agree with Colapeninsula, category differe then article and we can have both, it will be a problem with two similar articles or two similar categories. I agree too with Colapeninsula to rename the article. And finally to Mr. Jrcrin001, u gives exemple of [Category:Algerian football referees], I think most have the same probleme, see [Category:Association football referees by nationality]. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename blue linked articles - Then delete - Note: I struck out some of my text above because there is a catch all category, as mentioned above. May I suggest the following? Rename blue linked articles within the list with (A.F. referee) after the name. This distinguishes them at a glance. Then in the catch all category, ([Category:Association football referees by nationality]) add the following text: {intitle|A.F. referee} . An example of this working with Carpenter in the title follows and it is an auto-generator that does not need to be maintained.
  • All pages with titles containing Carpenter
The main problem is that Wikipedia is not an end all of everything. And a list of all Association Football referees - even with red link names removed - is duplicative of categorization and proper naming of articles.
As mentioned before, such list articles need proper references and maintenance. It is a lot of work. And without those references and clear cut inclusion criteria, then this list fails the WP:List criteria.
By using the proper naming criteria of all Association Football referee related articles - then you can auto-create a list whenever it is needed, on the catch all catergory or even on the See also section each related article. This is a win-win and improves the Association Football referee articles. And this list is no longer needed. I am trying ... Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to a list of FIFA referees, but it should created separately from this article. This article is not only on FIFA refs, nor was intended to be (see the section on England for example). Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:39, 22 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 00:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, it does not address the fact that the list has next to no encyclopedic value. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree that WP:LISTN covers this list. At the highest levels, referees are notable, of course, but this is true of almost any group of people sharing a common past time or profession. The term referee includes the likes Howard Webb and Pierluigi Collina just as much as it includes the teachers who officiate the local schoolboys league. While obviously containing some notable sub-groups, referees as a group are not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:19, 29 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 A7). --Bongwarrior (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juyce Capone

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

I can't find any indication that this rapper is notable. I can find no reliable sources on the first 2-3 pages of Google results (most of which are YouTube videos and self-promotion sites). Kudos for the well-written article, though. Maniesansdelire 00:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Angel episodes. — Coren (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redefinition

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

An episode from a TV show, there is no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Rotten regard Softnow 23:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't doubt they reference the series as a whole, but do they give significant coverage of this particular episode? Rotten regard Softnow 19:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:22, 29 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) 15:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo (newspaper)

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

Article about an obscure alternative student newspaper that seems to be based purely on someone's personal knowledge since there don't appear to be any sources that document its history. The one source currently in the article is from another student newspaper, and even that is just a brief description that doesn't specifically support the content for which it is cited. I was only able to find a few passing mentions in reliable sources (e.g., an author describing his own college years mentions writing for it). The most extended discussion about it that I could find was in Ayn Rand and Alienation, which is a self-published book (not a reliable source). RL0919 (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I do see Greenberg's book in scores of university libraries ranging from California to South Africa. OCLC 3294090.--S. Rich (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is barely verifiable, so definitely isn't notable. Stowonthewolder (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As RL0919 has found "the most extended discussion" in Ayn Rand and Alienation, I wonder what the discussion was. Dismissing the Greenberg as SPS is not getting to the meat of the content, especially in light of the decision of university librarians to include it in their collections. If Ayn Rand and Alienation does have verifiable content (which I think would be of some interest), I hope s/he will provide it.--S. Rich (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC) PS: Ergo is available around the country. See OCLC 15206372. Except for Fullerton, I'm not near any of these libraries, so a look-see is not feasible at present.02:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I could dig the book out of whatever box I have it in, but "most extended" does not translate to "useful". The book describes an incident where an editor upset Ayn Rand by passing out the paper at one her appearances. So it tells us little that is relevant, even if it were to be accepted as a reliable source (which it definitely isn't, IMO). It is only "most extended" in comparison to the stark lack of coverage elsewhere. --RL0919 (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah-ha! AR & A has gone from an SPS publication (which, for unknown reasons, seems to be inherently unreliable) to one actually bought (or given), read, remembered (if only vaguely), and boxed away. But how do we address the fact that both AR&R and Ergo are maintained by reputable librarians as evidenced by the OCLC listings I've provided? (Don't take this the wrong way, RL, the fact that you've commented is appreciated. Moreover, it adds interest and spice to our discussion.--S. Rich (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It hasn't "gone from" anything. Greenberg's book is still self-published, regardless of whether I own a copy. And yes that makes it presumptively not a reliable source under the guidelines. The presence of something in a library (even a whopping 67 of them worldwide) doesn't necessarily make it reliable. Similarly, 10 libraries having some holding of the newspaper doesn't make it notable. --RL0919 (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. I see [28] that AR&A started off "from University of Michigan". While I don't know exactly what that means, perhaps it adds credence to Greenberg's scholarly status. 2. Presumptions are rebuttable. 3. Many (most) of the 67/10 libraries are university libraries. 4. Another source say Greenberg's book was published by "Bridgeberg Books" (I don't know what sort of house that is -- legitimate or of cards); 5. There is a review of AR&R in Reason magazine (again, I don't know if that helps). 5. Ergo, after all, was published at MIT, a school that has enjoyed some favor in the academic world. Ergo, I suggest we leave this start class article as is. Perhaps other editors will expand on it. (I've made a small effort by providing OCLCs.) --S. Rich (talk) 06:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Another thought -- perhaps we can merge Ergo into the MIT article. People interested in MIT history will see it and then expand upon it. 06:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Google Books info says "original from" U of M is because that is where Google got the copy that they scanned, not because the university had anything to do with the book's publication. Greenberg describes himself in the book as a "poet" and is explicitly the publisher. He has no "scholarly status". The review in Reason was negative and suggested reading "serious thinkers" instead. In any case, bootstrapping speculation about this one non-reliable source doesn't create notability for Ergo. Even if Greenberg's book was usable, it doesn't contain enough information to support an article on the subject. --RL0919 (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before I add my support to the nomination, what comment can you provide regarding Nelkin, Dorthy (1972). The university and military research: moral politics at M.I.T.. p. 106 [29] "The Society of Radicals for Capitalism distributes 5,100 free copies of Ergo Newspaper weekly to the M.I.T. community. 13 "MIT and Military Capitalism," SACC Newsletter, September 26, 1969. ..."? --S. Rich (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like a reliable source, but I don't have a copy, just the Google snippet you provided. If it is just the one sentence then I don't think that would meet the "significant coverage" criterion from WP:GNG. If it does provide significant coverage, then that would be one source. I think more would be needed, but it would be a start. --RL0919 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sonneta

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

There are no reliable, independent sources for this product. All sources in the article, and all sources I could find online, are either (co-)written by the creators (mainly Fernandes), or from interested parties (the University that did the original research, and the company that commercializes the product). The Prod was removed because of the Bahn reference, but that reference is co-written by Fernandes and van Lieshout, so is not an independent source at all[30]. This lack of independent sources means that so far, this product isn't notable. Fram (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of reliable sources includes the following: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." The reason is because the publisher has an independent peer-review process for vetting articles. The publisher is the independent third party in this case, not the authors of the article. So the Banh reference is reliable and independent, since it has been vetted by the publisher's editors and peer-reviewers. A self-published source WP:SPS is something quite different (like a webpage), and does not apply to the Banh reference. BNVOTFQW (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the bigger picture, it is useful to compare the Sonneta article with articles describing similar systems. Computerized Speech Lab uses highly-biased language and reads like an advertisement; and Praat, while sticking to the facts, has no references. Perhaps it would make sense to merge all these articles into a single comparative one using the three (and more) products as examples. BNVOTFQW (talk) 20:07, 16 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, —Theopolisme 02:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:19, 29 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 (WP:Non-admin closure) Bruddersohn (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Manaus Aerotáxi crash

2009 Manaus Aerotáxi crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lack of notability. Generally light aircraft are only notable if one of the caualties is notable in their own right, or major collateral damage was caused, or regulations or procedures are changed as a direct result of the incident Petebutt (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:17, 29 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) 19:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ads myanmar

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

Do not meet WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Amartyabag TALK2ME 07:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 14:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:16, 29 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) 15:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peyyeti

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

WP:GNG. It certainly is a surname - GSearch shows examples in India, Canada and elsewhere - but there seems to be nothing to verify the content, including its connections to a Brahmin community or the village of Peyyeru. I don't think we've quite descended to the point of inherent notability for surnames but feel free to correct me. Sitush (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I PROD'ed this and the PROD was removed without explanation by an IP. - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as G11 by User:JamesBWatson. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ProYouth

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

See tags. Random initiative, the Google results speak for themselves; the creator looks out to spam about it too.No qwach macken (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:14, 29 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) 19:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antiguo Autómata Mexicano

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

This article is obviously autopromotion, the musician doesn't fill the requirements to be considered relevant -A7.- the references of his work are magazines not even known at Mexico, such as Pitchfork Magazine or Urb Online, and when you google this unknown musician the only mexican magazine that mentions him is Afterpop Magazine, an amateur unknown publication not even published physically at Mexico, besides I found at Facebook the Afterpop "Magazine" editor is a close friend of the musician, he had never apeared in radio or tv, and the links found at the web about him are not serious (such as Myspace.com, facebook, or his own account in youtube), if there's not other really relevant mexican musicians listed here I don't see any reason to list such autopromotion within Wikipedia, besides he's not even mentioned at Wikipedia-Mexico Postculture (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your complaint. Pitchfork Media is a very well-known and respected US music website and a reliable source for proving notability. Are you saying that non-Mexican sources can't be used to prove the notability of Mexican artists, because that is totally false. And what is this Wikipedia-Mexico? Do you mean Spanish Wikipedia? Whether or not someone has a page on another language's Wikipedia has no relevance to their notability on English Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is enough to establish notability there (Pitchfork media? Really?) and I'm seeing substantial coverage in google.mx as well, although I'm not entirely sure which of those are WP:RS. §FreeRangeFrog 02:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - please note the very first thing this user did was nominate this page for AfD. Read from that what you will. The article needs improving and expanding, but certainly not deletion. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:29, 29 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_November_29&oldid=526718911"