Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 28 January	30 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Live from the Kitchen: Reloaded

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

Possible hoax, no gnews hits for "Live from the Kitchen: Reloaded", and only 6 hits from a regular gsearch, most of are from Wikipedia & its mirrors. Someone claiming that the artist is a client of theirs posted on the help desk here, asking that it be deleted. In my own assessment it is likely to be a hoax. Quasi human | Talk 22:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously. There is no mention of this at hiphopdx—the stated source in the article—and therefore every reason to believe the report that this creation was some kind of odd misunderstanding or (strangely pointless) hoax, and there are no RSs for it under any scenario. 86.44.40.73 (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per IP. Paolo Napolitano 13:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Completely rewritten, no consensus to delete in this version owing to very little discussion. Sandstein 20:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudorationalism

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

The article is an unsalvageable hodge-podge of POV pushing and coatracking. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, this is not a meaningful concept, just a synthesis of numerous pieces from not particularly reliable sources that happen to share a pejorative. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support [deletion] per nom. I originally prodded this article last week based upon it being an obscure concept with little in the way of reliable sources, but didn't get round to moving it here after it was contested - by a now blocked user. QueenCake (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion, per nomination. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:43, 30 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsalvageable as nom says. Whether it's quite a neologism or not, there's nothing substantial here, just POV dressed up with a few unsatisfactory references. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete - as a dictionary definition doing the lambada with an original essay.~~ Carrite (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will stand down owing to the article's second life with new content. The 1935 article definitely exists, using the German for "Pseudorationalism" in the title, which would imply a keep is on the way. I'm not sure the content here is particularly useful, but that's ultimately an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, I blocked the sock who created this article--he has a history of creating poorly sourced articles on neologisms and the like. But the article has been completely rewritten so everyone who !voted above might want to take a second look. I'm not qualified to assess the references used but at first glance the article seems much improved and lambada-free. Valfontis (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted after a complete rewrite to generate a discussion on the new version. 23:14, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Keep as rewritten. After the AfD was largely decided, another editor rewrote the article into an entirely different (and reasonably sourced) topic. My initial intention was to close as inapplicable on that basis, but I welcome evaluation of the material as rewritten. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 15:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheng Yong

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

The article was last AfDed and deleted in March. It was then recreated, and I don't think enough notability was shown, although it is close. Delete, and if this time the consensus is again to delete it, I suggest salting it. --Nlu (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 15 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think we can delete this for now. Despite an artnet bio, I still think this young artist has a little bit of time to go before meeting WP:GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but major overhaul is needed'. [1] [2], I would say this one barely passes the GNG. Paolo Napolitano 13:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Paolo Napolitano 13:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep per PaoloNapolitano, also bearing in mind that it tends to be hard to find Chinese sources on the internet (or, come to think about it, off the internet). The stuff that Paolo found makes for no more than a very weak keep, if there were nothing more, but in this case, another likely scenario is that there is more, but we can't find it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) B music ian 04:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown University Alumni & Student Federal Credit Union

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

Non-notable credit union. Fails WP:N as not having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Does not satisfy any of the standards in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Being "oldest and largest entirely student-run credit union in the country" doesn't confer inherent notability absent multiple independent reliable sources, per the general notability guideline. And, no, I do not believe that the presence of Georgetown University-related sources does not count toward the notability guideline. The purpose of the notability requirement is to only include subjects which have attracted "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." The fact that a Georgetown entity is covered by a Georgetown student paper is does not satisfy that purpose. --GrapedApe (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that the article was created by Guasfcu (talk · contribs), who is now blocked as a role account--raises issues of WP:COI and possible POV-pushing). GrapedApe (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've cleaned up the article, and provided sources from The Washington Post and BusinessWeek among others. I would specificity point to where these published sources highlight the "The organization’s longevity and size of membership", which are the first considerations in determining notability according to WP:CLUB. The editor who first created the article in 2008 is irrelevant to its current status.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 22:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A half paragraph in Business Week. That makes Washington Post 1 legitimate independent reliable source. The "longevity" factor Patrickneil speaks of in WP:CLUB is a sub-consideration of the secondary factor "Factors that have attracted widespread attention." That's not sufficient on its own.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:UNI we've been over it time and again, and the consensus is always that independent campus news sources should not be rejected, much as other locally focused newspapers wouldn't be. While they wouldn't be enough on their own, they work to provide backup for The Washington Post, BusinessWeek, The Boston Herald, The Dayton Daily News, Bloomberg, and The College Buzz Book. So, a multimillion dollar corporation with thousands of members across the United States, and the oldest and largest in its field. I'm tempted to ask for Speedy Keep.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 00:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 30 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - boring but obviously notable, as demonstrated by Patrick's sources. --He to Hecuba (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to Patrick this article now meets the requirements of WP:N and WP:GNG with multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. Gobonobo ^T ^C 21:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei Airport Highway

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

Contested prod. Unsourced, with no significant coverage found. Having an airport at one end of it doesn't seem sufficient to justify an encyclopedia article. Michig (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note. On the maps that I have found, none of the major roads in this area appear to have this name.--Michig (talk) 17:21, 30 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, and rename if necessary. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it belong in an encyclopedia, and if we rename it, what should it be called?--Michig (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravendrop (talk • contribs) 19:19, 12 February 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As best I can tell, this is a very short road that leads from a roundabout on Berakas Highway into Brunei International Airport. It is not marked on google maps with a name, and google street view is not available to verify it, but its the only candidate I can see. As such, this existing stub is more confusing than helpful, I'd delete and perhaps redirect to Brunei International Airport.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a catalog of all paved roads. R. S. Shaw (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As non-notable, and per Shaw.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symphonic Thinking

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

Neologism. Aside from cleanup issues, which i have not yet attempted, I could not find sufficient references to the phrase. (gsearch is 700 not 7000). some use does exist, but its coinage in this manner is about 12 years old. previous use of the phrase, of course, was in reference to actual symphony composition. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reference in the PsycINFO article database. Google Scholar returns only the one article mentioned, which is an unpublished white-paper. It seems like it is a term coined by author Dan Pink that never received widespread usage. Seems like a "cutesy" expression to refer to a broader point that Pink was trying to make, rather than one with any academic usage behind it. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:53, 29 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 04:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relist for the last time. If still nobody responds then this article should be deleted per WP:PROD thinking.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 16:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. John the Evangelist's Church (Beacon, New York)

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

I found no notability. This is just an average church. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 15 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No indication of wp:notability. Only has stub content, about right for an entry in a list article. North8000 (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Egads, AfD is indeed dead, isn't it? We can't get anybody to !vote on these noncontroversial AfDs anymore? The article is a one sentence stub and I can find no basis for notability. Typically, church articles like this are generally deleted in AfD.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing found on searching to indicate notability. -- 202.124.74.83 (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York Metro Alliance of Anarchists

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

No assertion is made of the notability of the subject. Has not been the subject of significant coverage in any secondary sources, and as such fails WP:ORG. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 06:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of sources and having only 50 members both point to a lack of notability. BigJim707 (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nobody's noticed. (Isn't an organization of anarchists self-defeating?) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pantula Surya Venkata Kameshwara Rao

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

Contested prod. No reliable references provided. Poet of questionable notability. Google search on "Pantula Surya Venkata Kameshwara Rao" shows no results. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unpublished poet, no evidence beyond the word of article's author, so pure WP:OR unfortunately. FWIW I believe the claims, and had anything been published in any language I would have followed it up, but the claims do not establish any kind of notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable aside from any issues of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Return to the Source. Michig's argument carries weight: a merge is the correct result. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ambient Meditations

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

Compilation series released by a trance club; does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite a lot of mentions, but no in-depth coverage or reviews. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Return to the Source. The albums exist. One got reviewed in The Wire. The DJs responsible for the mixes are notable. The information is encyclopedic and verifiable, so it shouldn't be deleted, but doesn't merit a separate article.--Michig (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Return to the Source, per Michig. Note: Return to the Source is also currently being considered at AfD.--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure there is any RS-supported material to merge, which (unless that changes) might suggest a redirect would be more in order.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:CHALLENGED.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Return to the Source, as above. Cavarrone (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This has run long enough and I do not see clear consensus to delete and not much evidence to keep. That this is a reasonable search term is not proven either, so a redirect--maybe, maybe not. I see no option besides 'no consensus'. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Corlett

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

This actor has only one show he is starred in, "Dinosaur Train". Little is known about biographical information regarding him besides being the son of Ian James Corlett and sister of Claire Corlett. The references are to Netflix, TV.com, IMDb and PBSkids. Which are either primary sources or unreliable sources. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dinosaur Train or delete. Two roles of that particular caliber don't cut it, but redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Main voice actor in the The Jim Henson Company Television production. Some evidence of acting in the 2005 film Company Man. Added external link for reference to libraries at WorldCat catalogue. Argolin (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snowball; salt already applied by JamesBWatson. All others are salted as well. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elnaz Rezaei

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

95+% of the refs are what SHE has written - if we included pages of people who have written papers, then we would all have a page! No good refs at to her notability. This has been deleted once here already and four times at Elnaz Rezaei Ghalechi. Time to stop this nonsense and delete and salt both pages Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Also deleted at Elnaz Rezaei Gh. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Were her papers/poems published? Every 7th grader is published? Or do you mean everything is blogs written by her or something? I don't think that en.wikipedia will include pages of people who have written unpublished papers. Pseudofusulina (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. None of the sources qualify as independent and reliable, and frankly I don't see the difference between this author and millions of students with published paper. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 09:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Lack of RS. Noted that Vazna is the offical page of a poetry workshop.Farhikht (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no independent sources in the article, her awards are not notable too. Seems to be much more like a CV published by herself. ●Mehran ^Debate● 06:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David McGurn

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

Semi pro footballer fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Only trivial coverage in local newspapers etc. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - passes WP:Footy as nom is well aware of.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as he played as a full-time professional for Morton (source). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - passes WP:Footy ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI note: above three editors are members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Scotland task force

Keep. Passes the notability guidelines by dint of having played professionally. Strange nomination really, this player has won the Scottish Second Division twice with 2 different clubs, and made hundreds of appearances. I'm aware that that division isn't on Wikipedia's list of fully professional leagues, but common sense should prevail. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Passes WP:FOOTY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedintm (talk • contribs) 02:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 11:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Number 5 7 23:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mystical Sun

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

This music producer lacks substantial multiple RS coverage in gnews and gbooks. The article creator is an SPA, whose name (M-sun) suggests a possible COI. Epeefleche (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found. No indication of notability.--Michig (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 29 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom & fails WP:MUSICBIO. ●Mehran ^Debate● 07:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seemed to get a weak, "benefit of the doubt" keep last time round. No improvement or evidence of notability in three years since. No indepth coverage in reliable sources. Tigerboy1966 21:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage for this project; does not appear to meet WP:GNG and I'm unable to verify (in independent reliable sources) that it meets any of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. Gongshow ^Talk 21:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and rename Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Startling by Each Step episodes

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

I've added the proposed delete template on List of Startling by Each Step episodes because of the following concerns: "Believed to be unnecessary due to each episode's summary lack relevants, listed under Singapore's airdates instead of its original from Mainland China, incomplete, spoilers, lacking activities, sloppiness, and does not cite any reference. Unless improvements are made, I am standing the proposal of deletion of the article. --NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge and redirect. Concerns about air-dates is not a reason to delete...easy enough to change to those of country of origin (or add if the Singapore broadcasts are somehow important too). Concerns about sloppiness is never a reason to do delete...fix it or tag it. WP:SPOILER is never a reason to do anything. Episode-lists are common for many series, and putting them in a separate article is a standard way to avoid cluttering up a long article about the series itself. Which leaves us with general notability (WP:UNDUE, fancruft, or excessive/unencyclopediac detail...WP is not TV Guide) and lack of citations. The series article (Startling by Each Step) seems to have excessive plot-summary and other details (cf. WP:PLOT, I've tagged that article accordingly)--it's a series based on a book, so I assume the substantial plot is the book's topic--so I'd support redirecting back to the parent and putting a brief summary of how the series follows the plot of the book (again, don't duplicate book details). DMacks (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shotgun nomination manages to hit one actual deletion reason amongst the several listed. As is, the nominator admits that it aired in two national television networks, which means that the lack of sourcing should be easily remedyable. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This list is practically like written by a five year old, even though I know it is written by a Chinese audieance of the show who lacked the profieciency of English grammar, writing, and spelling.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia isn't a place for excessively detailed plots of television series. The plot section of the main article needs to be trimmed down as well. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 16:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not for cleanup.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my and Lonelydarksky's comments aren't that this article needs to be cleaned up (salvageable topic or viable article if rewritten), but merely also noting that the merge or more-appropriate-home target of the content also may need attention. DMacks (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 16. Snotbot t • c » 23:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still say delete. Whoever writing the synopsis is giving away excessive details, and writes like five years old. --NeoBatfreak (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NeoBatfreak (talk · contribs) has renamed this Afd page after Fabnerwen (talk · contribs) tried to rename the article using DISPLAYTITLE. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:N and WP:LIST, hopefully provides a vehicle for reducing the excessive detail in the parent article. However, I am left trying to figure out why the name in the list is one way and the parent article is another? Why is this not List of Scarlet Heart episodes? --Tgeairn (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to List of Scarlet Heart episodes leaving redirect behind. As pointed out above, this meets N and LIST, but still needs IRS. I suspect the synopsis writer is either a younger editor or a primary speaker of a language other than English (possibly both), but neither issues disqualifies the writer from contributing. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In respect to the people who originally aired the episodes, I believe that airdate should be changed to its original from mainland China. Because, each region has different airdates. The orginator of the article obviously stick with where he or she comes from, but US airs the show two months before Singapore.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons)#History. Although several people say this plot element is significant for the fiction, other commentators have pointed out the lack of significant real-world coverage. There seems to be consensus though that some material could or should be retained in e.g. Devil (Dungeons & Dragons)#History. I therefore close this discussion as merge (i.e. not keep this as a stand-alone article). THe ultimate merge target may be discussed elsewhere. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reckoning of Hell

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion in a mass group nomination here, but the discussion was muddled with so many varying articles. The closing administrator suggested that the articles should be nominated individually, which is what I am doing now. A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for elements of fiction. Neelix (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a significant plot point in the in-game history of D&D. However, as all of Neelix's renominations of the articles from the original AFD have thus far resulted in a merge, I will propose that, as an alternative to deletion, the article can be merged into Devil (Dungeons & Dragons)#History instead. BOZ (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - Significance within a fictional universe is not an indicator of notability according to Wikipedia's standards. On Wikipedia, notability is based on real-world significance as demonstrated by reliable, secondary sources, and there are no such sources for the Reckoning of Hell. Neelix (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - There is no evidence that this ficitonal element of D&D has received significant independent coverage to establish notability. simply stating something is a significant plot point without sources is not sufficient for keeping an article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons)#History. A hight significance in D&D, but not enough RS to justify a separate article from it. Cavarrone (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is a lot of stuff out there within the D&D universe, and most of it isn't encyclopedic. There are other fictional universes that have vaguely similar ideas, and all of that seems to be just fodder for confusion with actual theology rather than adding things here.Tyrenon (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, per Boz.--Robbstrd (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Woburn, Massachusetts#Education. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 01:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Reeves Elementary School

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

Elementary school through grade 5. Zero refs. Review of gbooks and gnews fails to turn up substantial, non-passing, multiple, independent RS coverage. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Woburn, Massachusetts#Education, where the school is mentioned. My searches for reliable source coverage yielded passing mentions and one non-trivial hit behind a paywall. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hoax article. Jeremy (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror Press (Blur album)

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

Article created about non-existant Blur studio album - no references anywhere for it Littleone77 (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Album does not exist. As far as I can tell, there has been no confirmation that a new album is even going to be recorded.--Michig (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fern Crost has also previously added false new album information to the Blur article - http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Blur_(band)&diff=prev&oldid=314827464

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

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

The result was Userfy. The article creator has userfied this article which has now been moved to User:Fatty2k10/Skylink (bus routes). Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skylink (bus routes)

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

Unreferenced non-notable bus route. No evidence is given of notability, and does an airport bus service really need an article? Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) 19:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor Muir

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

does not meet notability guidelines Baskets1001 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could use some more refs. but he is notable per here etc. He's director of ICA, London. Artiquities (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would have thought that being director of the ICA was easily enough notability just in itself but, if not, the Google News, Books and Scholar hits should more than cover any shortfall. The nomination smells a little odd to me. Somebody went to the trouble of registering an account just to nominate this article for deletion but then fails to give any detailed rationale. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable. Found three mentions on Google News Archive [3] a book on Google Books [4] though no mentions on Google Scholar. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 20:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or this: Guardian: "Gregor Muir to be new ICA chief". Or this: Guardian: "What Gregor Muir can do for the ICA". Our old friend WP:BEFORE looms large. AllyD (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More refs now in article, clear notability. AllyD (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WSA Winnipeg

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. Cloudz 679 19:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 17:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cloudz 679 19:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:FOOTYN is an essay, not an accepted policy or guideline for one; secondly there seems to be significant enough coverage of this team on Google News. -CrazyHos12 (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The team has had some coverage, and the consensus appears to be that PDL teams are considered notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - PDL teams are considered notable, as per every other team that has played in the league. JonBroxton (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plays at a notable level, needs improving not deleting. Giant Snowman 10:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Teams that have participated in the USL Premier Development League (level four) appear to be considered notable. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kalanna skelarx

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

Contested prod. Non-notable character from a not-yet-published book (possibly self-published) from an author with no article. No indications of notability, no references from reliable sources. Google search on the name shows only 12 results, none from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even if this were an article about the book series rather than the main character, the first book in the series hasn't yet been published and no independent reliable sources have been identified. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In creating this page, I did violate several terms, and I apologize. I do represent the publisher/author and thus have a conflict of interest; and there is only one source for information at this time. Deletion is warranted and appropriate. Again, I apologize for not complying with Wikipedia's policies. GoldenMasqueradeBooks (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage whatsoever -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A slight majority of commentors prefers deletion, and the others say a legitimate article may be developed with proper sources. As this list currently lacks any sources or topic material of substance, I close as delete but encourage the re-creation with properly developed information that does not merely list the characters. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of fictional characters

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

Nothing but unreferenced original research and synthesis. No indications of the notability of the subject, just indiscriminate lists of ideas/concepts/characters already covered in their respective articles. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing but original research unbacked by any citations to reliable sources. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If trimmed sufficiently, it becomes simply a list of lists. I agree that it's incomplete, but I don't see how its "indiscriminate" in any meaningful sense. Again, citations are in the target articles, their lack here is not evidence of an absence of notability. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Despite being entirely unsourced, there is the basis of an article here, and we don't seem to have any other on this precise topic. But the creator of this one needs to decide whether it's an article or a list. If it's an article, it should have some prose content and references to sources describing the concept. If it's a list, it should have 'List' in the title and clear inclusion criteria. At the moment, it's somewhere in between. Robofish (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Content discussions are not viable arguments for deletion. Is the article subject notable? Yes. Is there academic literature on it? yes. on sailor moon? possibly not. But probably. Greglocock (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an article, the subject matter is far too broad; deal with alternative versions of characters from a given book/series/universe in an article on that universe or in articles on the relevant stories/characters (i.e. Superman: Red Son and Superman: True Brit have their own pages, as do a lot of Elseworlds stories). Realistically, this is likely to become a list of lists with some passing discussion, and that would be better handled within other pages than as a separate page. (As an addendum, I'd also note that this reeks of being a very, very bad cruft target). Edit: Wasn't logged in when I first posted this.Tyrenon (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be a category not a list? I still think it is a viable subject for an article, but as it is is it would be better as a cat. Greglocock (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not a bad idea, and I'd definitely support this move (either in lieu of or alongside deletion of the article). If nothing else, you'd have a nice hub to look up various (published) AU stories on Superman, etc. As an article, it is doomed to be a list of lists; as a category, it actually seems to function effectively.Tyrenon (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its pretty much nothing but original research Toasted (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary list of unsourced citations and if sourced would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Not notable and subjective.Curb Chain (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Postdif's "or" was the tie-breaker; I'm closing this as a keep, feel free to discuss a merge on talk page. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Switched at Birth characters

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

Almost ten thousand words of plot summary. Totally unsourced and unencyclopedic content. OSborn^arf_contribs. 18:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely unsourced to reliable secondary sources (failing our notability guideline as well). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details, nor a collection of summary-only descriptions of works. The level of detail in this article is completely ridiculous, and there's no reason that it can't be sufficiently covered by Switched at Birth (TV series)#Cast and characters. This insane level of detail should be left to fansites such as these, not encyclopedias. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize now that I was being a bit brash with this decision, but I still don't see how this can't be covered by Switched at Birth (TV series)#Cast and characters. I now think that the best option is probably to merge relevant info to that section and create a redirect. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contra Fourthords, notability for a list of characters in a notable show stems from the show's notability, rather than that of the individual characters. There is waaaay too much plot here, but it's entirely possible to trim, per WP:ATD. Oh, and sourcing can be done to the primary material in order to meet V. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, saying that this list of characters' notability is inherited from the notability of the parent media is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED). I realize it's an essay, but it's widely cited and accurately sums up my similar opinion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That essay doesn't apply very well conceptually to analyzing elements of notable topics, only to peripherally related discrete topics (note that all of the examples given at WP:NOTINHERITED are very different in nature from this list). Obviously the characters of a TV series are an integral part of that series, and so describing them at least to some extent is necessary to cover that series. Whether or not such a list should be maintained within the main article or here in a separate one is completely an issue of size, as many AFDs have concluded. postdlf (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect to Switched at Birth (TV series), as it really isn't debatable whether the series' characters should be described. While I agree that this list goes to excessive detail, that's an editing concern, not a deletion concern. So I encourage contributors to trim it down, to discuss where such trimming meets disagreement, and then to consider whether, once stable and trimmed, it can fit back into Switched at Birth (TV series). It may be that very little is merged in the end, but that still needs to be the result of a normal editing process scalpel utilized by those familiar with the subject and sources about it, not an AFD sledgehammer. Note also that where episodes are identified, the content is not unsourced. postdlf (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* I haven't had a in-depth look at the policies where these are concerned just yet, but since there are thousands of character lists for television shows out there, from Weeds to Monk, there's probably a policy backing them. The initial reasons for deletion are not good ones, as they pertain to editing issues rather than anything warranting actual deletion. Sources can be found, and the article can be trimmed. → Brend an 04:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is encyclopedic. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup/trimming. —Lowellian (reply) 04:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 14:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker Time

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

Fails WP:GNG, as I cannot find any independent reliable sources about this TV show. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets WP:TVSHOW. It's a nationally-televised show as evidenced by the source provided (BBC may not be independent in this case but they are considered reliable). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia's notability guideline requires that reliable sources independent of the article subject notice the subject. In this case the only sources that have been provided or that I have been able to find are from BBC and not independent. I can not find anything that shows any reliable sources have provided any coverage of this TV show. WP:TVSHOW only says that a nationally televised show is likely (emphasis mine) to be notable, not that it is notable. GB fan 01:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, no third party sources stating notability. Calabe 1992 01:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent sources that I can find. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 15:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because although there is not "enough reliable sources" as you may put it, it has recieved significant blog and fan coverage which does show it is very, very popular and worth writing an article about. Just type 'Hacker Time CBBC' into Google or whatever search engine you use and you will see what I mean. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Androzaniamy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and "fan coverage" does not matter in determining the notability of a subject. If this television show were truly as popular as you say, it would have significant coverage in the media. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that the people who watch it and appreciate its great entertainment are not even old enough to make a new article about it on newspapers. Journalists like to write about stuff that appeals to them and their readers and as far as I know, not many children read newspapers regularly. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is incorrect. There are many articles on Wikipedia about children's shows that meet our guidelines and policies. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how many of them, may I ask have newspaper reports because of controversial issues or have their own merchandise? Androzaniamy (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The majority, I'd assume. It's not relevant to this discussion, however, per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't swear, my point is that as this is a farly new TV series if you give it time and not come to hasty conclusions you will see things from my point of view. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make articles about things that in time will be notable. They need to be notable first then we have articles about them. GB fan 19:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable. Please don't delete it took me ages to make and has plenty of sources. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it is not worthy enough for an article. Don't be a deletionist, it isn't helping Wikipedia. Androzaniamy (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between notable according to you and notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. Generally topics are notable only if someone can show that independent reliable sources have provided significant coverage of the topic. There are some exceptions to that but TV shows is not among the exceptions. Multiple people have looked for this coverage but have failed to find it. You have even said that you haven't found anything. In what way does this show meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. GB fan 17:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference between what I think is notable and what the Wikipedia policy suggests so please stop lying and typing in swear words that I have removed for obvious reasons as there is no need to swear here, especially in front of children. Androzaniamy (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it meets Wikipedia notability guidelines please explain how it does that. GB fan 17:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TVSHOW says it all. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. As I explained above WP:TVSHOW says that nationally aired TV shows are likely to be notable it does not say that they are notable. It also goes on to say "In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone." The guideline Notability says "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." So based on these and that fact that everyone involved in this discussion agree that no independent reliable source exist this TV show does not meet the notability guidelines. GB fan 18:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares Wikipedia:Be bold! We're supposed to expand Wikipedia not make it far too exclusive for its own good. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have policies here on Wikipedia, and if you are not willing to abide by them, you may leave at any time. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes. I get you don't want me here but look at the fifth pillar of Wikipedia and you will see what I mean. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So do you now agree that it doesn't meet the notability guidelines and that you feel we should ignore the rules? GB fan 06:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all just one which is restrictive ->CLICKWikipedia:Ignore all rules<-CLICK. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Androzaniamy, would you be able to provide citations in the article or at least links to said newspaper reports? I believe the show is notable as a nationally-televised programme but I take the point that more independent references are needed. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no newspaper reports that I know of or even mentioned. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources and also it fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG is a real issue here, as well as no Independant sources. If those two are established, there is no reason why to not keep, but I have my doubts.. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules if nothing else. If a nationally aired television program, viewed by millions, isn't notable per some notability policy, then there is something wrong with that policy. --GRuban (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: leaning towards keep per GRuban's observation. But, are there no rating services for BBC? Certainly somewhere there's a breakdown of the number of viewers of a program. I found ratings on tvguide.uk (not the correct url) which gave it a 'rating' but no explanation about their rating system. If there are 'millions of viewers', shouldn't there be some site that reports that info? Wikipelli ^Talk 22:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment.' From WP:COMMONSENSE. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GRuban. I tried to find independent sourcing for the show and didn't find anything beyond a bevy of blog-type coverage and one brief mention in a UK newspaper. That said, I can't shake the notion that this should be kept per WP:IAR. I wish I could offer a better policy-based argument. I'm going to keep looking. I will say that WP:TVSHOW does suggest that the article's topic is likely to be notable, and while it (as usual) suggests that standard notability definitions are the more salient basis for any decision, the examples given are very dissimilar from this show (e.g. a national television program being "cancelled too quickly to garner any media attention"). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any show that has millions of viewers is automatically notable by way of common sense. The suggested guidelines are there to help decide what should be here, but they aren't absolute laws. Wikipedia is not a moot court. WP:BURO If a rule gets in the way of improving the Wikipedia, then ignore it. WP:IAR. Dream Focus 22:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply put this fails WP:GNG, the claims made that it has millions of viewers are not verifiable and if made in the article would be removed. Mt king ^(edits) 23:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a spot-check jaunt through this and found a few Hacker Time hits in the Top 10 Weekly Programme lists on CBBC, generally averaging (by my count) ~380,000 viewers. So, sure, the "millions of viewers" bit is as difficult to back up as any unverified claim is, but in the context of UK children's television the show appears to have a fairly strong audience. I also note that the show's "star," Hacker T. Dog, is something of a UK children's television celebrity (apparently). Again, I'm not sure if anything that I've just written points us towards some glowing beacon of pure policy-based inclusion, but it's food for WP:IAR thought...in my opinion, anyway. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ's source above was the ratings report I was looking for. I only found the show in the top 10 for the week of Oct. 3, 2011, but it's enough for me. Wikipelli ^Talk 12:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The views argument is not a solid one. If it were, we'd have many, many articles on YouTube videos which attained a certain number of views. It's also the reason Shaycarl, who has many subscribers on YouTube, has had his article deleted eight times. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not about views. It's about your initial suggestion that the article should be deleted for lack of independent, reliable sources. Well, BARB is an independent reliable resource. I'm not arguing keep because of the # of views, I'm addressing your concern about sources. Wikipelli ^Talk 18:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's still not "significant coverage" by independent sources, as required by GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Its a guideline not a policy, a suggestion not an absolute law. And these are confirmed viewers. YouTube is a totally different situation since someone can make a bot to hit reload a few million times, no way to tell its the same guy or just a lot of people that have the same IP address as some major companies sometimes give out to their millions of customers. Dream Focus 18:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense tells me that a television show that only generates 300,000 views in a week and does not have any independent sources written for it is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source satisfies my reading of WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Subject is mentioned directly and in detail. Wikipelli ^Talk 18:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we still referring to this? This listing of programmes and the number of views they received in a week? Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what I'm referring to. I've included it in the article as well. Wikipelli ^Talk 19:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying the subject is "mentioned [...] in detail" in that source? You must be mistaken. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could be, not sure that I must be... :) The subject is mentioned and the detail is that during the week of October 3-October 9 the show had the 10th highest viewership on CBBC and that the number of viewers was approximately 328,000. Unfortunately, the page that actually presents that figure is not linked. I'm not sure how a page such as that should be linked in WP, but it's there... with what I consider to be sufficient detail. Wikipelli ^Talk 19:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth (nothing?), I'm voting Keep and I definitely don't think my ratings find helps this pass WP:GNG. It's not substantial coverage; it barely passes as "coverage." It does, however, speak to a decent-sized audience (certainly nowhere near massive), given the nature of its market and audience type. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As we saw in Eagles' nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacked (TV film), tracking down sources for British TV shows can take a little legwork. If you rule out BBC as a source showing notability since its a BBC show (via CBBC), you run into an inherent problem of the British media - the BBC is something like 30-40% of the TV market. Google news archives are not great on British papers either, I will see what I can find.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per GRuban. Basically, one of the statements at WP:N, Popularity ≠ Notability , only partially represents common sense, and I think no longer has consensus in all areas. In general, I would say that Popularity does prove Notability. We have very strong consensus to recognize this in one case, popular music, where we accept charting position as proof of notability, and I can see no intrinsic reason why it should not apply to all forms of artistic endeavor aimed at a wide audience. However, even in those fields, Popularity is not required for Notability --unpopular things can be notable also if they're important enough in in other ways and there are sources to show it. Whether this extends to such things as commercial products might not yet have consensus, though I would advocate for it in every field where it's applicable. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This show is notable and can be found has received significant coverage to meet the General Notability Guide. All this article needs is more reliable sources which can be easily found. Xpion ( talk ) 08:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 19:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrice King Brown

AfDs for this article:

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

Has been here a while (tagged in 07), but the coverage of her is thin and local at best. About how she tore an Achilles tendon (that was the best article) and a brief mention. I was trying to clean up all the unsourced claims, and just don't see enough here to establish notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm leaning towards keep, but need to poke around for some more sources. All of Brown's work appears to have been local to Pittsburgh, but some media personalities, though being local are so well known as to be almost iconic. I'm not sure how close to iconic Brown would be but coverage locally like this would make me tend to believe she is so well known locally that an article is sustainable and justifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - After doing more poking around, I don't see sufficient evidence for being locally iconic that would overcome coverage which is purely local in scope. -- Whpq (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage is not significant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is significant coverage of her, but nothing beyond local news. She's probably notable in Pittsburgh, but not outside of there. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the coverage establishes that she is sufficiently "iconic" in Pittsburgh. The Post-Gazette article reporting her retirement, and cited in the article, refers to her as a "fixture on local television" for 32 years, and quotes KDKA's general manager as saying, "If this was a sports franchise I suspect that Patrice's jersey number would be retired . . . ."[5] A longer feature about her retirement appeared in the paper a few days later.[6] Among other things it notes that she was one of the first African-American anchorpersons. I think this is worth keeping.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I note that she finished third in the Miss Teenage America pageant in December 1970 (for the 1971 title)(some coverage here:[7][8]); that wouldn't make her notable by itself but it's something additional to consider in evaluating her overall notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With the refocus of the articles and the move, it has become very difficult to define a single consensus. I can say for certain that support for keeping the article on the combined families is low, and shouldn't be kept as an article. It currently is no article, but a redirect to the Romney family. How to handle that is beyond the scope of this AfD. Only part of the discussion here is relevant to the refocussed article now at Romney family. There has been fairly little opposition against keeping this refocussed article, and it counteracts most opposition to the combined article (though doesn't take away all opposition). The Pratt family article is very new and thin, and there has been no discussion whatsover on that article. Relisting this single discussion to get more input on the now changed situation could be an option, but would likely only further the confusion. I'm comming to to following conclusions: The outcome on the Pratt-Romney family article is delete. The redirect that stands now should be discussed again, though not necessarily trough RfD. The outcome on the Romney family article is keep, but because of the loss of focus of this discussion there should be no prejudice against speedy renomination (which is usually reserved for no consensus closes). The article on the Pratt family has not been discussed here, and no conclusion can be drawn about its inclusion from this AfD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pratt–Romney family

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

There is no evidence presented that this group of people is a notable family in American history. The source provided to make the claim only refers to the Romney family, without mentioning the Pratt side. We might as well have an article on the Bush-Obama family. They are related too. BigJim707 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but explain connection by including that: Helaman Pratt, son of Parley Parker Pratt, early Mormon church leader and missionary, was the Mormon mission president in Mexico City. He obtained permission from President Diaz for Miles Park Romney and other Mormons fleeing Polygamy Laws to buy lands and establish colonies in Mexico; partly with funds advanced by the Mormon Church, in Sonora and Chihuahua. These became known as the Mormon Colonies. Thereafter the families intermarried with one of the two wives of each man producing direct ancestors of Mitt Romney. 21:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneSTARman (talk • contribs) — OneSTARman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep, but rename "Romney family" (which is talked about, e.g. [9]) and note their descent from the Pratt family and relation to Huntsman (which is noted in reliable sources). Fences&Windows 18:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Or even Split into Romney family and Pratt family, as the Pratts are "one of the most important families in the Mormon faith ... Parley Pratt, had 12 wives and was chosen by Joseph Smith as one of the 12 Apostles." Fences&Windows 18:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It's WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and there's clearly no better redirect target between Romney family and Pratt family. I do agree that the information in this article regarding each family is enough to support its own article. I think renaming or moving would be impractical, but wholesale copying of information about respective families into their own articles would be appropriate. JFHJr (㊟) 18:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest keeping it, but trimming it back to Romney family as User:Fences and windows suggests. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These "so & so is related to so & so" articles often get reported in credible media, especially with current in-the-spotlight politicians, but it's usually just a BS story on a slow newsday. No real substance or notable connection between these families deserving of a combined article. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 19:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Synthesis using non reliable sources (in fact, virtually no reliable sources for anything at all in it, and absolutely no reliable sources to link the two families (I checked - the only places showing a link are Wiki mirrors!). The "family tree" is entirely SYNTH. Sources include youtube and a "family association" website. And the topic as such is non-notable (the fact that absolutely zero reliable sources make the link is a hint about that, I trust). Lastly, it is connected to BLPs and WP:BLP requires the removal of all material not properly sourced - i.e. the entire article here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps a useful comparison is the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family of Barack Obama (2nd nomination)? (I'll comb through Category:Political families of the United States and try to find more.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why compare with other articles? Other stuff exists is not a good argument. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing other articles would be to say, "Hey, there are wikiarticles named Claiborne-Dallas-Boggs family, Heard-Hawes family, etc." What I'm doing is referencing AFDs.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appears that these political family articles are only nommed prior to presidential elections, as the only AFD I can find is for Obama's. Here is a merger discussion involving the Kochs though: Talk:Koch family#Merger proposal.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. This coination of two families is not akin to any single family article, nor do other articles use non reliable sources for inclusion of non-notable people without any actual evidence of relation. The single and only sourced fact is that Romney is descended from Pratt -- all the rest is SYNTH at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But don't such considerations as you reference have more to do with article naming/content than the article's mere existence?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- OR or synthesis at its best; my go to subject expertise ref The Political Graveyard has an admittedly incomplete list of political families, Pratt not grouped, lists Romney family. Michigan governor George Romney's mother's maiden name was Pratt...and that's as far as it goes. Until covered by multiple independent reliable sources, fails WP:N & WP:RS... unless the sources are found. Willing to re-evaluate substantive progress. Dru of Id (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- As retitled, meets WP:N, and my concern with OR/SYNTH is now an editing issue. If kept (at its current title), Romney section should be above, the rest by degrees of separation. Dru of Id (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt Basically the many pages in the category refer to catch-all articles detailing notable families of political influence (btw, of course, there are families that are not distinctly/solely political: the Kochs; the Brontes; etc etc). IAC, once an article on a notable family exists, they tend to be linked to in the articles of family members:

Final graf at the blp for novelist Brady Udall reads "Udall is a member of the Udall family..."; As an aside, the Udall-Lee(-Hamblin-Hunt-Stewart-Kimball) family has three of its members currently in the U.S. Senate: 2 Democrats and 1 Republican.
the lede at Charlotte Brontë begins "Charlotte Brontë ( /ˈbrɒnti/; 21 April 1816 – 31 March 1855) was an English novelist and poet, the eldest of the three Brontë sisters...";
Bobby Kennedy's lede, which reads "An icon of modern American liberalism and member of the Kennedy family...";
2nd sentence of Jeb Bush's blp reads, "He is a prominent member of the Bush family...."
1st graf below lede at article Teddy Roosevelt: "Main article: Roosevelt family. Roosevelt often described his ancestry as... ... "

Wrt sources existing referencing Pratt-Romneys, perhaps one or more of the following would help?

Roll up short itemization for tl:dr concerns.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

From earlier this month in the New York Times: "The Romney and Huntsman families — two intertwined clans that go back to the early days of Mormonism — publicly split in 2008 when Mr. Huntsman, then the Utah governor, endorsed Mr. McCain."
Another one, 4 days later, from the Salt Lake Tribune, "No love lost between cousins Romney and Huntsman": "...Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman share the same ancestor, early Utah settler and Mormon leader Parley Parker Pratt, though the two presidential candidates carry a lingering grudge that has seemingly grown wider on the campaign trail."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The precipitous mountain pass that led the pioneers down into the Salt Lake Valley was first explored by my great-great-grandfather, Parley P. Pratt."---Turnaround, by Mitt Romney (2004 - link)
"...young Gaskell Romney married a Pratt girl, Anna Amelia. ... Anna Pratt Romney, George's mother, belonged to the bluestockings of the Mormon establishment."---Romney's Way: A Man and an Idea (1968)
"Gaskell returned to Mexico and married Anna Amelia Pratt, who would become Mitt Romney's grandmother. Anna was descended from one of the most important families in the Mormon...."---The Real Romney (2012)

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect some members of the leading families of a community to marry each other. But that does not necasarily create a notable combined family. BigJim707 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps someone should have a discussion with you about the birds and the bees.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not hyphenate all the family names of long time Mormon families together? I'm sure that connections between all of them could be documented. Why just combine these two? BigJim707 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A significant percentage of people of similar ethnicities tend to be 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th cousins (Bush--Obama; McCain--Obama, etc.), that winnows down exponentially when it comes to the first few degrees of the cousins-relationship--2-to-the-fourth-power is 16 while 2-to-the-twelfth-power is 4,096--such that influential family relations from many a locale retain a strong ancestral bond and become classified as belonging to whatever "family of prominence." Next time you go to a newsstand or drugstore, pick up a smallish paperback with a man in a unbuttoned, thinish-material, flowing shirt on its cover: "Penny Perlwither told herself she could not care less that Mr. Brett Masterson was of fifth-generation McGregor County, McClintock family stock. Yet, were not his imperious gazes somewhat unsettling? Didn't they cause with inside her some element of excitement that, no matter how hard Penny tried, she just could not suppress? Not completely, anyway. He interrupted her reverie. "So, Miss Breyerson," he spoke, as the wind got a hold of Penny's long dress...." (I think, anyway.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A demonstably notable subject within the fields of Mormon studies, U.S. political families, and genealogy, although there are a number of problems with the article itself, as presently written/sourced.

Mormon studies is only taught at a handful of instututions of higher learning--however, Mormonism itself has as many religious adherents (of course combined with more agnostic members of its religio-ethnic culture) in both the US and (roughly) the world as the Jews. (Both groups split at about half their populations living in the US and half abroad: 1.7% of the US population's telling a recent Pew Research they self-describe as Jews and the same percentage doing so as Mormons--while, for sake of comparison, a little over half that percentage of US residents describe themselves as Muslims.) A people that have been in existence less than 200 years, within it are sprinkled a handful of eminently influential clans.

Noted religion scholar / political pundit Joanna Brooks--whose commentary specializes in the interface between Mormonism and the non-Mormon [once called gentile] worlds--documents three of these: "[U.S. Senator from Utah Mike] Lee [''Lee-Hamblins''] hails from a connected LDS political family that includes the Udalls and from an intellectual legacy that would view Skousen [''Skousens''] more as an avuncular figure of Mormon folk thought than as a credible source on governance, but his campaign was more evocative of Skousen than his own father, Rex Lee." (link)

And, for mention of a fourth, from a Reuters piece:

"The parallels between the two candidates run as thick as blood.
"'Both Romney and Huntsman descend from Parley P. Pratt [Note: Hence, a wiki article about the notable Pratt-Huntsmans/Pratt-Romneys/Pratt-etc.s.], one of the most storied early Mormon leaders,' said Joanna Brooks, a Mormon scholar[...].
"'Both have family and personal connections to the institutional hierarchy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And both enjoy an unusual degree of access to high-ranking church leaders,' she said."

Yet another salient fact--if but a factoid, to non-LDS--that Wikipedians considering the merits of this deletion discussion might note is that the [Pratt-]Romneys would be well-known in Mormonism even if George W. and W. Mitt Romney had remained obscure individuals, due to other people within the family who are of note within Mormonism. For example, Marion G. Romney was a Mormon Quorum of the Twelve member [apostle] for two decades and was the number-two ecclesiastical assistant [counsellor] to the head cleric [prophet] of the Latter-day Saints for a decade during the mid-20th century.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Congratz - yes the Romney family is "notable", the "Pratt-Romney family" is not a recognized unit by any reliable source at all. And, strangely enough, "notability" is a Wikipedia requirement for an article, and you seem to concede that "Pratt-Romeny" is not notable per se. Thanks. Collect (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC) BTW, the interpolation above "Note: Hence ..." is not found in the source but appears to be your own interpolation, and is not from Joanna Brooks. Collect (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I concede that "the Pratt-Romneys" is not a term that tends to slips off of anybody's tongue, anywhere; nevertheless, when insiders talk about the Romneys they mean the Pratt-Romneys. (Although I have a sinking feeling I'm losing this argument, so I'll simply stop this line of attack now...lol.) That said, we shouldn't downplay the plain English usage of interconnecting two families with a hyphen and, indeed, purusing the wiki cat of US political families we see a score or more. (But, as for this plain use of the English language wrt the interconnected Parley Parker Pratt – Miles Archibald Romney families, how about this from The Mormon Faith of Mitt Romney (2012):

"The Pratt-Romney genealogical line has produced many prominent leaders in the Mormon Church, including Parley Pratt, Orson Pratt, George S. Romney, Marion Romney, Spencer Kimball, Jon Huntsman Sr., Jon Huntsman Jr., George W. Romney, and Mitt Romney." [Long list. Did anybody fall asleep through that?]

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful? A self-published "source" from "Kudu Publishing Services" with the slogan "Let KUDU help you bring to reality your dream of publishing a book. Contact us today to get the process started." Not a reliable source by a few thousand miles. So far we have a family site which is not RS, and self-published sources which are not RS. At this point, I think the argument for deletion is massively strong. And don;t forget that all material which does not meet WP:RS can and should be deleted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely countering the exaggerated claim that no sources for the hyphenated two names could possibly exist.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are also mirrors of Wikipedia - but do you really think listing a self-published source would fly here? I looked again - a large part of the entire article is not reliably sourced at all. Period. There is no excuse for such an "article" being on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not WikiTafel. Really. Collect (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say Dr. Jackson's use of the term was a source for its currency? No. I merely pointed out that a competent speaker of the language, such as the Rev. Jackson--who, apparently received his education at Gordon Conwell seminary, Fuller seminary, Northwest Univ., and Jerusalem Univ., has published a bible translation and is a college professor--uses English in a standard way when he refers to the Romney family's P.P.Pratt-descent. Btw, I'm purusing Dr. Jackson's tome now. It is actually an extremely sophisticated evangelical apologetic. It's rare to encounter one this well researched. A quote from the professor's introduction: "There are Latter-day Saints who swim in the theological waters of the more traditional Mormonism represented by systematic theologian Bruce McConkie. Other Mormons embrace the progressive Mormon scholarship of Brigham Young University professors such as Stephen Robinson and Robert Millet."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Apparently renamed, but still entirely non-reliable sourced material - all that was changed is the name - but the contents and internal SYNTH and OR still fail notability requirements. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia hosts articles that are on topics that are notable. The topic is notable although the article itself arguably may (or may not) remain anemically sourced (see the article's 55 sources). In any case, Parley Pratt has been termed by Mormon studies scholars Terryl L. Givens and Matthew J. Grow the "apostle paul" of Mormonism (see their seminal biography of Pratt, published in 2012 by Oxford University Press); and the Romneys--along with Huntsmans and Mathesons--are branches on this tree containing the individual family-member twigs that are currently the best known. The very first footnote in the article runs to the article "The New Kennedys":

The Romney family was originally based in Michigan, where patriarch George Romney served as governor. More recently, the clan has been based in Massachusetts. ...Mitt Romney is running for president this year. The former Massachusetts governor follows in the footsteps of his father, who ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968. His mother, Lenore Romney, ran for U.S. Senate in Michigan in 1970, and his brother Scott Romney is a prominent member of the Republican party in Michigan. The family also has deep ties to Utah politics (the Huntsmans are distant cousins).

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – After reviewing the changes, I'd like to confirm my vote to !delete. And point out WP:NOMOVE, since it's pertinent and might offer future guidance, though of course it's not binding. Moving an article might best be done after AfD, with votes for !move in the meantime. JFHJr (㊟) 04:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The argument by many seems to be to disregard the guideline stipulating that only the subject needs to be determined to be notable and to keep repeating they think it doesn't pass muster. Point taken (even though, again, the article has a number sources--and certainly more than that, say, the similar WP article about the Prescott Bushes, of H.W. and W. Bush fame); but where is a counter to the sources presented in this discussion indicating the family's notability? (Btw, the only changes I'd made, essentially, were to move the article from Pratt-Romneys to Romneys. If someone with admin privileges would be able to move it back to its original title, though, I wouldn't mind. IAC, thanks for the essay link.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roll up short itemization for tl:dr concerns.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

-Frank Rich, Jan. 29, 2012: "[Mitt] Romney is[...]the scion of a family dynasty integral to the progress of an American-born faith[...]." (link)

-novelist Sally Denton, Jan. 29, 2012: "...the youngest son of the most prominent Mormon in American politics — a seventh-generation direct descendant of one of the faith’s founding 12 apostles—Mitt Romney...." (link)

-historian Matthew Bowman (Random House, 2012): "One hundred and fifty years after the death of his ancestor, Parley Pratt's great-great-grandson Mitt Romney announced his bid for the Republican Party's nomination.... He had served as governor of Massachusettes, and his father, George, as governor of Michigan" (link)

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've now added a number of news and scholarly citations to the article. (Note that the Romney family is also of much historical note within Mormon studies due its sojourn to Mexico prior and subsequent to such events in the U.S. as the Reed Smoot hearings--within an effort by the LDS Church to keep the practice of plural marriage alive among at least some members, through extra - U.S. territorial means.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split. The Romney family is notable (both George Romney and descendants, and Marion G. Romney) and the Pratt family is notable (Orson and Parley especially), but the connection seems a bit too far out. There was a recent biography of Parley P. Pratt that might be quite useful as a source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not too many participants in this AfD, but the deletes have it, for lack of proof of notability GNG-wise, barring play at national level. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Life Sports F.C.

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN: Club which has not played at national level and not shown to meet broader notability criteria. Cloudz 679 21:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This club has played in several notable non-AIFF ran tournaments before and I have proven that they are a professional club via the reference on the page. Also I am struggling to see how this page should be deleted when there are other pages on wikipedia like for example expansion teams in the USL PDL who get automatic notability even though the PDL is not pro nor national. Also some clubs in the lower tiers of English Football have notability even though there club only plays in there respective county league. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also I dont know how much this will help but here is a picture of the club playing in the Gold Cup which is recognized as national. Gold Cup picture. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Some examples... Sherborne Town F.C., a club that plays in the 10th Division of Football in England which is not national at all nor professional.

Cromer Town F.C., a club that plays in the 11th division of England
FC Tucson, a club that plays in the 4th division of the United States which is not professional nor national.
New York Pancyprian-Freedoms, a club that plays in the 6th division of football in the United States which is definitely not national nor do they get any criteria for professional. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel those clubs aren't notable enough, feel free to nominate them for deletion. However, Cromer and Sherborne have both played in the FA Cup, meaning they have competed at a national level and therefore pass the general rule of thumb for football clubs. ~~ Bettia ~~ ^talk 12:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I thought I already said that Life Sports have played Nationally in an AIFF ran competition. Also known as the All Indian Federation Gold Cup. (Look at the picture I gave above) --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is not a reason to keep the article. This discussion is about the merits of Life Sports F.C. only. In that respect, a picture from facebook is not a reliable source, as its content is user-generated. I took a look at the reference the article provides and nothing is mentioned of professionalism. The other link is on facebook and cannot be considered.

If there is any evidence of notability, this should be provided and added to the article. If such notability cannot be proven, the article should be deleted. - Cloudz 679 17:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at the reference and I think that the user LifeSports may have changed it as the page now looks disorganized, I shall fix that soon but for now here are some articles that explain NPL professionalism, Life Sports professionalism and Kohima Komets (another NPL team) professionalism. [10] [11]. Also I looked at the Other stuff exists and it said that I can compare if it is valid as wikipedia is supposed to be consistant. Also the page does not have to be professional if (and this will have to be another example) all the teams in USL PDL are considered notable as only Major League Soccer, NASL and USL Pro are professional in the USA. So again I say keep --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:39, 26 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kohima Komets link only says professionally managed and is not pertinent to this discussion. Other link of the Life Sports [12] appears to be a press release from the club itself. Is there any other material to consider? - Cloudz 679 19:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be looking for another but I can now proof that Life Sports has played Nationally in the Gold Cup. [13] [14] --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is the Royal Gold Cup is actual national cup competition? From what I can tell, it's just an invitational tournament play by a dozen or so teams (the 2011 tournament was competed by 15 teams from 7 states). It wouldn't be what could be considered a true national cup competition, like the FA Cup or the Federation Cup or Durand Cup (which seem to be India's equivalent cup competitions). Unless Life Sports have played in those two competitions, I don't think this club would meet the usual rule-of-thumb for club notability, which means we would have to establish Life Sports' notability through the general notability guidelines. This means finding multiple, substantial, third-party sources - match reports wouldn't be enough here. This source is a start, but we would need more. ~~ Bettia ~~ ^talk 10:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the Gold Cup like the FA Vase which from the looks of it also counts for notability. Also try researching other Indian football tournaments (other than the Federation Cup and Durand Cup) that are considered national like the EK Trophy which is considered national even though only a handful of states are participating. Get what I am saying. Its a very complicated system in India. Federation Cup and even Durand Cup arnt exactly what you call National because 1) Federation only incudes clubs from the top 2 divisions (20 clubs) and Durand is just a bunch of amateur and semi-pro teams mixed with a few I-League teams. So if you consider those two cups as notable then the Gold Cup should probably be in that category. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except the FA Vase is a proper cup competition contested by hundreds of teams (and whether or not competing in the Vase would make a team eligible under WP:FOOTYN is unclear), rather than a small invitational tournament like the Royal Gold Cup. From what you're saying, it seems only the Federation Cup could be counted as the National Cup. ~~ Bettia ~~ ^talk 11:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's taken a while to come to this conclusion, but I believe this team does not meet the necessary notability guidelines. There's little evidence of them meeting the general notability guidelines short of being the first team to be accepted into a new regional league, and they haven't competed at a national level as required by WP:FOOTYN. There's no reason why this article couldn't be recreated if the team reaches a high enough level in the Indian league system (i.e. they get promoted from the Nagaland Premier League into the I-league). ~~ Bettia ~~ ^talk 11:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeps have it. I've redirected the books to the author. Thanks to all participants, incl. nominator. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa Meyer

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

Unknown author, first book just released. I trimmed out all the info on the 3 "due in 2013/14/15". Links are not reliable, and it is simply WP:TOOSOON to be writing articles on this author and her books. I would also include these two articles in the AFD, which relate to the same author.

Dennis Brown (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - TOOSOON is polite phrasing, so that's a good way to say it. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep I found substantial coverage about this young novelist and her works. It was published by significant US media, see LATimes, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, LGBT Weekly, Deseret News. I can imagine a decent article backed up by reliable sources. Meets GNG and WP:AUTHOR, No 3. The information in our articles (about the author and her books) is duplicated, so I would suggest to merge and redirect the information a) under Marissa Meyer b) under Cinder (novel). It can be developed separately if the author and her books receive more differentiated feedback. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:34, 23 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The novel has certainly received sufficient coverage to be considered notable, so Meyer as a novelist is also notable.--Michig (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage of first book is pretty pervasive, and it made the NY Times YA bestseller list[15], so it seems ok by me.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge. The author keep. Either Cider should be merged with Lunar Chronicles or Cider and Chronicles be merged and redirected with Meyer. As Vejvančický said, no need to have duplicate information everywhere. Bgwhite (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 view of the low participation, even after two relists, this is a "soft delete"; as with an expired PROD, it will be restored on request, to me or at WP:REFUND, without prejudice to immediate renomination. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Allen (media)

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

Article fails WP:N & WP:GNG Fumitol|talk|cont 20:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 23 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability in this puff piece. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pressurised staircase

Written like an essay, not notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Next to Google book search hits using the article title, there are many Google hits for "Pressurized stairwell": Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Unfortunately, many of the news items are behind paywalls, but my first impression is that the topic is notable. --Lambiam 20:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GHITS. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you implying that you examined all these already, and determined none are reliable sources providing non-trivial coverage? --Lambiam 21:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several references already establish notability. I have added another one. The article requires clean-up. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:37, 28 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic seems to be notable (as well as important and interesting--which don't count here). I'm not sure if this is the best title however and article could use help but don't delete.BigJim707 (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – but move to Pressurized stairwell or Stairwell pressurization as being far more common names – where the latter particularly predominates in books and scholarly articles. --Lambiam 23:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not the formal name for the thing that's actually in the article? Uncle G (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean Smokeproof enclosure? Fine with me. --Lambiam 18:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Currently an unsourced BLP. If someone wants to write a new article with reliable sources then go for it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael T Cammarata

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

No references supplied in an article about a living person. No sources supplied to indicate notability. A quick Google search did not reveal any reliable source discussing the subject. SQGibbon (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources to establish notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 29 January 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, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a reference for the first section of the article, and I've added two external links. Cammarata was only 13 years old when he first emerged as one of the early innovators in monetizing the Internet Advertising marketplace. The article could use some cleanup work, especially with certain content that needs further verified. I will assist further as best as I can should the article survive this afd. SaveATreeEatAVegan 07:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two external links you supplied appear to be press releases (the one from Red Orbit pretty clearly so and the other one seems likely) which do not go toward establishing notability. The reference you supplied does not appear to be a reliable source (from what I can tell it collects stuff from all over the Internet in order to help members learn English) and is a copy of the lead paragraph of the Wikipedia article (complete with the footnote superscript rendered as "[1]" instead of a superscript). I've removed the reference for now. SQGibbon (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice for re-creation. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Deniable Agent: Undercover in Afghanistan

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

I found no notability for this book. SL93 (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It was reviewed briefly in The Herald[16] and Random House claims a Daily Mail review which is unverifiable but could be usable.[17] ("Press") 86.44.31.8 (talk) 04:25, 20 January 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, v/r - T P 14:15, 22 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 18:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ines Rosales

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

No assertion of notability per WP:BIO, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Apart from her bio page at her company site, the only in-depth coverage on her I could find was an article from the NY Daily News; all else were passing mentions. It's pretty unlikely that any traffic reporter at a local TV station could be notable per WP:BIO on that basis alone, and I can't find any evidence online that she's done anything else that would justify an encylopedia article about her. Some of the content could usefully be merged to WNYW. Instawisdom (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Instawisdom (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Instawisdom (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 23 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable person, clearly. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this appears as an attempt to include Rosales with her own article, as her five co-anchors already have one themselves. SaveATreeEatAVegan 08:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FC Tucson

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

Fifth tier US soccer club which meets neither WP:FOOTYN nor WP:GNG. Cloudz 679 17:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cloudz 679 17:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 17:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This club is joining the NPSL in 2012, and consensus/history indicates that clubs at this level are considered notable. JonBroxton (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article says independent and also it says that they might join the USL PDL. Also USL PDL and the NPSL are not pro. The pro leagues are Major League Soccer, NASL, and USL Pro. After that all the leagues are just part time. Also as of yet Tucson has not played in the US Open Cup so until they enter it I dont see how they are notable. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would, if I was you, wait till they announce what league they will join and have a reliable source. US Club Soccer should not have any notable clubs unless they have played in the US Open Cup. Till then the notability of this article cant be proven. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A self published reference that the club is going to be notable in 2012 suffices for you, JonBroxton? - Cloudz 679 08:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this? It's not self-published...them playing in the PDL is also confirmed by this and this. Giant Snowman 11:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This IS a PDL expansion team. Every PDL team has a Wikipedia page including several brand new expansion teams without the history of FC Tucson, shall we delete all of those too? There is absolutely no reason this page should be up for deletion. --Revolutionfan (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an amateur team. And this may be slightly off topic but the quote: "It is our goal to compete for a national championship in the United Soccer League's Premier Developmental League and to bring more notoriety to this great community." really made me laugh. (Notoriety = being famous or well known, typically for some bad quality or deed.) This is an amateur team. By the way GS, the nesoccertoday link wouldn't load on my computer. But also these sources are all local. I don't mind advocating this article if there is a good reason. But at the moment, one hasn't been presented, other than WP:OSE. The club hasn't played in the national cup. I am not sure publishing from one town counts as "significant coverage". Can someone link the consensus for blanket inclusion of all PDL teams? I only managed to find ::this. Thank you. Cloudz 679 16:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to teams, amateur does not mean notable - have a read of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability. I mean, if it did, think of all the clubs we would have to exclude! As a rule of thumb, all clubs which have played in a national cup, or are eligible to play, are considered notable - which includes teams in the PDL. Giant Snowman 17:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is deleted these should also be deleted: Boston Victory S.C., Baltimore Bohemians, Connecticut FC Azul, Austin Aztex, D.C. United U-23, and Palmetto FC Bantams. Shall we really delete all those until they play in the Open Cup? --Revolutionfan (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plays at a high enough level to be deemed notable. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 17:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United Republic (nonprofit organization)

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

Delete. Promotional article created and edited by the Online Director and Web Editor of a new organization. The reliable sources guidelines exclude using citations referencing data produced by individuals and entities affiliated with the subject or its creator, i.e., self-publishing, advertising, the subject's website, autobiographies, press releases, and self-published material masquerading as independent sources. The sources used in this article fall within the exclusions and merely serve to announce the launch of a new organization, along with comparisons with others while providing an overview of their plans. A search for additional referencing has come up with nothing to add to the article. Recommend deletion due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of United Republic, its affiliates, and principal partners. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My search gave similar results to Cindamuse's. The fact that it's also orphaned lends weight to its non-notability. Should also consider the biography articles linked to within, especially if there is a conflict of interest. Osiris (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osiris (temp) (talk • contribs) [reply]
Don't delete. Hi. I'm the online director at United Republic, and yes, I was the original creator of this article. I was careful to follow the conflict of interest guidelines. I also followed the guidelines that Cindy posted on my talk page: "People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible." I disagree with Cindy's assertion that this is merely a "promotional article" and the sources are "masquerading as independent sources." I believe the article displays no bias--it simply gives a quick snapshot of our activites, our staff structure, and our origins--but if there are specific examples of bias, I am happy to amend them. I also believe that our sources are legitimate; Roll Call, National Journal, and Boing Boing are all widely recognized and respected independent news sources. The problem here seems to be that an organization has edited its own page. I understand and respect the concerns of editors who are skeptical of this practice. But we followed the guidelines as carefully as possible, we're acting transparently, and we will happily adjust any pieces that the community deems inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morninj (talk • contribs) 13:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just checked for reputable references from mainstream sources and couldn not see any for this organisation. I would have expected some at least.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are numerous references from mainstream sources. In addition to the sources cited above, here are additional references from Politico and the Huffington Post You'd be hard pressed to find more mainstream sources for political news.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:49, 22 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 15:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hero's Last Rite

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

Non-notable bar band fails to meet criteria of WP:BAND for inclusion on Wikipedia. Mr Pyles (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 15 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:39, 22 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are "bar-bands" now exempt from notability? In light of their ECMA nomination, I suspect the east-coast heavy metal scene is outside of Mr. Pyle's scope as would the west-coast scene would be for a Newfoundlander. Mannypdesign (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no evidence of notability (hit record, label, etc.). Drmies (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Considering the fact that Magister Scienta also has mentioned this barely qualifies on notability guidelines, I'm currently deleting the article with no prejudice for an early recreation provided the required sources giving evidence of notability are cited. Wifione ^Message 18:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Troster

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

not notable, no references in googleland news at all Soosim (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little surprised. I see an article with two serious footnotes and a long list of publications. How did this article get to Afd? Debresser (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
really surprised? the two'serious' footnotes are: a) a bio sheet from an organization he is employed at; and b) a press release from his alma mater stating that he and 47 others received an honorary doctorate for the mere fact that they have been in the business for 25 years. i am not dissing 25 years as a pulpit rabbi - dealing with synagogue boards and members, etc., but c'mon on.....it wasn't like he was chosen for something he did. Soosim (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be a prolific publisher of his thoughts and a prolific blogger, but there seems to be very little coverage about Troster online. Re 'long list of publications', authors aren't automatically notable. Sionk (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - True, no hits in Google News, but a "past month" web search yields his HuffPost articles and a post from J Street about hiring him as Rabbinic Director. I'm inclined to let the article stand. The Wikipedia article for J Street shows that many of the staff and advisors there have their own pages, so unless we want to start hunting down every single other blogger who may not be notable enough, I'm in no rush to delete. Queerwiki (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 15 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:16, 22 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not going to pretend that it's a quality article, but I do thinks it meet the bare minimum for notability. Surly such a prolific writer must attain notability. Magister Scienta ^talk 23:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two keeps here don't carry much weight: one says, basically, that we should trust in Google hits, and the other that someone who has published a bunch of articles is automatically notable. That is of course not the case. A complete absence of GNews hits is indication enough that this is not a notable person by our standards. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I relisted the discussion once more, which is not generally done. As it stands, there is no consensus to delete the article, and keep voters are arguing it should be kept regardless of the notability guideline. That's fine in itself (and really, it is, guidelines reflect practice, not the other way around, and practice can change), but would warrant more discussion, as the GNG has stood to much discussion and usually come out on top. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - On the one hand, Mr. Troster seems to be a moderately published author, but I don't think he clearly clears the bar. His work seems to fall into a sort of nether-world where the articles are neither academic enough nor widely read enough to quite merit notability. If anything, he seems to be on par with an occasional non-syndicated columnist in a local newspaper, and my read of the guidelines is that such alone does not qualify one as being notable.Tyrenon (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not seeing "…significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."[18] Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Using Larry to search on seems o produce more in Gnews than Lawrence (Msrasnw (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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

Comment: Thank you Msrasnw for this, but 'more' is certainly a relative term, since only 4 items show up, of which, maybe 2 or 3 would be valid (and those are more than 12 years old). anyway, i think we are still not seeing "significant coverage" in RS. Soosim (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True - but above it was suggested there were no links which seems missleading. Also from these links we find a link to the Iranian Conference http://www.iisd.ca/sd/sdter/ where he seems to be presented as notable and in notable company and the claim in the PCN&R "featuring Rabbi Larry Troster, internationally known authority on Jewish and interfaith perspectives on ecological and environmental issues." Anyway best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 19:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Rhodes

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Criminal acts. GrapedApe (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough reliable sourcing, did a search and find that this case has achieved plenty of media attention. does not fail WP:CRIME,.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not privy to BabbaQ's unspecified sources, but I couldn't find any. Specifically, what we need are sources that establishes that this does not fall foul of BLP1E, and I don't see how it is anything more than just another criminal. No evidence that anything changed as a result of the crime or the court case, etc. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename. If there is enough coverage of the incident itself then rename the article, otherwise delete per BLP1e.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no very clear consensus as soft deletion Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Judge Bernard

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

Has not had significant roles in at least two films. Fails WP:NACTOR. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 10:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article creator claims on the talk page that subject has significant roles in Contraband (2012 film) and Dylan Dog: Dead of Night. However the official websites of Contraband and Dylan Dog both do not mention either the subject or the character he portrays. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 20:20, 23 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. His name appears to be Kent Jude Bernard. He appears to have had several roles, but they appear to be minor, and I found no significant coverage of him.--Michig (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 also extends to the correct title Country Club Swimming Association of Greater Philadelphia: the consensus is the club does not meet the GNG and should be deleted, regardless of the spelling of the title Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

County Club Swimming Association of Greater Philadelphia

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

non-notable local swimming organization. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:ORG, borderline A7, but considering the user has over 500 edits when he created it, taking it to AFD instead. Secret ^account 07:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine if it was deleted, because it has the incorrect title (I made a typo), and with permission, re-create the page with the correct title (CountRy Club Swimming Association of Greater Philadelphia, not County Club........). Let me know your thoughts. Peetlesnumber1 (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC) (Page creator).[reply]

I already checked for Country as well before the AFD. I only found four mentions in Google News and two are from paid obituaries, and two are passing trivial mentions. Any significant, reliable coverage of the organization that is independent of the source (like not the organization website or press releases)? Thanks Secret ^account 20:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I Google searched (not Google News), most of the results that came up are the Club pages (I.E. Phila. Cricket's website), but I guess nothing too notable. They could be cited, it's your call. Peetlesnumber1 (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 23 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in gnews, no evidence of sufficient coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn, no other delete !votes, article stubbed and rewritten (and could use further expansion). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reindustrialization

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

Apparent OR/essay; despite long being tagged, issues not addressed/addressable. Doddy Wuid (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KeepReindustrialization is an economic process that can be the subject of a wikipedia article, as example here in Italy the goverment and local communities are involved in many process of reindustrialization es Sesto San Giovanni or Desio. Howewer the article has to be rewritten because contains information of the reindustrialization with IT tecnologies.User:Lucifero4

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stub ~~or delete without prejudice~~. I agree that the subject might support an article. This original research is not that article, and is borderline patent nonsense as well: Reindustrialization may refer to anything that is industrious and recent. This can refer to any modern industry, such as computing, but especially computation, which can model nearly anything. There is a new trend wherein an increasingly broad area of everyday life is modeled in simulation ("in silico"). These simulations can be so real that their handling can affect the phenomenon that they simulate. This provides a major basis for the modern economy, which works on the basis of backing real things. Huh? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article as a very basic stub, and added references. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have red the article and now is well written.User:Lucifero4

Also happy with the removal of nonsense and re-write. Doddy Wuid (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Return to the Source

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

Dance club documented by their own compilation releases. Does not appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:MUSIC. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 23 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A cradle of Trance music. I've added eight WP:RS sources and several lines of additional text. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An important club in the history of Trance music, as confirmed by sources discussing it.--Michig (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per provided sources. Passes WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets our notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Miller Clock Company

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

Long established clock company but no independent sources in the article. Most info seems to be sourced from company website. I can only find information online provided by clock dealers and other commercial listings. Sionk (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 15. Snotbot t • c » 23:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search in Google Books returns tens of thousands of results, from many sources. While it may be necessary to improve the article, it would be foolhardy to delete it. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment - ~~I hang my head in shame~~ Edward Vielmetti is absolutely right, there are a ~~significant~~ number of published book sources. ~~I'd like to withdraw this AfD nomination.~~ Sionk (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy close- Withdrawn by nom (above). No outstanding deletion votes. Sources shown to exist. (Update) Struck (see Comment below). Dru of Id (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was hasty in my reaction to Edward Vielmetti's comment. It was another instance of an editor finding a long list of links on Google and claiming these inferred notability. In fact the major source on the list is a book about the parent company, Herman Miller, with only a brief mention of the clock subsidiary. It fooled me for a moment because the names are similar. I am still undecided whether Howard Miller Clock Company is worthy of its own article. The book Grand Rapids: Furniture City has a photo and a short paragraph about Howard Miller and the company. There are possibly some short pamphlets, of dubious significance. Sionk (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relative to notability: I'd look at List of United States clock companies, and make some rational decision whether we want more red links on that page or less. Many of those corporate biographies are unexceptional in quality and there is a deletionist rationale for wiping out at least a few of them (cf. Self Winding Clock Company). I wasn't able to find a good reference that covered modern clockmaking in America so the various fragmentary corporate histories might be the best we can do for now. (For earlier history, the 1871 American clock making: its early history appears to be the most comprehensive. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:30, 19 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:24, 22 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted by Fastily under WP:CSD#G11, "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Non-admin closure. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amcom Software

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

I don't think this company passes WP:CORP. It doesn't get any hits on Google News, and on Google Books there are about 300 hits for "Amcom Software", but they appear to all be either passing mentions or directory listings. The references in the article are all primary sources or press releases, with the exception of this piece in Healthcare Informatics, which I think proves some limited notability in the field of healthcare. However, I don't think this amounts to the level of coverage that WP:CORP requires. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Another communications software company advertising on Wikipedia. Current text qualifies for speedy delete as unambiguous advertising and patent nonsense: Amcom Software connects people to each other and to data. Amcom products are used in call center communications, emergency management, wireless messaging middleware, smartphone pager replacement, and paging infrastructure for leading organizations in hospitality, healthcare, education, business, and government. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:13, 23 January 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, Stifle (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with User:Ihcoyc. It reads just like an advertisement. SaveATreeEatAVegan 10:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as unambiguous advertising.Tyrenon (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, without prejudice to recreation if new reliable sources are found. Kubigula (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He Wanli

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

Asserts notability, but I'm not so sure that notability is shown. Based on what I am seeing, weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 15 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little coverage that I can find that is really notable enough to be considered for an article at this time. SarahStierch (talk) 19:27, 21 January 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, Stifle (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He can be seen to be cited in two books on contemporary art practice: "Performance Art in China" and "Creativity and Its Discontents: China's Creative Industries and Intellectual Property Rights Offenses". That would make me tend to a Weak Keep, that the English language reader was seeing cross-cultural fragments. On the other hand, the sole ref in the article is giving a 404, which is taking it down towards Unreferenced BLP territory. AllyD (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we even know if the subject IS alive? If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an individual's biography, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. SaveATreeEatAVegan 22:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a shame no sources can be found because, if any of the claims in the article is true, he would certainly deserve an article. But as it is, unsourced, it is worse than useless. Hopefully someone who reads Mandarin will find something! Sionk (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. But rename to Foreign Language Assistant per PWilkinson. The program doesn't seem notable, but the concept of a foreign language assistant is. henrik•talk 11:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assistant teacher programme of the Educational Exchange Service

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think this programme passes the general notability guideline. I have searched for sources both in English and German, and come up with nothing of substance (although my German is admittedly very patchy). Also, as the title is very long, it doesn't seem like a plausible redirect. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after seven years, I think we can safely delete this. There are no reliable sources that I could find. I'll change my mind if someone finds something decent. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 24 January 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, Stifle (talk) 16:54, 29 January 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I find nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see this part of this program being notable; it strikes me as being in the vein of an article on "Teachers Aides in Brooklyn" or "Assistant conductors for CSX". Using it as an example in the "assistant teacher" article might be valid, but the article just doesn't seem to have a clear reason for existing in its own right.Tyrenon (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike some of the imaginary couterexamples used, this is a national program, not one limited to Brooklyn, officially sponsored by the Pädagogischer Austauschdienstsponsored, a major German government agency, not a single railroad --that doesn't have conductors actually, since it just runs freight trains. Anything can be made to look silly by saying it's the same as fanciful silly parallels. saying this is just an example of "assistant teacher" shows a failure to read the article--it's being used in a special sense. It does need some more sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the programme does not look as trivial as the Brooklyn or CSX examples. The problem was that, try as I might, I could not find any sources about it. Does anyone know when this programme was founded? There could be sources offline that I missed if it's reasonably old. If not, it might just be one of those cases of "bias in the real world". (I'm sure there was an essay about that somewhere.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to Foreign Language Assistant, which currently redirects to this article and does have easily findable sources - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. The article as it stands at the moment is too much geared towards the agency responsible for the German side of such schemes (a corresponding role for Great Britain, for example, is taken by the British Council), but correcting that is simply an editing matter (and a smallish one at that). PWilkinson (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with User:Mr. Stradivarius, this article fails WP:GNG. The article itself has been around for ages, and less than 15% of its very few contributions came after 2008. SaveATreeEatAVegan 05:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was not deleted. The rough consensus is that this article should be merged with Brilliant 10 diamond one way or another. Either way, deletion is not the correct outcome. Der yck C. 12:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yair Shimansky

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

But it has sources! Well, yes it does, but I submit that it lacks the reliable and independent sources needed to establish notability. All of the coverage in the article's citations, and all that I'm able to find elsewhere, is obviously derived from press releases and other promotional material emanating from Shimansky's business itself (much of it dealing with various publicity stunts). The Cape Town Magazine site, to judge by its self-descriptive material, apparently focuses on material promoting the site's paying "partners"; the World Records Academy posts user-submitted "records"; and the Independent Online News and other pieces are clearly based on—or straight reprints of—press releases. Without independent sources, this article is nothing but an advertisement.

N.B.: The last time I checked the Cape Town Magazine site, it attempted to download a bunch of trojans and other malware to my computer. Visit it at your own risk, particularly if you lack robust antivirus software. Deor (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Important Comment - A URL Virus scan from Virustotal.com reports that the Cape Town Magazine website is absolutely clean (no trojans, no viruses, no worms, no malware, etc.) I have restored the references to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant 10 diamond closed as no consensus to delete, then Northamerica1000 went and merged its history over to this article, which he also created, and changed it to a redirect. [19] Are we just having the same AFD you started last month at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brilliant 10 diamond? Dream Focus 21:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're having a brand-new AfD about a different article. (And Northamerica1000 did not "merge the history" of Brilliant 10 diamond to this article; in fact, he included, without proper back-attribution, material originally contributed to that article by its creator, User:Yairshimansky). Deor (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

In the South African context, Yair Shimansky is a notable figure. He is the founder and owner of Shimansky, a luxury jewellery brand, and has appeared on local television and has been interviewed by press many times. Shimansky is also notable in the jewellery industry as they are a fully vertically integrated company who source diamonds direct from diamond mines, cut and polish their own diamonds and manufacture their own jewellery. I'm surprised the My Girl Diamond isn't listed here, as this diamond cut was developed by Yair Shimansky and is the first internationally patented diamond cut to originate from South Africa. They also recently opened a diamond museum (http://www.capetowndiamondmuseum.org/) and they have a number of sub-brands under the Shimansky umbrella.

Being a commercial company, it's natural that most of the published information about them would be from publications and media releases, as few studies are done on companies of this nature in South Africa. They may not be as popular as some of the worlds major brands, but that does not make it any less relevant for those of us here in South Africa that want to find detailed information on a company? Especially a company as notable as Shimansky and it's founder Yair Shimansky.

Further, Cape Town Magazine is a reputable website and the content seems up to date and relevant to their target market. I have found no trojans or malware when visiting the website.

Given time I am sure further information will be added to the entry that will improve on references and citations. This is why I'd argue against deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vida77 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC) — Vida77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Merge and redirect Brilliant 10 diamond to Yair Shimansky or visa/versa. The same half-dozen references are used for both. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:39, 26 January 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, Stifle (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and then merge and redirect Brilliant 10 diamond to Yair Shimansky. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Co RAT

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

I cannot find anything reliable to prove that this is a notable pedal. The article itself suggests it might be, but to prove that reliable sources will have to be found. I stopped short of slashing the content, but that's the next step should this article be kept. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for, but how about this list of artists that have used it? Indrek (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're looking for reliable sources, not the company website. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent sources can be found for that list of musicians. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per references added by Hobbes Goodyear, below. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:21, 29 January 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, Stifle (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has been an important musical tool for the past 30 years in rock and jazz, as evidenced by its use by multiple notable musicians and its coverage in multiple books, magazines, and websites. I've added 15 inline sources to the list of musicians, which seems to be the main area of contention, and I assure you that there are more sources out there, if a bit tedious to gather. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Hobbes Goodyear above. References have been added that prove notability. Indrek (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pottankandy Abdulla

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

No evidence of satisfying either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. PROD removed by the article creator without explanation. Salih (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nominator. X.One ^SOS 07:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable fails both WP:GNG and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. NN.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 William Frels, without prejudice against future restoration of the article with reliable sources. Der yck C. 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Frels

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

The Texas State Historical Association, in its entry on William Frels, makes no mention of a brother John co-founding the community, nor was I able to find any evidence online that he existed. Have I missed something? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~(see below)- Yes. here; searched frels at TSHA and that came up, ~~discusses~~ mentionsJohn. Dru of Id (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- As co-founder of unincorporated community Frelsburg, Texas, but sufficient sources are most likely offline. Community's website unsupportive. Dru of Id (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Rather than withdrawing this, I think I'll let it stand, to see if there's any support for merging John's article into William's? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect- Until better sourced; only other online data is Skip's double-entry bookkeeping at Findagrave & redux (side by side?); Further reading section at Frelsburg looks promising, but deadtree stuff. Dru of Id (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with dead tree stuff? Information existing on paper rather than digitalised can hardly be a reason not to keep? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 15:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So there is evidence that he existed in digital format, but the only support of his notability is on paper? Is there a chance that a request could be made to TSHA to scan this 'deadtree stuff'? Otherwise, a delete may be in order. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- There's nothing wrong with deadtree stuff, my superpowers just don't include seeing it from here. Without that, I cannot tell how in depth they cover this subject, since it is not their primary topic. 3 books about him would be Keep!; 3 books with chapters would be Keep.; 3 books that say 'he had a brother', without mentioning the name would be Delete! Sight unseen, I'm waffling, which I don't like. Dru of Id (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mad White Giant

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

Article about an unremarkable "semi-autobiographical" novel by an author better known as a 'reality' TV personality and explorer. No reliable independent sources have been added since its creation in 2006: only source is author's website, so article may be promotional. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really given this article any thought in the last five years. I did manage to find at least one journal article that discusses the book in detail: http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/ESC/article/viewFile/308/285. I'm willing to try salvaging some respectability from the article, but it may take a few days; I'm about to leave for work. Ackatsis (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Google news link above shows multiple reliable sources exist, even though at least one is behind a paywall. Jclemens (talk)

I'd quietly observe that the criterion here is not multiple sources, but Substantial Coverage in those sources. That is best shown by finding quotations that demonstrate critical opinion in favour of definite notability for what is an early book by an author who became much better known later (and not as a novelist), and of course an article which cannot inherit notability from anywhere else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just expanded the article and added some independent sources. I reckon it's a keeper now. Ackatsis (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a whole lot better. Nom is happy to withdraw. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A2: Copy of an article from another Wikipedia - .)

AFS top 100

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

The most obvious problem is that this is a straightforward copyright violation. But if even if we chose to ignore this, the fact would remain that this is not encyclopedic: it's one small group's opinion, a subjective classification that doesn't meet Wikipedia's needs for objective information. Pichpich (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Unencyclopedic. It doesn't belong here, simple as that.--Michig (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that this was also the basis for the book Greatest Ever Footballers, and the list and book were the subject of a few articles, generally ridiculing it - [20], [21], [22], [23] - so maybe it verges on notability. Simply repeating the list here doesn't seem appropriate, however.--Michig (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting oddity: the list currently in the article doesn't even correspond to the AFS list. I guess the good news is that it's not a copyright violation anymore, it's just a random list pretending to be a copyright violation! :-) Pichpich (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. Marginal case. henrik•talk 20:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linkcycle

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another technology company that evaluates the environmental performance of products and services using life-cycle assessment advertising on Wikipedia. Deliberately vague gibberish: The mission of LinkCycle is to tackle the global challenge of environmental degradation and climate change by providing a collaborative software that brings down the costs of LCA. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, as the author I would dispute your claim that the statement is "so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it." The company has achieved recognition for its vision of using linked data collaboration to reduce the costs of environmental assessment and bring the LCA industry to scale. - King delta blues (talk) - 11:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability criteria: Organization has received independent coverage of significant depth:

Buttell, Amy (December 21, 2011). "Business plan competition winner offers insights". BizPlanCompetitions.com (US). Retrieved January 22, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

-- Selfless101 (talk) - 11:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)— Selfless101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Anonymous (January 23, 2012). "Thomson Reuters has noted them as well". [24]. Retrieved January 23, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Anonymous (January 23, 2012). "Interesting they have obtained US DOE recognition as well, which to me is strong industry notice". [25]. Retrieved January 23, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

Winning "business plan competitions" or "entrepreneurship competitions" is not the sort of tangible, lasting achievement that gets a business into an encyclopedia. Nor is having one of your press releases quoted in a Dept. of Energy press release. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Arguments based on poilicy and/or guidelines as to whether the company is notable will help to achieve a suitable outcome here.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The indication of a 'tangible, lasting achievement' is not a Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. The notability criteria that are required by Wikipedia, however, are met by the independent coverage of significant depth in the US DoE blog. The fact that the blog cites their source for the description of the company to be "drawn from the teams' own promotional materials" does not obstruct the satisfaction of the depth of coverage or independence criteria that Wikipedia uses to establish notability. Depth of coverage would be precluded by consisting only of trivial coverage such as, for example, "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization," but this is not the case. Independence cannot be established by "press releases, press kits, or similar works", but this blog is not such as it was written from the government agency office of two of the prize competition judges, Henry Kelly and Steve Isakowitz. As judges they must be independent of the prize candidates, as is the larger government agency on whose behalf the blog is written. - Selfless101 (talk) - 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Company meets additional notability criteria of (1) audience and (2) independence of sources. - King delta blues (talk) - 11:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)— King delta blues (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 15:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Almost certain that the article meets notability criteria, and there are several reliable sources cited, though some of them would be more appropriate as external links. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per consensus. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akhand Bharat

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

POV fork of various political group articles, Vishva Hindu Parishad Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh Article offers nothing new which cannot remain in the respective parent articles. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article content itself is notable enough for a separate article. The articles about the political parties have a scope much broader than this. This is a specific topic related article and I see enough citations here. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as TopGun says, this appears to be a perfectly logical unit of information for an article, is well cited, and clearly a distinct topic from the articles on the political parties concerned - indeed, the fact that there is more than one "parent" implies clearly that this is a separate entity - we certainly don't want to copy it into each "parent". Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Are you sure they're all political parties and this belongs in these "parent" articles? There's another parent for all three, but these 3 do not have the parent/daughter relationships you seem to be implying. 68.107.129.156 (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How is this a WP:POVFORK? How is this even a WP:CONTENTFORK? And how one article can be a fork of three different articles? If you think this is unbalanced, please, mark it so or, better, make it balanced. How does it meet any WP:DEL-REASON at all? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT based tagging. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is no reason to delete this. It is a page which explains a concept promoted by right wing extremists. Despite the improbability of its implementation, it is still a real concept that should be kept alive on Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.183.0.122 (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unwise nomination! Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 21:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Clark

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

A drummer in two bands, but not independently notable. He can be mentioned in the articles about the bands he was in. Another editor challenged speedy deletion, so AfD is appropriate Sionk (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability was not the subject of the 2011 CSD nomination. It is true that Mr Clark is mentioned in the media as a member of the above mentioned bands, see for example PopMatters, musicOMH, Der Standard (in German), abc.net.au, Melbourne Weekly, X-Press Magazine or Surrey Now. Mr Clark was/is a member of two independently notable musical ensembles and it should be in my opinion enough to meet our notability requirements (see WP:MUSICBIO, #6). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Member of two notable bands, satisfying criterion 6 of the applicable notability guideline. Members of one notable band would be kept as redirects if not individually notable. An article simply stating that he is/was a member of these two bands effectively performs the same function.--Michig (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see that the definition of independent notability may be confusing here. Mr Clark plays in a notable band - The Sleepy Jackson. In 2010, he joined Jeff Martin and founded Jeff Martin 777. It is quite natural that the music media will note his previous band, however, both the bands received independent coverage in those media. And last but not least, we have enough reliable coverage to assume that our readers might search who is this musician. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and integrate sources above - per above. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfD withdrawn - Point taken, I didn't notice the second half of the sentence of #6 of WP:MUSICBIO. I've added the interview with Clark as a link in the articlem, to give it more weight. N.B. the other links are only mentions of Clark, but could do with adding to the articles about the respective bands. Sionk (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spunge. Wifione ^Message 15:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dent'All Records

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

I found no notability and no notable bands are signed to it. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Spunge as a possible search term. Lugnuts (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Only really relevant to the band.--Michig (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Per Lugnuts.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Legend of Dragoon characters

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

Completely unsourced list of character detail that as far as I can tell has not been covered by reliable sources, and is simply unencyclopedic. This was previously redirected to the game but that was reverted. Michig (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signs of notability or third party coverage. This is merely a collection of observed plot points from the game and original research. Certainly a notable, noteworthy game, but the characters themselves have no notability outside of the actual game. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, so much in-universe information on characters who are not individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Opel Insignia. Wifione ^Message 18:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opel Insignia concept

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

This is a stub and is likely to remain as such because there is not enough information to sustain a full article. It should be deleted and any usable content integrated into Opel Insignia Biker Biker (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be delated, because this is a study and it has nothing to do with the actual Opel Insignia, even if the contents of the article are not enough.Miniotx (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into the Opel Insignia article. There's room there for a brief discussion of the development process and incorporation of this into that part of the article. No need for a standalone article.Tyrenon (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as Tyrenon suggests. Show cars do not need separate articles unless they are notable in their own right. Greglocock (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with current Insignia article to properly deal with the history of the model.--Bud (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Opel Insignia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rucka Rucka Ali

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

No evidence of notability. Sole citation asserting notability, from Current TV website, appears to be user-submitted content, and is marked as being sourced from subject's own YouTube channel. Note also the name of the Current TV user that submitted the Current TV article. -- The Anome (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, this article is linked from quite a few others with out any supporting citation. If this article goes, so should all the unreferenced mentions to it in other articles.) -- The Anome (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly the redirects at DJ Not Nice, Justin's Beaver and Toby Queef. -- The Anome (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I found nothing to suggest that the subjects meets any of our inclusion criteria.--Michig (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Actually I just found this, which kind of makes him notable, so I'm now inclined to keep.--Michig (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Keep. ~~Fails to meet our N guidelines~~. Per charting. One need not meet GNG, if they meet our music notability guideline.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Michig points out, his albums charted, making him notable. --Muhandes (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And although allmusic is usually reliable, here is billboard itself showing an album charting at 8 (peak at 6). --Muhandes (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSICBIO indicates where a subject may be notable if they have been in the chart, however, I am not seeing how this subject meets WP:GNG as he lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Mt king ^(edits) 23:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Frankly, I didn't know why we even had an article on an internet pseudonym in the first place.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:MUSICBIO#2. - Cavarrone (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That only indicates that the subject may meet WP:GNG, however there is no indication that the subject of this article actually does have any significant coverage in which case it fails WP:GNG and just saying passes WP:MUSICBIO#2 does not actually help the discussion, see WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Mt king ^(edits) 09:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never said that charting (and having verifiable evidence of this) is a "proof" of notability, but it is an adequate sign to "presume" notability. If you want deprecate MUSICBIO, or at least remove criterium#2 from it, you're free to propose it, but this is not the proper place to restart the eternal dispute GNG Vs. SNGs. I just note that the last attempt to watering down SnGs related to people was rejected by community (here the discussion). Cavarrone (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added to the article a source with a short biography from Rhapsody, which seems independent and reliable. I also added a BBC News online article about a minor controversy regarding his work, again, very clearly independent and reliable. I'm not claiming these on their own amount to WP:GNG, but they are just two mentions I found in the first two pages of the Google search, and I'm pretty convinced a thorough search will find more. I tend to treat WP:MUSICBIO #2 as supporting evidence in case of multiple chartings, when WP:GNG cannot be directly shown, on the assumption that when an artist is charting multiple times they are bound to be covered, even if I cannot personally find it. Of course, everyone can evaluate for themselves. --Muhandes (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has charted with his albums. WP:MUSICBIO is meant to show notability in cases where WP:GNG is disputed. If an artist must meet both, there is no point in any other notability guidelines. A412 (Talk * C) 02:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. is an established artist and internet personality. Ice Hockey Hero 18:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BAND Criteria states "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Reaching single digit rank of the Billboard charts definitely makes one notable. In addition, his songs are known to pop up on Pandora radio from time to time. Jerwong (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G12 -- the entire article foundation was a close paraphrasing of a copyrighted review. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 05:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LG Optimus7

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

Complete original research. I redirected this to LG Electronics, but this was undone by the author. This would need a complete rewrite to be of value to Wikipedia. I would not be opposed to restoring the redirect, but deletion is also a strong possibility (hence the nomination). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio, and redirect to LG Optimus 7: That article looks well, like some sort of review. In fact, it is. It needs to be G12'd. ViperSnake151 Talk 05:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for now, obviously without prejudice against his doing something amazing in the future and becoming notable. Der yck C. 16:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Binder

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

Film director of questionable notability. Google search on "Bryan Binder" Breakaway (his only directing to date) shows only 11 unique results, none from reliable sources - it's not even listed on his IMDB page, which shows mainly minor assistant roles. A search on the movie claimed to have been written by him shows only 49 unique results, again from questionable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've improved on the article to show notability and have included reliable sources and news articles. I also Wikified the article. AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Appending my original "Keep" post: The Hollywood Reporter article does include Binder's name (in the 2nd paragraph), : http://warbirdsmovie.com/thehollywoodreporter.pdf AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:54, 14 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one reference, The Detroit Jewish News, is about him, the others are about the films. That reference is iffy as it his hometown paper. Breakaway hasn't been released and according to IMDb War Birds hasn't started filming, but footage is shown in an interview. Per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Should only count on events that have happened. Even if the films were released, I don't he would pass WP:FILMMAKER. Bgwhite (talk) 07:17, 26 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already. Only source is local, any activities pending notability haven't occurred yet. WP:TOOSOON. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Usual Caveats apply, however; if Mr. Binder does direct a major release, or if "Breakaway" comes out and gets coverage, then an article might work. But there isn't enough here to justify an article at present. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States. with no prejudice againt spinning out again if more material comes up Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 United States salmonellosis outbreak

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

Minor event, delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. A salmonella outbreak with 20 ill people, no deaths. Short term coverage only. Good sources, no problem there, but no WP:PERSISTENCE and no WP:EFFECT. Comparable to what is adviced in WP:AIRCRASH. Note that the article itself indicates (in the first source) that this outbreak is not exceptional or severe, and that the title is a bit of a misnomer since a few months before there was "salmonella-tainted ground turkey products that killed one person in California and made more than 100 people ill nationwide."[26] which seems to be another, more severe "2011 US salmonellosis outbreak" than this one... Fram (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the WP:NOTNEWS criticism seems sound, could this still be a merger candidate, perhaps to List of foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States or Salmonellosis#Incidence? An event that doesn't merit standalone article coverage may still merit mention. postdlf (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FDA ruling for the food recall was challenged in court so not a single event, we have the FDA then the court case. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Norton. It's not the morbidity and mortality that makes it notable; it is the effect on FDA and administrative law that matters. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And what effect did it have? Fram (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per postdlf. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States. We do not currently seem to have enough material for a dedicated article. Can be spun off again should it turn out that there is much more to be said about it. Sandstein 08:19, 29 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States, WP:NOTNEWS issue. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. Presently, this is very short. If more information is added, it could be split into another article. Stedrick (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comtech systems

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

Previous Prod with reason "Article on a local IT company with no indication of meeting the notability criteria for companies." Prod (and Notability tag) removed by article creator without comment so bringing it to AfD, on original Prod rationale. AllyD (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 10:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. -- The Anome (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think anyone could really object if this was speedied as an A7. Note: There appears to be a significantly more notable US company called Comtech Systems.--Michig (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did find the owner of the store being quoted in this article but that's not about the store, and it's a far cry from significant. -- Whpq (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Complications

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

Sources do not appear to support notability of either the book or the author. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 09:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited the novel, which on-line is only available on the kindle store. Surely citing the novel and the author (whom I have spoken to) along with all of the means of contact is valid citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahaberton (talk • contribs) 09:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unfortunately per Wikipedia guidelines those are all seen as primary sources and cannot be used to show notability, which is what the biggest concern is here. I'll see what I can find, but I'll warn you that most self-published and/or indie books will always lack the amount of reliable sources (WP:RS) needed to prove notability per WP:NBOOK guidelines. It's very hard to pass these guidelines and even some mainstream books have been deleted because they didn't have the necessary qualifications and I'm talking NYT bestsellers here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately there just aren't any reliable sources out there to show that this book or the author has any notability per [[WP:NBOOK] or WP:AUTHOR. I wish the author well, especially since she's so young and is launching into a highly competitive field, but neither she nor the book have the notability that is required for an article at this time. Like I said above, it's very hard to pass these guidelines since they're so strict and I've seen more established authors get shot down for articles because of them. As far as sources go, they must be reliable second party sources, such as an article by the Huffington Post where the author and/or her book are discussed in depth. Brief mentions, sources put out by the author, and most blogs will not show notability here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Thankyou for your quick reply and explanation, nobody had so far explained this to me in depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.118.210 (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I felt the "delete" arguments were stronger, but there was only one valid "delete" !vote apart from the nominator, i.e. WP:NOQUORUM. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azim Wardak

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

This is the biography of an Afghan civil servant. He held a fairly important position in the Ministry of Commerce (President of International Trade) but I don't think it's the kind of position that generates much media coverage especially in a country where journalism is more complicated than average. There is definitely a complete absence of English sources that discuss him specifically though obviously his name pops up from time to time as in the two references given in the article. There may be good sources in Arabic or in Pashto but I don't know how to Google that. The current article is clearly an attempt to praise his work and integrity but the references provided have nothing to do with the sentences that they are supposedly supporting. In short: the subject does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Pichpich (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 14 January 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I added some references and some additional information. IMO if he is notable enough to have his opinion quoted in RS he is notable enough for an article. Geo Swan (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you added don't support the existing content. More problematic, being quoted in an RS doesn't make one notable. You're creating a rule that doesn't reflect our guidelines or policies. In particular, there can be no biographical article without sources that provide biographical information. Pichpich (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You assert "there can be no biographical article without sources that provide biographical information." And a counter-example would be False Geber -- as I wrote in what a biography should contain and The earliest sockpuppet to be unmasked Issac Asimov felt "False Geber" was significant enough in the history of Science that he selected him as one of the individuals for whom he covered in "Issac Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science". At the time Asimov wrote about him nothing was known about false Geber, not his real name, birthplace, nationality, religion, where he studied, where he worked. All that was known about him was that he had written a book, under another man's name, that documented a key development in scientific progress.
I suspect your assertion is not policy-based. If it is I have no hesitation in stating that it is a mistake. It is almost always what individuals have said, written, done, that confers notability on them. Individuals whose notability is based on their birth parents, or birthplace, are exceptional.
Yes, ideally, we would want to supply birth-date, education, etc, for every biography. But not knowing that information doesn't strip notability away from otherwise notable individuals. Geo Swan (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice essay but irrelevant in this case. You're suggesting using a rule (quoted in an RS) that would make a school principal notable as soon as a news outlet reports his high hopes for his school's football season. It would also make everyone who's ever held a press-relations job notable. This is madness and it's not supported by current policy. But thankfully, it's also not supported by your essay. Azim Wardak is not False Geber: there are no sources that discuss the sad absence of info on Azim Wardak and no reliable source suggesting that Wardak is in any way remarkable. He held a high post in his country's ministry of trade, good for him. But Wikipedia is not LinkedIn and the threshold for inclusion of biographies is multiple instances of coverage of the subject specifically. Pichpich (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Isn't a relevant person, possibly try to autobiography. Thundersport (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Links in the article are dead, irrelevant, or merely evidence existence. The only one that even faintly helps the notability case is the two-sentence quote in the Bangor Daily News. Faintly. References found in web searches mostly evidence existence, not notability. Fails WP:GNG. If better sources can be found, happy to look again. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If an Afghan is also being written up in Arabic language sources (as noted above), he is probably more notable than English language sources indicate. Pseudofusulina (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said that he was being written about in Arabic, I said above that there might be sources in Arabic or Pashto. Unless you can actually point to such sources, you can't use them as a basis to keep the article. Pichpich (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - For some reason you know there might be sources in Arabic. Your speculation is based upon something, some hint of notability far beyond Afghanistan. Whatever it is based upon, it leads me to assert that notability attaches to an Afghan written about in the Arab world, whether we can find those sources or not. Pseudofusulina (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - ??? If I knew of existing sources, I'd provide them and if I had any idea about where to look for additional sources I would obviously share those ideas and look there myself. You seem to base your 'keep' on the idea that I'm withholding information. This is absurd. Pichpich (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, you think Afghans are Arabs, and you suggested there might be good sources in Arabic, thinking Afghans write their histories and news in Arabic. Afghans aren't Arabs. Pseudofusulina (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Still keep, random, poorly based deletion that fails to assert proper reasons for deletion, other than the proposers thinks such and such a thing might be true. Pseudofusulina (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I said Arabic or Pashto. Pashto because it's commonly spoken in Afghanistan and Arabic because coverage in Arabic of predominantly Muslim countries is sometimes better than what one finds in English. I suppose I should have added Dari to the list. I clearly stated my rationale for deletion: this does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO and if you want to argue in favour of keeping the article, it would be nice if you could address that point substantively. Pichpich (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        In Afghanistan it might be more likely they'll be in Dari than Pashto, and minor government officials in Afghanistan won't be covered in the Arab press just because Afghanistan is a Muslim country. In some instances if the official acquires a substantial level of regional coverage you could find information in Urdu or Farsi. If they attain national notability, you might find coverage in the Arab press, but then you might also find it in the English language Arab, Pakistani, and Indian press also.
        "He held a fairly important position in the Ministry of Commerce (President of International Trade) but I don't think it's the kind of position that generates much media coverage "
        
        You say he held a fairly important position, so that's you stating notability. When you follow with "I don't think" you're just giving your opinion without backing up with policy. Do you have any basis in fact for suggesting it doesn't generate media coverage, when you haven't begun looking in the most obvious language, Dari? It's a fairly important position, so I'm okay with that notability. Anyway, that's my say: keep. Pseudofusulina (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't confuse "notability" as defined in Merriam-Webster and "notability" in the technical sense used on Wikipedia. What I actually said in my nomination is that I don't see any evidence that Azim Wardak is notable in the latter sense (which is the important criterion) even though some may consider him Merriam-Webster notable. Pichpich (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis L. Hansen

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

contested prod. I don't feel the subject passes WP:ACADEMIC. Dearth of biographic material and sourcing. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. I could not find any relevant reliable independent sources.IRWolfie- (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Web of Science gives an h-index of 20 for "Hansen DL". Unfortunately, it turns out that there are several people of the same name and the one publishing in this field does not get farther than about 3 publications with a maximum of 16 citations. Too early, too soon (and from the alternative name listed in the persondata template, this might be an autobio. I also am puzzled by the link to Prussia and the mention of him being an Eagle scout...) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence from article or Google searches that this person would meet WP:Notability (academics) or WP:BASIC. Qwfp (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to fail standard WP:PROF citations test, as Guillaume2303 has found. Some of the links are broken, others are to generic web pages, while several others suggest that this work was done under the supervision of an advisor, i.e. as a grad student rather than independent scientist. Page created by SPA Gopher79. This is likely to be just a promotion page. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Note that the REU research called out within the article is not even graduate work; REU stands for Research Experience for Undergraduates. Additionally, the article ASci Corporation on his employer deserves some scrutiny; it was padded with primary sources that I just removed, and I'm not convinced they're notable either. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 18:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electroshock (song)

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

I can't find much coverage of this song. It does not appear to pass WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per reasoning. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 07:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 29 January 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, Wifione ^Message 15:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.. 3OH!3 Google results are not very promising. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as {{db-a7}}. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamechanger

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

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

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

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

This page has no reliable references. The page was recently created by a new user; it is pure nonsense. JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 06:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can now tell that the Facebook page is user-created. As in, it was created by the same person who created this article. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 07:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources on the article are unusable (especially the facebook links), the article is written in a highly promotional tone, and above all else, there aren't any sources out there that are about this actual food item. This is absolutely something that should be speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising, except for the various IPs removing the notice. I have a feeling that this might be a snow close.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

That may have been the user's IP. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 07:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also adding a "not a vote" bit to the top of this article since the facebook page is trying to direct people to protest the speedy (and probably this page as well). I want to make sure to let the users know that AfD is not based on a vote and that in order to keep the article, you must show reliable sources per WP:RS. Links to the facebook page, sites that do not mention the item, brief mentions, or to sites that are not considered to be reliable and noteworthy cannot be used as sources to show that this item has notability.07:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Yes, I read the page. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 07:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really mean it for you, but for the random IPs that were popping up and contesting the previous attempts at speedying. Just in case they do get over here before this is closed, I want them to read this bit of info before they decide to just say "don't delete" without any true reason for it to be kept.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Speedy Delete under A7, no indication of notability. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 07:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See all refs from article including https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Gamechanger/305264022846271 . Also, note possible canvassing at that location. I see no redeeming qualities. - UnbelievableError (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Gibberish. Carrite (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the user who is contesting the page is giving reasons which mean nothing. I just notified the user about removal. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 07:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 08:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Twardzik

AfDs for this article:

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

He doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE, as didn't appear in a fully professional league. Playing in the FA Cup against Scottish Third Division club does not infer notability per BigDom's opinion –Wrwr1 (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. He "technically" passes WP:FOOTYN, but if that one appearance against a minnow is his only claim of notability, it's clearly not enough to grant him an article. However, he's only 18 and I feel like he is going to get more notable in the very near future, so I think it's better to incubate the article until his notability claims get sturdier. – Kosm1 fent 09:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep, on the light of his second appearance in a cup match against an FPL team. – Kosm1 fent 20:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as he doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL; I would suggest moving this back into Userspace until such time as either GNG or NFOOTBALL are met. Giant Snowman 16:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per this, now meets WP:NFOOTBALL, so notable. Giant Snowman 16:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. On account of his appearance for a team from a FPL against another team from a FPL. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Also wears ridiculous pink boots. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment . The Scottish Cup is a notable competition we aren't talking about the first few rounds. This is the fourth round that achieves high coverage. If its a notable competition why do we feel his inclusion isn't warranted now. He meets WP:FOOTYN which i know is not primarily what we use its a thin line as there is loads of articles in a similar position to this one.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the past WP:NFOOTBALL has been extended to cover players making cup appearances for clubs playing in fully professional leagues (several players have articles based on appearances in the Football League Cup). The argument could be made that because this cup game was against a semi-pro team, it doesn't count, but would it be the same if Celtic had been playing St Johnstone? If it is deleted, PorridgeGobbler's secondary rationale is probably the best reason. Number 57 23:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it indeed the case that an appearance for a club from a fully pro league against a club from a semi-pro league constitutes the passage of WP:FOOTBALL? If so, then shouldn't this be record under WP:NFOOTBALL criterion 2? Mattythewhite (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in the Scottish Cup again today. This time against ~~St. Johnstone~~Inverness, a fully pro team. I still feel because its a notable competition it shouldn't of been deleted anyway. Guideline needs to be made clearer as there are many articles in a similar situation.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Sorry have at st Johnstone on the brain was actually Inverness. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep - as per EW, played against Inverness today.see here ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:SNOW. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes point 2 of WP:FOOTYN, even though it was under two minutes. Maybe his manager had been reading the AfD... Cloudz 679 09:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armored Fist 3

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

To kick off the discussion: While I'm sure enough material could be found to expand this article beyond the current single sentence, it's unlikely it will ever satisfy WP:GNG. The odd review or 2 in industry-focused publications does NOT constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". 108.67.153.215 (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a procedural nomination on behalf of User:108.67.153.215, who cannot start this page due to being an IP. I have no opinion either way. Reyk _YO! 06:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Besides the ubiquitous download sites, the best I could find was a couple more reviews [27] [28]. Those reviews appear much more high profile than a lot of software that survives AfD. If the CNN review is really CNN, then I would have expected there should be more reviews? Is it possible there are some from sources unavailable online? In the absence of more coverage however, I’m minded to think that we don’t have enough to grant notability.Pit-yacker (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep/Create Armored Fist series article/Redirect to NovaLogic#Armored_Fist, enough sourcing exists for something about the game or the series on WP. OSborn^arf_contribs. 18:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Novalogic article seems reasonable. 108.67.153.215 (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has received coverage in a variety of reliable, third party sources.
- Gamespot
- IGN
- CNN
- GameSpy
- Allgame, x2

It didn't take very long to find these, so I can't help but think there's plenty more out there too... Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the nomination, reviews don't really count as significant independent coverage. Could you explain why you think this case is different? Preferably with specific reference to Wikipedia policy? 108.67.153.215 (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite, I'd like you to point me in the direction of this "reviews don't really count" guideline. I've never found that to be true at AFD. Here's what matters: They are independent, third party, reliable sources. They are dedicated to the topic at hand, it's not just a passing mention. That's enough to establish notability. Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's unfortunate that you don't understand WP:GNG. You'll note I said nothing about reviews being reliable or independent sources, so you're clearly trying to obfuscate the issue. No one could consider them significant, not by any standard any reasonable editor could hold. Personally I'd like to see the quality of games-related articles improved, and deleting non-notable articles is an important step in that. But, whatever, keep games in the ghetto if you care so little. 108.67.153.215 (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"No one could consider them significant, not by any standard any reasonable editor could hold." Really? Because it looks like a number of experienced editors have !voted "keep", and with good rationale, so that statement seems rather ridiculous. Judging by the way you spoke entirely in generalities, and then vaguely referenced the GNG, I'm thinking there really isn't anything here left to argue here. It's great you want to improve wikipedia, but remember, we're using Wikipedia's standards, not your personal ones... Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per reviews. "reviews don't really count as significant independent coverage." That's nonsense. IP, according to what? SL93 (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia guidelines. Maybe try reading them sometime? 108.67.153.215 (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No guideline says anything about reviews. SL93 (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have now completely rewritten the article, using the 5 reliable sources used above. Started a reception section as well. The sources contain a lot more information about the gameplay itself, but I'll leave that for someone else to write. (I have no interest or prior knowledge in this game, or Tanks in general, so I think I've pretty much exhausted my motivation for this article at this point.) Anyways, clearly passes the WP:GNG now. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Per Sergecross73's excellent source hunting and rewrite. Reyk _YO! 21:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sergecross73's good work. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources; subject meets WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 21:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Edelman

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

Despite fan assertions to the contrary, this person does not appear to be notable. Claim to fame resides primarily in an ESPN opinion piece, and I do not believe this to be enough to satisfy the GNG, nor do I see any reason to believe that PROF is met. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I tagged for notability earlier and spent some time looking for reliable sources. I didn't find things that would contribute to establishing notability. As far as I can tell, this subject fails WP:GNG and is very, very far from passing WP:PROFESSOR. JFHJr (㊟) 04:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he has 7000 hits on Google Books and 800 on Google Scholar. PROF 1 or 7 might pass. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- there are at least two Marc Edelmans who are academics, and if one is not careful one gets searches that suggest an incorrect result. A GS search that includes "sports" suggests an h-index of 6 -- well below what would count for WP:PROF. I don't see sufficient evidence of notability elsewhere to get him past any relevant standard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very good reason not to make hay of g-hits. Thanks Nomo. JFHJr (㊟) 16:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Edelman has made several contributions to Law Reviews from such prestigious institutions, such as Harvard. A full list of his writings can be found here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1145394#reg Professor Edelman has also been regularly cited by the media. A full list of these articles can be found here: http://www.marcedelman.com/media2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportsLawJunky (talk • contribs) 19:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A list of his publications is not particularly relevant unless reliable sources have commented on them. Almost every law professor writes a lot of articles. The list of articles that have cited him on his website is more relevant to this discussion, but it's not particularly impressive. Some of the secondary sources are not the best, and many are commenting on the same thing, one particular case. If he were really a notable legal commentator, he would be cited far more often. See, for example, Laurie Levenson.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The more of these links I see, the more I am wondering about the goal of this article (PR) and the identity of the editor(s) involved. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there appears to be a concerted effort to promote him. However, as unseemly as that may be, it isn't directly relevant to the decision we make here.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cynicism, like humor, has its place. To all our health. JFHJr (㊟) 04:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(laughing) I have a fair amount of both. Sometimes I can't tell which is which.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to the above promotional aspects, the page was created by a SPA account. There is a Mark (with a "k") Edelman, who has published in the peer-reviewed law literature, but this person is in private practice and is clearly not the same person as our subject. Marc's CV also lists lots of publications, but almost all seem to be "student journals", e.g. UND Review, Pace Law Review, Wayne Law Review, etc. These are not mainstream, indexed journals, so this publication list will be a bit misleading. This is basically a promotion page for an assistant professor. Agricola44 (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, there are losers like me on the web that have nothing better to do than "promote" one of my professors on Wikipedia. It's not something I am proud of, but it is what it is. Law school can be very boring at times. Anyway, here are some more links that show other schools(where he does not teach) referencing him and citing to him. Don't know if something like this breaks some other policy or not.

http://www.ufsportslaw.com/edelman.html http://asusportslaw.wordpress.com/tag/marc-edelman/

And here are a bunch of symposiums and speeches he has done:

Lectures & Symposia:

Symposium Moderator: "The Long-Term Effect of Concussions and Potential Legal Liability," New York State Bar Association’s Fifteenth Annual Symposium on Current Legal Issues in Sports Law at Fordham Law School (April 1, 2010).

Symposium Panelist: "The Changing Face of Intercollegiate Athletics," Harvard Law School Sports Law Symposium (March 25, 2010).

Symposium Panelist: "Compliance in the World of Sports," DePaul Law School Sports Law Symposium (March 4, 2010).

Symposium Panelist: "Labor Concerns in Sports and Entertainment," Seton Hall Law School Sports & Entertainment Law Symposium (February 15, 2010).

Symposium Panelist: "Implications of the Supreme Court’s Ruling in American Needle," Villanova Law School Sports & Entertainment Law Symposium (January 29, 2011).

Symposium Panelist: "Current Issues in Sports Law," New York Law School Sports Law Symposium (November 12, 2010).

Symposium Panelist: "Antitrust Issues Stemming from the Phoenix Coyotes Bankruptcy Petition," Seton Hall University School of Law Sports & Entertainment Symposium (April 13, 2010).

Symposium Panelist: "The Likely Impact on Sports Leagues of American Needle v. Nat’l Football League," New York State Bar Association’s Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Current Legal Issues in Sports Law at Fordham Law School (March 26, 2010).

Symposium Panelist: "The Perfect Storm: Collective Bargaining in Major Sports 2011," Widener Law Sports and Entertainment Law Symposium (February 24, 2010).

Keynote Speaker: "Alternative Dispute Resolution in Real and Fantasy Sports," Pace Law School Alternative Dispute Resolution Society Event (February 2, 2010).

Symposium Panelist: "Bargaining Collectively," (Discussing the Baseball, Basketball and Football Collective Bargaining Agreements), University of Florida Sports Law Symposium (January 29, 2010).

Featured Speaker: "Can the NFL Permanently Suspend Michael Vick?," Presentation to the NYU Law School Sports & Entertainment Law Society (April 20, 2009).

Symposium Panelist: "Gambling in Sports: The Final Line between Fantasy Sports and Illegal Activity," New York State Bar Association’s Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Current Legal Issues in Sports Law at Fordham Law School (April 17, 2009).

Symposium Panelist: "The Problem with Age Limits in Professional Sports Leagues," New York Law School Media, Entertainment & Sports Law Symposium (March 25, 2009).

Symposium Panelist: "The Ethics of Building New Sports Stadiums during the Recession," Harvard Law School Sports Law Symposium (March 13, 2009).

Symposium Panelist: "Labor Issues in Professional Sports," University of Florida Sports Law Symposium (January 23, 2009).

Symposium Panelist: "Commissioner Suspensions and Antitrust Law," Seton Hall University School of Law Sports & Entertainment Symposium (November 7, 2008).

Featured Speaker: "Current Issues and Career Opportunities in Sports Law," Michigan Law School Sports Law Society Lunch (October 2, 2008).

Symposium Panelist: "The House that Taxpayers Built: Exploring the Rise in Publicly Funded Baseball Stadiums from 1953 through the Present," Villanova Law School Sports & Entertainment Law Journal Symposium (October 25, 2008).

Symposium Panelist: "NCAA Law & Ethics," New York State Bar Association’s Twelfth Annual Symposium on Current Legal Issues in Sports Law at Fordham Law School (April 11, 2008).

Featured Speaker: "Athletes’ Names & Stats: Intellectual Property or Fantasy," New York State Bar Association (June 26, 2008). SportsLawJunky (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we all appreciate your enthusiasm for your professor. Unfortunately, all the information you just listed does not count toward notability. Participating in symposiums and such is the normal day-to-day fodder that academics such as Mr Edelman do. What would be helpful for your case is if you can find anything in the WP:PROF specification that Mr. Edelman satisfies. I could not, but you may know something we don't! Best wishes, Agricola44 (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

His publications have been cited by three Supreme Court briefs in the case American Needle v. National Football League. Does that satisfy #7? SportsLawJunky (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not the most famous on Wikipedia. But with respect to [WP:PROF] he has seven easily identifiable media quotations on "sports law" in seven different national newspapers (Washington Post, Washington Times, ESPN, Arizona Republic, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Seattle Times and USA Today). Perhaps [WP:PROF] needs an update to account for the ease with which professors on certain topics can get media attention. However, this entry--with some substantial updates to citations--seems to comply with the letter of the requirement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/12/AR2011031205812.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/13/justices-to-tackle-nfl-antitrust-case/ http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=munson_lester&id=4336261 http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2009/05/08/20090508biz-coyotes0509.html http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Schultz-sticks-with-Sonics-suit-1278694.php http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010532525_apusmoralityclausesqa.html http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/2011-02-06-cnbc-stadium_N.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterparker1 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC) — Winterparker1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking based on outcome of SPI investigation.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being quoted is not what counts. (For which I am eternally grateful -- if it were otherwise, I might have to worry about there being an article on me.) To help support notability, you would need sources that are primarily about him. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is cray. I can think of so many less interesting people who have Wikipedia pages(ie: half of Hollywood). This guy is the real deal, despite not meeting any of the "requirements." What if he becomes Professor of the Year? THEN could he have a Wikipedia page?SportsLawJunky (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC) ~*~*~*~[reply]

Again, the requirements are in WP:PROF. They're very well established, not likely to be changed in the near future, and somewhat difficult to satisfy. This is precisely why junior academics, such as Mr Edelman, rarely qualify. To answer your specific question: no, "professor of the year" would not likely qualify either. As a general word of advice, the use of one or more WP:SPA accounts, for better or worse, usually hurts the subject's case. Best wishes, Agricola44 (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Ok well there IS a website that talks about HIM. It's right here: http://njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/021909/sptRutgersProf.html SportsLawJunky (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The conributions of SportsLawJunky (talk · contribs) and Winterparker1 (talk · contribs) are sufficiently similar that I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MarcEdelmanFan. Creating multiple accounts to !vote here is a serious breach of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome. User:MarcEdelmanFan is the sock master. UserSportsLawJunky is a confirmed puppet, and User:Winterparker1 is a possible puppet. All have been blocked for 72 hours for abusing multiple accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been on the fence on this one for a while. It's one of those articles where everything about it feels wrong, but if you try to divorce yourself from the way it was written, why it was written, who wrote it, etc., Edelman might be sufficiently notable to pass muster. However, based on the comments by others, I've decided that at this point, he does not have enough recognition as a legal expert to justify an article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Few Tales of Hard Times

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

Non-released film, no claims of notability, fails WP:CRYSTAL. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 29. Snotbot t • c » 01:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This independent film, written, produced, directed by, and starring unknowns, will almost certainly be non-notable--and that's if and when it does get released in a year's time. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no independent and reliable sources showing that this film has any notability or passes WP:NFILM at all, let alone the qualifications for notability for future films. It may one day become notable, but it is not notable today. The only things that showed up in a search were things that were put out by the filmmakers, ads for auditions for the film, and routine notifications of potential showings.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. A clear case of WP:CRYSTAL.Grillo7 (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Does not pass WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. X.One ^SOS 07:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

18seconds Magazine

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

Notability. No notability has even been vaguely attempted. Appears almost entirely an advertisement for the publication. Falcadore (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 23 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 2-year-old digital surfer magazine, published occasionally. No evidence for notability is offered; understandably, as substantial WP:RS coverage is scarce--mostly social media and some blog posts, that I found. If better sourcing can be found, happy to look again. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just unfortunately couldn't find anything to show notability. The stuff I did find were the types of things that can't be considered independent and/or reliable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rucka Rucka Ali. Given the last comment and reference, I'm closing this as a redirect. If there are any issues, do contact me directly please Wifione ^Message 15:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Racist

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

There's no media coverage of the album, and even our own article on Mr. Ali neglects to mention the album. I only stumbled on the article through an archived talk page for Friday (Rebecca Black song). Zanimum (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, his Twitter page bio includes the hashtag #probablyracist. The only tweets with the tag? One irrelevant, and one by someone named "Name", begging him to RT their post. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 16 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero indication of wp:notability. The only "reference" is the sales page on itunes. North8000 (talk) 11:31, 22 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no sources for this and a search has only brought up links to sale pages, primary sources (which cannot be used), and tons of "junk" listings for torrent and the like. There weren't any fan blog entries talking about the album. Fails notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Weak keep or Merge to Rucka Rucka Ali. It charted on the Billboard Top Comedy Albums chart - see this.--Michig (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. defaulting to keep with no prejudice against speedy renomination Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Passarello

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

The subject does not appear to qualify under WP:NTRACK, or any other notability guideline. Article as it currently stands contains no third-party reliable sources, and I was unable to find any articles that gave him more than a passing mention. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 19:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 19:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Not notable, no references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:59, 21 January 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:47, 22 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fuzön. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Momina

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

Zero non-mirror gbooks hits. The only gnews hits are passing mentions that relate more in general to the band than to the artist. Zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fuzön, which has all this text word for word. Whether that should be nominated is another question. 86.44.55.100 (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with that. And (in my view at least), Fuzön (the target article) is in fact notable (though its article has a good deal of un-verified material that is worthy of cleanup, one way or the other ... but not a matter for AfD).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Hayden (fighter)

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

Fails WP:MMANOT, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:GNG. TreyGeek (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dont think the article should be deleted, I found a source and put it in the article, and he did well against a tough opponent on short notice. I think that he'll do well in the UFC, and that he's notable enough. Glock17gen4 (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An odd nomination considering that the page was nominated on the same day as the fighters first fight for a notable organization (a criteria for establishing notability). Unless the fighter is released in the next few days from his contract, I would argue against deletion at this point in time. There is no point in deleting the page, only to recreate it later after two more fights. Clearly non-notable fighters are ones who are not contractually positioned to become notable in short order. The exclusive multi-fight nature of his contract is why I don't believe this is crystal balling. If people find this unpalatable, I don't see why the page can't be redirected to UFC on FX: Guillard vs. Miller for the time being. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

may as well Keep it... ...because the current trend for all MMA fighters on Wikipedia seems to be that if they compete for the UFC just the once with very little or no actual articles on him outside of the UFC event they competed on can stay on here, so lets stop messing around and just keep it because we know its just going to happen, but if this does, I've decided that if all fighters who competed a single bout for any top tier promotion other than the UFC like Strikeforce and Bellator all have a legit reason to have their own page, and that I will begin to create pages for each of them with their fight records in their and just one link saying they competed on one of a top tier promotion's card. BigzMMA (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make up your own WP policies. If you want that to be true then get consensus to modify WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right now he doesn't meet any of the notability criteria at WP:GNG or WP:MMANOT. If he has 2 more UFC fights he will meet the criteria at WP:MMANOT. If a decision had to be made right now, I think redirecting it would be the best option. It might be nice to delay any decision until we see if he gets those 2 additional UFC bouts. Papaursa (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to UFC on FX: Guillard vs. Miller If he gets enough UFC fights his article can be stored, but assuming he'll get them is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Astudent0 (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage, fails WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 02:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in sources independent of the fighter and promotion he fights in that specifically cover him, such as "Tommy Hayden targeted for UFC on FX 1 slot against Fabricio Camoes". --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:45, 27 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would be ridiculous bureaucracy to delete it and recreate when he fights two more bouts. Alternatively, delete it if he does not fight two more instead. A412 (Talk * C) 19:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He appears on the UFC website's list of fighters, he has been significantly covered in MMA related articles. There is no reason to delete this page. JadeSnake (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reis Vermaak

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

This radio presenter, record producer, and club DJ lacks substantial, non-trivial, non-passing-mention independent RS coverage. Created by a 1-article-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree non-notable. - Frankie1969 (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 23 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding anything to demonstrate that he meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I google him I get the Wikipedia page, his website, myspace, youtube videos and links about travel entertainment tips (reisvermaak without the space means travel entertainment in Dutch). Google News Archive search doesn't mention him at all. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 20:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Philadelphia Union Reserves . Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Philadelphia Union Reserves season

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

The article fails WP:GNG. Philadelphia Union Reserves do not play in a fully-professional leage, and reserve team seasons are generally not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Although the reserves don't play in a professional league the information for this team's season is worthy of keeping. Consider merging this with main club's 2011 Philadelphia Union season Brudder Andrusha (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Philadelphia Union Reserves; create a 'History' section, detailing what happened season-to-season. Giant Snowman 16:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add into history of the main page I agree with Giant Snowman. Even major leagues in the world with Reserve Teams dont have individual seasonal pages for there Reserve Teams. They are just not notable enough for reasons Sir Sputnik put. Just make a new section in Philadelphia Union Reserves called history and make another section called season by season stats. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:46, 29 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and even the team that this refers to has nothing referenced apart from the field where they play. Even the league itself only has a page because it was linked from five other pages! What kind of notability exists anywhere near this article?! Cloudz 679 19:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Philadelphia Union Reserves agree fully with suggestion given by GiantSnowman.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shehzad_Roy#Albums. JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rab Jaanay

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

Zero gnews hits. Zero gbooks hits other than a wp mirror. Zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is quite clear that Shehzad Roy made this album, and I think he is a notable artist in his country. However, I can't find any independent reviews or other reliable information confirming that 'Rab Janey' (which seems to be the correct title) is a notable album. Redirect to Shehzad_Roy#Albums is the best option at the moment, IMO. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a redirect would be sensible, as you suggest.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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