Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 January	2 February >

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Cuts Film Festival

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

Non-notable high school film festival. NN on its face, and also lacks requisite substantial multiple independent RS coverage. Epeefleche (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no way a small high school film festival like this can meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only are there no sources that could be used to show notability, but there's unlikely to be any. From what little there is, it appears that this film festival has become defunct and will not be held again in the foreseeable future. Even if they do eventually hold another festival sometime in the unknown future, that doesn't give it notability in the here and now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 08:09, 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) 01:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Air Service Berlin Douglas C-47 crash

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

Non notable incident. Doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH since the plane wasn't written off. Even if it was, the most this merits is a mention in the airport article. WP:NOTNEWS William 23:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 23:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -William 23:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 23:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: although the aircraft was not written off, the article suggests that had the aircraft not been of such historical significance it would likely not have been repaired. The age and historical significance of the aircraft involve make this a notable event. Besides, readers are reminded that WP:AIRCRASH is a piece of advice, not a formal policy or guideline. --RFBailey (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the rationale I gave at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 1#Articles on recent crashes when contesting the PROD. This is not a General Aviation aircraft. Sightseeing flights are a commercial operation, and the aircraft was a constructive total loss. We are still waiting for the BFU to release their final report into the accident. Mjroots (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm neutral on whether or not the crash article should be kept, but Air Service Berlin should be written up as an article, not redirecting to the crash... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've G6'd the redirect per WP:REDLINK. Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:AIRCRASH is not a guideline, just a controversial opinion that doesn't reflect a consensus; and simply referring to WP:NOTNEWS is no argument for deletion. There has been a lot of follow-up press coverage even a long time after the event, which makes it clearly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angbor (talk • contribs) 01:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This seems to me a notable incident considering the historical significance of the aircraft and location. I feel the encyclopedia is better for having it included. Rex Racer-X (talk) 04:13, 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) 15:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islamonausea

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

neologism that is apparently only used by Jihad Watch. Not supported by other sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:NEO. Rorshacma (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are twelve separate references, all cited in the page. Not only at Jihad Watch. (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC) — Johnbull1975 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note- Its not enough that it has sources, the sources themselves must be reliable third party sources in order to be valid for establishing notability, as covered inWP:Sources. It is very arguable that any of the listed references qualify, especially since the majority of them appear to be non-notable blog posts.Rorshacma (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete, notability requires coverage in reliable sources rather than fringe websites, Blogspot blogs and the like. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete lack of coverage in secondary sources. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 05:41, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kanika Tiwari

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

Child actress who has had one low-credited role. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Comment: There are independent references which claim that she has about an hour of screen-time in a major Indian movie. She also plays the role of the sister of the main protagonist. I also see other articles like, Armaan Verma, in which the actor has had a very similar role. Yet another example I see is that of Christopher Mintz-Plasse, where the article was created as soon as he performed his debut role in Superbad. The article was nominated for deletion and the consensus was keep. — Pewfly (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ACTOR is pretty clear on the criteria for inclusion:

significant roles in multiple notable films (emphasis added).

Tiwari has had a single role, and there is scant evidence that it is a significant role. (Screen time alone is not a very good indicator.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Agreed that in the light of WP:NACTOR the notability of this article remains dubious (that's why the weak keep). But articles have been created about actors as soon as they land a role in a single movie (Georgie Henly, Jordan Nagai for example). I don't see why this article should be an exception. — Pewfly (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other poor articles are around doesn't mean we should keep this one. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! You cant argue that if they existed, she also should. And also you cant delete them now. They are all notable now. Plus if you wanna argue that, we also have n number of actors who have worked in numerous films but dont have article to their name. I was gonna nominate Armaan Verma after you gave his example. But he was nominated for Best Child Actor and thus became notable enough to stay.-Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per the nomination. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to meet notability requirements at this time. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply the existence on Wikipedia does not make a person notable enough. We will have to wait for some time for Kanika to become notable enough. She is not yet reliably sourced in foreign media and all articles referenced here have the same content and focus on one single event of her life. Their are far too many small actors who have come and gone in the Hindi Film Industry. lets wait for another five years and then add her entry (after she achieves more). Wikipedia is not a promotion board people, and should not be used (or considered) for the same. Its merely a reflection of noteworthy people and events. Once we have enough content to Justify a full article (in the recommended layout) I will welcome a full article. Wikishagnik (talk) 18:00, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ESCAPE Student Bus Service

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

This school bus service lacks -- as best I can tell, having checked gnews and gbooks -- sufficient substantial, independent RS coverage, though the university that it serves is itself notable. Zero refs. Tagged for that malady for 3 years. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources have been provided except for the service's own web site. (That link was broken, but I was able to replace it with the current link.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable service at one college, can be covered with a sentence in the college article. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:37, 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 Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies of Ahmedabad

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

This list should be restricted to notable companies of Ahmedabad, in which case it is redundant to Category:Companies based in Ahmedabad Kilopi (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. I was hoping that if it didn't get deleted, it could at least be brought into compliance with WP:LISTCOMPANY. I was wrong. In the future, I'll leave dealing with lists of companies either to every spammer wanting to include a malformed link to their two-person SEO shop or to editors with enough wikiclout to make their cleanup stick, whichever group cares more about spam on Wikipedia. Kilopi (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way to deal with such issues is to remove innappropriate entries from the lists, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater by deleting the whole articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that per postdlf's comment, but all the questionable entries are now back. I won't edit war against consensus, so I'll just stay away from them. Kilopi (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, no valid deletion rationale presented. Restricting lists to notable examples is a completely run-of-the-mill editing task, not grounds for deletion (just remove the non-notable ones and you're done) and it's merely a matter of convention that article titles do not have "notable" in them. Redundancy to a category is also not a reason for deletion; see WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On a side note, this list should probably be expanded to a list of companies of Gujarat, given that in total there are only about 50 judging from Category:Companies based in Gujarat and Category:Companies based in Ahmedabad...but that's an issue for normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, I read WP:NOTDUP and so fixed it. Kilopi (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you mean you withdraw your deletion nomination? postdlf (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep no deletion rational per Postdlf above. OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - No valid grounds for deletion have been provided. Also, per WP:NOTDUP, lists and categories being redundant isn't a valid argument for deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keepsake (band)

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

This was declined as a speedy, because of their discography with a pair of independent labels, but I don't think that they are anywhere near the threshold to meet WP:MUSIC. The group's name makes a search somewhat difficult, but adding in the name of their first label and removing the Youtube and Wikipedia mirrors reveals almost nothing in reliable sources. They've never charted, and only one of the members of the band, Dan Mazin, even has an article of his own (and that is probably a speedy deletion candidate itself). The lede of this article focuses on the activities of one of the members, who left the band after the first three albums. There are no references, which in and of itself is not reason to delete, but I've actually expended some time trying to find something to establish their notability. (The group was supposedly formed in the town in which I grew up.) Horologium (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's an Allmusic bio, and a review in CMJ New Music Report. I'd like to see more coverage, but the albums on Eulogy Recordings and another on Fearless Records suggest the band is sufficiently notable.--Michig (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see enough evidence for the band to meet WP:NMUSIC. Fearless Records seem sort of notable, but only one album was released on that label. Sionk (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes WP:NMUSIC#5: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)".Cavarrone (talk) 12:22, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The two sources provided above by Michig, plus two reviews by Exclaim!, gives the subject enough coverage to meet WP:GNG and criterion #1 of WP:BAND. Additionally, as Cavarrone noted, the band's releases are sufficient to pass criterion #5 of the latter guideline. Gongshow ^Talk 00:46, 8 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 16:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew D. Gordon

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

Article fails to meet WP:BASIC. Article is sourced by a the subject's own personal webpage, and significant coverage in reliable sources is not found. Prolvman (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two of his publications have over 1000 citations each, and 20 of them have over 100. That is more than enough for a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and provides plenty of material for third-party sourcing about his research. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. To add the WoS perspective to David's stats: 44 papers with citation counts 332, 272, 214...conclusively passes WP:PROF #1. Agricola44 (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Per David Eppstein. —Ruud 10:18, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) B music ian 16:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese profanity

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

Burdened with maintenance templates for 5 years. This is nothing but an original research essay, completely devoid of sources. The examples are nothing but an arbitrary, cherry picked list without rhyme or reason. In short, it's just plain unencyclopedic. The last three AFDs were all "no consensus" (2006, 2008, 2010), but the only "keep" arguments I see are WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSUSEFUL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The topic seems very likely to be notable, for example chapter 8.7 of Milton Mariano Azevedo (2005). Portuguese: a linguistic introduction. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521805155. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also (in chronological order):

--Lambiam 00:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the apparent confusion – the above debates are not currently listed, and are solely referred to because they all appear to consist of similar arguments (pro: the topic is notable; con: the presented list is unsourced OR). --Lambiam 09:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Profanity is an important part of culture, and it seems congruent with the five pillars to keep these articles. For any language, there are generally multiple reliable sources discussing profane words. Edison (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relist individually though I agree with TPH that some of the articles are lacking, I believe that we should discuss them one by one. We're not simply talking about profanity but different cultures as well. It would also make it easier for dedicated regional boards or Wikiprojects to find the articles and judge the fate of its inclusion in the Wiki.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep So there is periodic AfD for this article, in 06, 08, 10, 12, and again in 14? Each culture has their own collection of profanity which is different from other cultures. There are a lot of reliable sources available. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these are all appropriate articles. There is some appropriate overlap between a dictionary and an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. Profanity can be notable, and if sourced properly, is presumed notable. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Harper Charity Hudley

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

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable biography. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at her CV I couldn't see any obvious reason that she should pass WP:PROF, but I will reconsider if anyone can prove she is highly cited based on citation indexes, etc. (I don't have access to these myself.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, Charity Hudley has no publications listed in Web of Science and therefore no h-index, but WoS tends to under-represent linguists, especially applied linguists. Google Scholar shows fewer than 10 citations for each of the dozen or so publication it lists, but again some of her publications seem to be missing. Cnilep (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1 book and only 5 total citations on GS (don't see anything in WoS) – pretty average for an associate professor. She has an enormous CV (25 pages) and the best shot at WP:PROF I see there are only some local awards, e.g. "William and Mary Alumni Association Alumni Fellowship Award". FYI: An article on this same person was speedy-deleted some time ago (although traces seem to have been scrubbed). Uncontroversial delete. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
FYI wiff of promotional WP:COI. This article was created by the WP:SPA account Eachsky, who has besides only edited/created the article on Hudley's coauthor of her book, Christine Mallinson, and added these two people to List of linguists. The speedied old version was created by Profch (record scrubbed but trace can be seen here) and there were COI concerns then, as well. The Mallinson article should probably be examined too. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Put simply, not yet. She probably at the rate she is going will be notable in the future, but does not really meet our usual level at this point. Whether our usual level is the right level for inclusion is another question , but there is a virtue in consistency. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Per improvements to the article by User:Tokyogirl79. Well done. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Wars (film)

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

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable documentary. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for film. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I haven't yet added everything, but I've found multiple reviews and sources, including a review from Variety.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep to politely disagree with the nominator, User:Tokyogirl79 has indeed shown the subject as indeed having the significant coverage in reliable third party sources so as to fully meet the notability guidelines for film. The improvable article first nominated NOW reflects expansion and sourcing showing her WP:AFTER to be exemplary. Well done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl79's additions; subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Gongshow ^Talk 04:33, 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 redirect to Pts.OF.Athrty. There is no appropriately sourced material to merge. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Points of Authority

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

Was never released as a single and never charted, can easily be merged into Linkin Park, Hybrid Theory, or the article for the remix version. Calabe 1992 19:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Pts.OF.Athrty seems the obvious choice, since that version actually was a single. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a reasonable search term. Pts.OF.Athrty is the best target page as it's the remixed version of the same song, and that article already notes that the original version of the song is found on Hybrid Theory. Gongshow ^Talk 02:02, 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 Speedy delete a7, I don't see an assertion of actual notability here. Also borderline g11 self-promotion. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Brougher

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

I do not see any evidence of notability in the sources; nor, based on the career, is there any reason to suspect that there would be. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. No evidence of notability in the sources provided. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like it was copy-pasted from his resume. You know an article is getting desperate to find something to say about the subject when it starts getting into what kind of movies they like. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:48, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Headmasters of the Novo Mesto Grammar School

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

Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. None of the people on this list meet the notability guidelines. The only source for the article is a first party source. The list fails the notability guidelines for lists of people. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable headmasters. SL93 (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Those who are notable (there are reliable third-party sources available for some of them) should be mentioned in the article about the school itself. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:31, 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 redirect to Grand_Ledge_Public_Schools#Education. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hayes Middle School (Grand Ledge Public Schools)

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

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable middle school. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and appears to fail the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education, "Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia.", and WP:Schools/compromise, "In general, even when a merger is non-optimal, it is preferable to make redirects out of small stubs and not delete the history, rather than to delete the articles." - Dravecky (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to redirecting. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:50, 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 redirect to Carlsberg Group. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly Shandy

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

No assertion of notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT. Was prodded on day on creation, which was too early, but cannot now be prodded again, so it has to come to AfD. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little mention in reliable sources. A company being notable doesn't mean all of its products are. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge mention of the drink into the Carlsberg article or if there's a list of products article, that one. Shadowjams (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merge as above would also be fine. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carlsberg have over 500 brands, and simple beer lists are discouraged per WP:BeerList. Beer brands come and go. There are thousands and thousands of beer brands. If a brand is notable, it is worth mentioning somewhere on Wikipedia. If it is simply one of thousands, and may be gone by next week, then we discourage including it. There are no significant mentions of this product outside of advertising, blogs and ratings sites. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:17, 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:11, 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 redirect. If there is verified content worth merging it can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winkler breech loading parlor pistol

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

I cannot find substantial RS coverage of this pistol. Zero refs. Tagged for that and for lack of notability for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or catalog of every product ever made. Even in comprehensive catalogs of pistols which have directory listings of small caliber "parlor pistols," I could not find this one listed. More than such a directory listing or passing reference would be needed, in any event, to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There seems to be numerous reliable sources to support an article on this topic. See, for example, THIS PAGE on the website of the Argonaut Museum of Sacramento, CA. Search for Winkler+Parlor+Pistol to find lots o' material. This is a handgun for which sufficient sourcing is available. Carrite (talk) 18:55, 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?} 14:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The recommended search string Winkler+Parlor+Pistol turns up lots of false positives (mentions of someone named Winkler in stories involving pistols) as well as websites copying Wikipedia. The "Argonaut Virtual Museum website" article is an anonymous post in what appears to be a Wikipedia-like site (not a bricks and mortar museum) that various persons can edit anonymously. It fails as a reliable source to establish notability. What reliable sources have significant coverage of the "Winkler parlor pistol" in general? Wikipedia does not generally attempt to have individual articles on every single artifact in every museum in the world. Edison (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keap perhaps merge into a new article concerning Gallery guns or Parlor pistols.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As to the merge suggestion, are you referring only to merging that text which is referenced? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge might be too strong a word as the parent article would need to be created, first. I am actually surprised that neither has an article on here (gallery guns or parlor pistols), but after the article is created, this would certainly be listed as an example of a parlor pistol. Gallery guns are still made, but not for the original purpose. This type of indoor shooting gave rise to the shooting gallery and declined as bb guns and airguns became more popular (you could shoot in the house without the noise smoke and dangers of overpenetration).--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I was only sensitive to the phrase "merge", because per wp:CHALLENGED I don't think that any unreferenced text should be "merged". I would have not problem with a "redirect", which may be what you are getting at, to a "to-be-created" article along the lines you suggest (which could be created during the pendency of this AfD). I simply don't see sufficient notability for "keeping" this as a stand-alone. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would work as well. To be honest, I had never heard of this particular model before, but I have heard of the company that made them, Josef Winkler. Which is a little surprising as they are more known for Safari type guns in large bores for shooting elephants when you're close enough to smell the peanuts, over/under shotguns and drillings. I almost wonder if it is the same gunmaker as these types of pistols were disappearing from use when Winkler started making guns, unless it was a "retro" sort of model.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:12, 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 18:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge but not being knowledgable in the subject I can't say to just what--if Mike Searson is right, and I think he clearly knows what he's talking about, to a new article on the company. DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger strikes me as a decidedly poor option. It is all uncited. It is all challenged. Inline citations have not been provided. There is no reason to foist the responsibility on merging article history, where the article history fails to satisfy wp:v. Better certainly to redirect it. And create any appropriate text (meeting wp:v) at the target page. As luck would have it, a redirect target page is being created now.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gallery gun. No evidence of notability, and I don't see anywhere to merge. Not much value as a redirect, as its an unlikely search term, but redirects are cheap.--Kubigula (talk) 16:41, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Veseli

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

Contested PROD; original concern was that this player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- WikHead (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Velociraptor888 18:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any particular reason? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Coverage is routine, meaning he fails WP:GNG, and until he makes his pro debut, he fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. – HonorTheKing (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the words of an unnamed user on the Frederic Veseli talk page: "Any player who is/was ever in the senior squad of one of the top clubs in the world is notable. Let alone 2. He's even more notable as he is one of the very few players who have made the switch from City to United, last player who had made the same move I can think of is Ryan Giggs nearly 20 years ago. He also captained Switzerland to victory in the U17 World Cup. If that is not notable enough, I don't know what is." Vlad259 (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Carlos Tevez, Owen Hargreaves, Terry Cooke have done so since. The big difference: those three played a professional for United before moving to City, and furthermore they actually played for City. Has Veseli played a professional match for United? Also, did Veseli ever play a professional match for City? Stevo1000 (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tevez, Hargreaves and Cooke went from United to City, not City to United as Veseli did. – Pee Jay 23:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False - please have a read of WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL (among others) to learn about what is considered notable on Wikipedia, and what is not. Giant Snowman 13:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Unnamed user" here. I'd say Keep but it's perfectly fine with me if it's decided in the end to delete this simply because if you guys want to waste time deleting a page only to restore it later - even though utterly pointless - in the end it doesn't change a thing. Btw, should I ask what are those policies on notability for? Why were they written in the first place? Is that because of entries like this which everybody know even if deleted will be restored sooner or later? Or is that to avoid people writing biographical articles about their moms because in their opinions their moms have the largest breast & most beautiful ass in the world? So, ladies & gentlemen, before you all decided you'd rather act like robots I urge you to at least think about this.--61.45.52.140 (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what I wrote earlier, it can be argued that he satisfy the requirement because: "Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition (including the Olympics) are notable as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football". Ok, had he achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football? He surely had, he participated in the U17 World Cup, even captained his team to victory. Yes, it's not the senior World Cup but it's the highest level of football for his age group, kind of like the women World Cup, it's certainly not really the highest level of football (women don't know how to play football, I only watch it because I like to see boobs bounce around), it's the highest level of football for their group. Moreover, it'd be ridiculous to say the U17 World Cup is notable enough to have such a long entry here but the guy who captained the team which won that same tournament is not notable enough to have an entry.--61.45.52.140 (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it has been long established that youth caps do not confer notability – that's why WP:NFOOTBALL states "Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition" (my emphasis). Secondly, it is not the highest level of football for his age group - someone at the age of 16 can still compete in full internationals (the record youngest age for a full international cap is 13). And lastly, it is not ridiculous to suggest that a tournament has an article but its competitors don't - this is standard for hundreds of competitions (e.g. the Isthmian League and the clubs that play in it). Number 5 7 00:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point fully. Firstly, players of any age can compete in a senior competition but senior players cannot play in a U17 tournament, let's think of a more appropriate analogy: the paralympic, it's certainly not the highest level but it's surely the highest level for the group of disabled people, disabled people can still compete in the Olympic and a few have done just that but people who are not disabled cannot compete in the paralympic. Secondly, it is NOT ridiculous to suggest a tournament has an article but its competitors don't, that I DO agree but again you completely missed the point, I never said all players who had played in the U17 World Cup deserve an entry but this is not just any player, this is the guy who captained the team which won the damn tournament, and it IS ridiculous to suggest a tournament is notable enough to have an entry but the captain of the winning team who played in every single match doesn't (if I remember correctly). And lastly, like I wrote earlier and I quote again: "before you all decided you'd rather act like robots I urge you to at least think about this" but you again failed to understand, so to make this concise, as I understand it, that particular line of the policy means a player is notable if he had participated at the highest level of football - represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition is highest level of football (I do see the senior part btw) - the question here is whether U17 World Cup is the highest level of football?--61.45.52.140 (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the U17 World Cup is not the highest level of football. That would be the World Cup, and for U23 players, the Olympics. The spirit of criterion #1 of WP:NFOOTY is that players who have played in the highest level of football would have received significant media coverage; this is not the case with our player here. – Kosm1 fent 08:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This player has not passed WP:GNG and has not made any competitive, first-team appearances for a professional club, so he fails WP:ATHLETE too. – Pee Jay 16:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Recreate if he ever makes it as a first teamer. Number 5 7 23:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He has not played in a fully professional league or for his country's senior national team. – Kosm1 fent 08:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL GauchoDude (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FOOTYN is of secondary importance here. Mainly delete because he fails WP:N. Notability should be established by non-trivial, reliable sources. Here this is not the case. Cloudz 679 06:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.I think it should be left for now. It may well simply get put back on later anyhow.http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Veseli&action=edit# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penang100 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know? Do you have a crystal ball? – Pee Jay 01:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Adam4267 (talk) 23:50, 8 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bertram (singer)

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

Notability issues / Contested PROD. This article is an autobiography that does perhaps make a few very weak claims, but nothing in the article is referenced beyond a single WP:PRIMARY source. This individual has just recently released only one full length album, and currently does not appear to live up to the expectations of WP:MUSICBIO. -- WikHead (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as former PROD nominator; nothing substantial has changed since then with respect to notability. VQuakr (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not yet convinced he meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. I've found a couple pieces of local coverage [1][2] - anything more significant out there? Gongshow ^Talk 00:48, 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 possible merge. Since consensus is in favor of keeping this content somewhere, discussion of a merge or redirect can and should continue at the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Process improvement

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

Original research and trivial definition of a non-notable neologism that's too vague to mean ... well ... anything:

In organizational development (OD), process improvement is a series of actions taken by a process owner to identify, analyze and improve existing business processes within an organization to meet new goals and objectives.[citation needed] These actions often follow a specific methodology or strategy to create successful results/
Process improvement is also a method to introduce process changes to improve quality, reduce costs, or accelerate schedules.

Mostly a See Also list to a large number of articles that themselves need to be looked at. Contested proposed deletion. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Business Process Improvement [3] The article is notable.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could easily live with a redirect. Is there anything to merge? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More then likely you are correct but I'll leave that to the author(s) to decide. If the author(s) do see this deletion activity perhaps the might help with "Business Process Improvement". Just a suggestion.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge as suggested above. We can decide that, though someone does have to do the work. DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Entire books are written about process improvement as you can readily see from the search link above. For example, see Process improvement: enhancing your organization's effectiveness. Wikipedia and AFD is itself a process in much need of improvement and work upon this notable topic might help this along. Deleting the topic instead would be an absurd act of denial. Warden (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Warden (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This topic has been covered in reliable tertiary sources. Here's two I added to the article:

Cook, Sarah (1996). "Process improvement: a handbook for managers". Gower Publishing Ltd, et al. Retrieved February 04, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) ISBN 0-566-07633-0
Kock, Nereu F.; et al. (1994). The nature of data, information and knowledge exchanges in business processes: implications for process improvement and organizational learning (Research paper). The Learning Organization. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to sort through the 26,700 Google news archive search results, and the 103,000 Google book search results. I eliminate the word "business", "managers", "office", and others from the results, but I still keep getting those which are related to business. If it the same thing is business process improvement, then merge makes sense. Dream Focus 11:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As suggested. Sources provided above emphasize this is a business process. "Process improvement: enhancing your organization's effectiveness" and "Process improvement: a handbook for managers" and "The nature of data, information and knowledge exchanges in business processes: implications for process improvement and organizational learning (Research paper)". These sources are a perfect example of why this should be merged into Business process improvement. We don't need two articles on the same exact subject. This isn't a loss of content, it's consolidation of the same topic.--v/r - T P 01:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Process improvement is not confined to businesses. For example, as a member of USAF, you should be familiar with the Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century program. Warden (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is 9 years old, created in 2003 when the project had maybe 150,000 articles. People weren't making pages for every Captain & Tennille single or what have you back then. Admittedly, "process improvement" is a very generic term and isn't a flashy one like Taylorism, and the article could use improvement, but the term is notable. Books like this one [4] confirm that. I know this stuff it utterly boring, but its important to business management research.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and re suggestion of merger to Business process improvement, I am not sure. That article claims it derives from a 1991 book, and I would be surprised if process management research in a broad sense doesn't predate that significantly, things like the Hawthorne effect derive from research done in the 1920s.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources seem to support a merge. Do you have sources that support a stand alone article?--v/r - T P 16:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've had the misfortune to do studies in this area so I know this isn't a "non-notable neologism" as the nominator claims. Whether I want to actually do this work is another thing entirely, but there's a reason we don't have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizational Behavior around here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me some examples? The examples above seem to support that this term is a business term. I'd like to see what you have so I can determine whether or not your sources support this claim for myself.--v/r - T P 18:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you are saying. Digging up these old textbooks would be a pain if I still have them, but yes, the term is a business or management term. But the Business process improvement seems to be some specialized version based on a 1991 book. Perhaps a merge and rewrite is what's really needed.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the other article needs to be renamed too.--v/r - T P 19:11, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Josefsson

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the Icelandic top flight. Howver, this league is not fully pro, meaning playing in it does not grant notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 23:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL GauchoDude (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN per wp standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 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 delete. Sandstein 19:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scooterboy

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

Long-time unreferenced article that contains what looks like pure original research. Biker Biker (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and not enough sources to justify it--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 16:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Distinction without a difference. There's no need to make up a new slang word, and write a new Wikipedia article, every time subculture X fancies vehicle Y and hairstyle Z. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regardless of whether this Wikipedia article gets deleted, scooterboy is a real subculture. It's not just a made-up slang word, and it definitely isn't new.Spylab (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is real, and if you care about it (your comment implies that you might) then feel free to rescue the article by adding supporting references. I would like nothing more than to see another quality motorcycle-related article on Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find decent references online. That's why I only wrote "comment" instead of keep.Spylab (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that offline references, like newspapers, books and magazines are fine as well, as long as they satisfy WP:RS Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:15, 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 delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southland Dragway

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this dragway, though it was involved in some litigation. Zero refs, as well. Epeefleche (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 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?} 15:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't assert notability with any references at all, and seems to be 100% original research. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, either someone finds some sources to rescue the article or it gets deleted--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 16:58, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Australia Beechcraft King Air crash

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

Small plane crash that doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH guidelines for such. William 15:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -William 15:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 15:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)William 12:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 15:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.. All of the references are from one source. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

i) the guidelines state that if rules are changed, then it is notable and the 2000 Australia Beechcraft King Air crash#Aftermath section lists a few changes. The last line of the intro says "A number of safety recommendations were made following the accident."

ii) The WP:AIRCRASH guidelines differentiate notability based on a distinction between light and heavy aircraft and they define this as "maximum gross weight under 12,500 lb (5,670 kg))". The Beechcraft Super King Air article indicates that the "Max. takeoff weight: 12,500 lb (5,670 kg)" and some variations have higher MTOW, so you could argue that it isn't a light aircraft, and the 7 fatalities automatically make it notable. Eitherway, it is borderline, and the WP:AIRCRASH guidelines should better define and link to exactly what they mean by "maximum gross weight"

iii) Yutsi, there are already references from multiple sources, and plenty more would exist in offline sources, but Australian newspapers are not very well archived online from that time (there is a blackhole in Australian googlenews coverage from about 1980-90 to about 2000-5). The-Pope (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While this accident meets WP:AIRCRASH guidelines, it does so with regards to inclusion in airport, airline, or aircraft articles. AIRCRASH clearly states that for a stand-alone article, the WP:GNG must clearly be met - and even allowing for the "gNews black hole" that The-Pope alludes to, I don't see coverage meeting WP:PERSISTENCE/WP:NOTNEWSPAPER - just the usual coverage of a plane crash and the closing of its investigation. This accident should be mentioned in the King Air's article, but I don't believe it rises to the notability level required for its own article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does the fact that an aural warning was added to the aircraft, and that a specific check list introduced for cases when a controller suspects a case of pilot hypoxia satisfy the "The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft)." criteria? And therefore is this an issue of, at the moment, not meeting WP:GNG, not of failing WP:AIRCRASH? Ravendrop 20:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer The maximum weight of this aircraft was not under 12,500 lb so it was not a light aircraft. The criterion in WP:AIRCRASH for inclusion of a large-aircraft crash in an aircraft article is: changes to regulations OR hull loss OR fatal to humans. This crash meets the criteria for inclusion in an aircraft article so the only remaining issue is whether it meets WP:GNG. Dolphin (t) 07:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case this should be a speedy keep as we now have multiple major newspaper reports from the time of the crash, from the coroners inquest, from a similar crash later on as well as the details from the investigation, so we definitely have significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting WP:AIRCRASH does not qualify an event for its own article, as AIRCRASH itself states. It also has to meet the GNG, and I do not see sufficent WP:PERSISTENCE to merit that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG and well-referenced by articles from 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2011, sidestepping WP:NOTNEWS. Haus^Talk 01:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything from 2011? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look again? Haus^Talk 01:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference No. 5 is a newspaper article dated 15 June 2011. Dolphin (t) 10:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, I see it now, thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - WP:AIRCRASH#Aircraft articles states that a light aircraft is one whose maximum gross weight is under 12,500 lb (5,670 kg). The maximum gross weight of Sierra Kilo Charlie was not under 12,500 lb so it was not a light aircraft. The maximum weight of Super King Airs is 12,500 lb for the model 200 up to 15,000 lb for the model 350.

This accident has become highly notable because of the issue of aural warning of low cabin pressure. At the time of the accident there was already a high level of interest in the concept that the Beechcraft Super King Air was such a high-flying aircraft that it should be equipped with aural warning of low cabin pressure in addition to the existing visual warning. In the aftermath of the Ghost Flight there was a surge of public pressure for aural warning to be made mandatory. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority published a Discussion Paper in 2001, followed by a Notice of Proposed Rule Making in 2002, both canvassing views on whether operators of pressurised aircraft should be compelled to install aural warning. In Australia, this was the first time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making was issued solely in response to an aircraft accident.

Sections of the mining industry and many members of the Australian public were in favour of mandatory installation of aural warning of low cabin pressure in pressurised aircraft, but the majority of aircraft operators were opposed. In a highly controversial decision, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority decided against mandating aural warning. Over a decade later, it remains a controversial decision. There can be no doubt that this accident meets WP:GNG. Dolphin (t) 02:05, 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep: Per rationale from The-Pope and Dolphin51. --LauraHale (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on balance, this accident does meet AIRCRASH. Doplhin51 makes a strong arugument and recent (2011) coverage indicates persistence. Mjroots (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the excellent rationale of Dolphin51, and per the article meeting both the GNG and AIRCRASH. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:23, 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. Userfication is always possible through anyone in CAT:RESTORE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bike derby

- http://www.atspa.org/how_to_plan_a_bike_derby.htm
- http://www.laketahoenews.net/2011/04/bike-derby-in-tahoe-city-during-amgen-weekend/

A niche, but not a one-hit-wonderconcept?

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

Appears to be something someone made up one day, not notable or apparently even practiced outside of Oberlin. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom.. Not sure, but it may be a candidate for WP:PROD. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly something made up on a school day--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 17:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorshacma (talk • contribs) 19:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject lacks any coverage in reliable third party sources. The article is quite possibly a hoax. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a hoax and is still practiced in Minneapolis at the very least annually during the Bicycle Film Festival after-party at One on One Bicycle Studio. It's not "covered" because it's counterculture and hasn't been "discovered" by anyone yet, though I'm sure it's just a matter of time. ;) As to whether it should be kept or deleted, I guess I can't say; here are some links, though:

Nklatt (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If Nklatt would like to have a userfied version, for such time as it does attract substantial RS coverage, that would be fine. It existing is not sufficient to meet our notability criteria.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:09, 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 delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Eisfeld

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

Player fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't made his first team debut & also seems to fail WP:GNG. I don't think he has received any more media coverage then Jon Toral & Héctor Bellerín who were deleted via AfD. PROD was contested by User:Bgwhite (not the author) as he thought it passed WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL (as hasn't played in a fully-professional league), and also fails WP:GNG (as no coverage is "significant" - it all refers to a transfer, which is nothing more than run-of-the-mill routine coverage. Giant Snowman 15:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Delete the article now and create it again in a month or two? What's the point? Seriously, you guys are killing me with your by-the-book approach. When I saw his name in the winter transfer list, the first thing I did was look him up on Wikipedia. And I'm sure I wasn't the only one who did so. Now you're suggesting it shouldn't be here because Wikipedia has rules and regulations and policies and only concerns itself with serious stuff? Oh come on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.120.182.18 (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article can be restored with a couple of clicks if deleted - just bring it to the attention of WP:FOOTY. Number 5 7 23:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with 178.120.182.18 completely. Article has abundant references, and suitably asserts notability. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You can't keep an article under the presumption he will make his debut in a month or two nobody knows if he will or not. Furthermore the article isn't abundant with references it has 5, 4 of which are relating to the transfer which are no more then routine. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The sources listed in the article are routine sports journalism which are insufficient to pass WP:GNG. Until he makes his debut for Arsenal, the article fails WP:NSPORT as well. The claim that he will make his debut is speculation in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and is never grounds for notablity. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The player only received routine coverage and has not played in a fully professional league. – Kosm1 fent 17:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sad but true, he might play for Arsenal but then again he may become just another youth footballer who never made it and because he is with Arsenal grants him no more notability than if he had joined Barnet.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL and the sources included do not meet WP:GNG some are blogs and are all mostly relating to his transfer. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am an Arsenal fan myself but still he does not need a wikipedia article yet. Also (and I know this is not a place for football discussions) what are the chances he will play in the Premier League, Champions League or FA Cup. The most likely is FA Cup but I bet not because Wenger is very focused on the FA Cup now and also we have a lot of players back so Eisfeld will most likely not play. Also it fails many guidelines. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL - restore if he ever makes it as a first-teamer. Number 5 7 23:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is of more quality as tons of articles to more noteworthy subjects. This article does the reputation of WP no harm, many others do. There is a very strong likelihood that the subject will be "relevant" according to the guidelines rather soon. I don't see any problems here. Oalexander-En (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no difference. Trust me, I tried the old dont delete this article because of this article before and it wont work. All that matters is this article and this article is not notable. I am an Arsenal fan and I dont want to do this (specially when we are winning 6-1 of Venkeys FC) but he is not notable. We have so many Arsenal Academy players who are better than him in the same position and they dont have a page. Also for we know Eisfeld could retire before his career begins due to injury, it has happened before to past youngsters. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL GauchoDude (talk) 19:09, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OUMDC

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

As I recall adding the notability and a reliable third party reference tags a year ago, which then got removed as an editor compared its notability to the other clubs including the Oxford University Boat Club, which is in no doubt famous. He also insinuated that because this club is part of the University of Oxford, it should be notable and added references that is not good enough to save this article.

I am nominating this as I cannot find any forms of notability in this article as well any reliable third party coverages anywhere enough to save this article. Donnie Park (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Go-cart club. Sources provided in the article evidence existence, not notability. Web searches don't show substantial coverage from independent WP:RS sources. If such can be found, happy to look again. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 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, ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:32, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with others that this club is non-notable and that the references merely prove its existence. If it could be shown that a particularly notable motorsports personality learned their craft in OUMDC that would be different, but otherwise it's just a run-of-the-mill university club which merits mention in the university's article, but not a standalone article. --Bob Re-born (talk) 22:55, 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 delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Brulinski

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

Self-promotional article about artist. None of the magazines he's depicted as having published in are notable; biblio consists solely of self-published work Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references goes very far to establishing notability. Most of them either don't mention him or just include his name in a list of credits, others are doubtfully independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because we read that An exhibition and hardcover book featuring a complete linear history of the historical building and over 140 portraits will be released in the Summer of 2012. When this happens and he is the cynosure of the photographic world, then he can get an article. -- Hoary (talk) 14:57, 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, REDIRECT, PROTECT. I'm closing this early 1) based on the fact that this school has already been deleted in a prior AFD and 2) I'm not anticipating any change in consensus. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hightower Trail Middle School

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

Delete. This started as an article which appears to have met with editor resistance. Turned into a circular redirect to Cobb County School District. I deleted the redirect and rm link from Cobb County School District Student7 (talk) 14:48, 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 redirect to Cobb County School District. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

East Cobb Middle School

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

Delete. Ordinary middle school with nothing to recommend it for notability out of the ordinary. (Disclosure - I just deleted material that if cited, might give it some notability, but not really that confident that it was important.) Totally lacks footnotes. Only reference is to the school website. Student7 (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per prior consensus, to Cobb County School District. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Yunshui and protect. I don't think what the nom removed from the article indicates notability. postdlf (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As per the usual with elementary schools. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG. No redirect is required by that guideline.Edison (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "No redirect is required by that guideline." I'm not sure I know what that's even supposed to mean, but regardless, notability guidelines such as WP:ORG are completely irrelevant to the creation of redirects. See instead WP:REDIRECT. postdlf (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Convention with schools such as this one is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as usual. The real guidelines here are what we do, and that's what we do. No argument against a redirect has been raised , except the statement that we do not have to do it, which is a variant on IWANTTODOITMYWAY. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations, corporations, people, and the like are deleted every day at wikipedia that could conceivably be redirected. This isn't called "Articles for Redirection", which makes me suspect that there are people on both sides of the aisle who would like to have it their way. I myself don't think either side is clearly wrong -- or clearly correct.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:Schools/compromise, "In general, even when a merger is non-optimal, it is preferable to make redirects out of small stubs and not delete the history, rather than to delete the articles.", and WP:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education, "Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia." - Dravecky (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can see that the second is an essay. But can't make out what the first is? As to the issue, there seem to be different views on it from what I can tell, both from looking at !votes, closes of schools, and closes of other organizations across the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would prefer to delete in order not to establish a precedent or encourage nn redirects which turn up in a search. Let's maintain usual encyclopedic standards. Student7 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody is searching for more information about this middle school, isn't it better if they're redirected to the school district's article than if they hit an artificial dead-end? The common outcome for articles like this one is already a redirect so there's no intent to "establish a precedent" merely to follow the consensus. - Dravecky (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me what the benefit of a redirect would be here. There are hundreds of thousands of schools. If we were to redirect all of them to pages such as the indicated one, would that be a good thing? I'm not sure, at this point. In this case -- though admittedly things could differ -- all people would see would be ... the name of the school. As well as the names of other schools, but that is not what they are searching for. What is the benefit of leading the reader, rather than to a dead end, to ... the name of the search term he entered? As best I can tell, not much. I'm guessing that is why we do not redirect non-notable corporations, partnerships, organizations, and people as a general rule. If that were in fact the general rule, we would likely term this exercise "Articles for Redirection". Still, I have an open mind on the subject, because while I see the benefit as quite small, it may be that the cost is quite small as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:46, 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 redirect to Cobb County School District. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JJ Daniell Middle School

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

Delete. Seems like an ordinary middle school. Performance slightly above average on Iowa tests, but nothing to recommend it for notability. Material is cited but only two are from non-local sources (Atlanta-Constitution) and those were about slightly above average Iowa performance. Student7 (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Or redirect to local school district as per usual. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I skim over this article, it reads as if it were an advertisement or promotion of this school if you look at it. Redirect to school district Cobb County School District as Nwlaw63 said would be a wise consensus. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Refs in article do not satisfy WP:ORG, which does not require a redirect for non-notable subjects. Edison (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant redirect, not delete, as the summary in bold.. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I read the text of his comment as being consistent with his intention not being to !vote redirect. I'm not sure how you read it otherwise.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as usual. I think Nwlaw's and Michaelzeng's comments above were redirect, not delete, also. No argument against a redirect given, probably because there isn't really any. Edison's statement that we don't require a redirect is no reason why we shouldn't have one. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would prefer deletion to redirect because school is not notable and would encourage "redirect" additions for no good reason. IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education, "Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia.", and WP:Schools/compromise, "In general, even when a merger is non-optimal, it is preferable to make redirects out of small stubs and not delete the history, rather than to delete the articles." - Dravecky (talk) 06:36, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proofs related to the Digamma function

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

The only two actual proofs are completely routine calculus exercises. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Proofs#Proofs_as_topics, "It is widely accepted, however, that if a proof is made a topic of its own dedicated Wikipedia article, the proof must be significant as a proof, not merely 'routine'." These proofs could easily be summarized in the main article with a short remark if necessary. The majority of the article though is a lengthy piece of Haskell code for computing the asymptotic series of $e^{\psi (x)}$ . Not only are we not a code repository, but this seems very likely to be pure original research. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Without context, it isn't clear what these proofs are trying to prove. And long swatches of source code or pseudocode are not English. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no encyclopedic content here. In general, some proofs are appropriate for WP, but WP is not a textbook or collection of monographs so mathematical completeness is not necessary. Proofs that are easily filled in by the reader are not consistent with the aims on an encyclopedia and should be removed. The code computes coefficients of an asymptotic formula in the main article (in Digamma function#Computation & approximation) which is itself unreferenced and apparently OR.--RDBury (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My general feeling on proofs in Wikipedia is that they can sometimes be valuable as a way of helping to explain a topic even when the proof is not independently notable, but in that case they should be incorporated into the main article on whatever it is they're proving, and that unenlightening and routine proofs should be skipped altogether. But this one doesn't even read like one of the routine proofs that should be skipped, it reads like someone's personal notes, readable only by their author, and much more likely to baffle than to help anyone else who comes across them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, and for lack of notability as would be shown by multiple articles about it in peer-reviewed math journals or other reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to digamma function. A412 (Talk * C) 01:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why redirect? It's not as though the article title is a plausible search term. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:03, 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 speedy keep nominator withdrew AfD, and no other delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 17:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Brendan Voyage

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

Not notability. Other than its genre as Celtic music, it does not assert any notability. Wholly unreferenced other than by the label's own catalogue. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:Notability looks possible. On RS review is noted in the article but listed as a cite/source. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - you're joking here, right? The Brendan Voyage is possibly the most celebrated piece of folk-inspired music to come out of Ireland in half a century. I've added three quotations with citations, including Gramophone magazine and a 30-year retrospective programme on RTE, Ireland's national broadcaster. I don't think sources come more reliable than that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just the fact that it's still in print 32 years after its release is a pretty strong indicator of notability. The label's website quotes a magazine article that begins, "The critical and popular success of The Brendan Voyage was as ground-breaking as the music itself." and this page has more press quotes from what look like reliable sources. It's true these quotes are coming from the label's website, but unless we're accusing them of simply making them up, and there's no evidence of that whatsoever, then this is both notable and verifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFD withdrawn because of new refs added I am content that it has notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 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 no consensus. There is a clear consensus, that deletion isn't required there, however the participants of the discussion are split about wether a standalone article for this crash is varranted. A more detailed discussion about this (also if a merge is needed), can take place at the articles talk page (if desired). (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tajik National Guard Helicopter crash

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

Not notable military accident per WP:AIRCRASH William 12:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 12:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. -William 12:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 12:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present). Tragic but non-notable military aircrft accident. The article says "deadliest accident in Tajikistan since 1997" - if it was the deadliest since the country became independent it would be notable, but as it is, it fails WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all relevant details to Military of Tajikistan and then Delete. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 28 fatalities is easily enough for notability. If this had happened in the UK or USA we wouldn't even be having this discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we would, because a lack of notability is a lack of notability, and number of deaths does not confer notability unless it was the accident with the most deaths in a country's history. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - All I can say is "oh, come off it!" Do you genuinely believe that an article on the crash of an American or British or Australian or Canadian aircraft which cost 28 lives would ever in a million years be deleted? Really? Honestly? No, thought not. This is a perfect example of systemic bias. Tajikistan doesn't have a great internet presence, especially if one only does English language searches, so of course it's not going to be covered so much. Undoubtedly it was in the print media in Tajikistan itself! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You know, it's very nice to know that you know so well what I think. How about assuming a little good faith? And even if it was "in the print media in Tajikistan itself", it would still run up against WP:NOTNEWSPAPER/WP:PERSISTENCE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do assume good faith. I just don't think this has been thought through. And I don't buy for a minute that an article on such a crash in an English-speaking country would ever be deleted in an AfD. There's no need to quote guidelines at me; common sense (i.e. a crash in which that many people died is clearly notable, no matter what country it occurred in) trumps them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Except a crash in which that many people died, unless it is the deadliest crash in that country or one of the dead was a Wiki-notable person (a bluelink), is not notable, no matter what country it occured in. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That's called an opinion, and it's one I disagree with. And that, after all, is why we have AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Very true - but it's also the opinion of WP:AIRCRASH, the relevant essay-standard-consensus-page-thingfromanotherworldyou. ( ;) ) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present). Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a large number fatalities is what ordinary people consider notable. The specialists at the project may have their own rules, but its the overall consensus that determines inclusion. I do have respect for their attempt to make technical distinctions, but sometimes they do not match common sense. DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present) per the above. Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable to me. More citations are needed, however. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we just managed to delete the article for the helicopter crash in Romania by the Israeli 118 Squadron (see all details at 118 Squadron (Israel)), and I would say in response to Necrothesp that I do not believe that we are doing anything but cluttering Wikipedia by creating articles for (Western or other) peacetime military aircraft crashes that claim only c.30 lives. Note this will be only half-systematic from 2005 or so, when Wikipedia really got going !! *Massive* recentism. There is *much* more context added by working them into operation, unit, campaign, or other articles, and we don't have to go around creating all the required associated links!! Buckshot06 (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And I clearly believe that we are not "cluttering" Wikipedia in any way by creating these articles. I'm afraid I do not see crowing about "managing to delete" a legitimate article as being a positive thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present). Subject of article does not appear to pass WP:EFFECT, therefore not warranting its own article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:36, 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 no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Stephens (musician)

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Can't find sources online to verify claims of performances at Sonisphere and Download Festivals etc. Nearly all of the references cited are about his band, or about bands he's claimed to have played in, but don't mention him. There is a reliable reference for him endoring a brand of drums, but it's not clear from WP:MUSICBIO whether that makes him notable enough yet for his own article. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Instawisdom (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Instawisdom (talk) 14:52, 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, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 03:37, 1 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:03, 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) 15:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust Obfuscation

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

A one-sentence POV ("the attempt, mainly by political forces in the Baltic states", as if there was agreement that such a phenomenon existed) stub on a new term with only one reference, a video on Facebook (hardly considered an RS) with its creator speaking. This could be mentioned in the biography of the term's creator, it doesn't appear to be notable as a stand-alone article. (was requested speedily deleted by Osarius). Tataral (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism. As the article states, it is a term recently coined by Dovid Katz of what is essentially his particular POV, and all references to the term seem to be related to works authored by Dovid Katz himself. --Nug (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Nug. North8000 (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the term is coined by Katz in an article titled "On Three Definitions: Genocide; Holocaust Denial; Holocaust Obfuscation". The phrase is not covered by secondary sources, so it fails notability guideline. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep (as explained below) Well, our short article may be a POV of Dovid Katz, but we should note that his definition and further circumstances of the Holocaust reception in the modern Lithuanian society (etc) were noted by many independent and important media:

Guardian
Jerusalem Post
Irish Times
The Economist
European Voice
Haaretz
BBC
A Litmus test case of modernity: examining modern sensibilities and the public domain in the Baltic States at the turn of the century, Peter Lang, 2006, ISBN 9783034303354, pp 271-272

I consider the information very important and relevant for the history of the Holocaust and also for an encyclopedic project. Is there any article covering the Lithuanian investigations of Holocaust survivors? It could be a good target for a possible merger. And if the article doesn't exist, we can create a relevant section in the article Dovid Katz. But I would disagree with the deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of these references you linked to are news reports that either report on the opinion of Dovid Katz or are written as opinion pieces authored by Dovid Katz himself, there is no independent secondary source that discusses "Holocaust Obfuscation" as a standalone concept. The book you cite is edited by Peter Lang, but the chapter is written by Dovid Katz.--Nug (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, Peter Lang is the publisher. It's more or less a vanity publisher, though, they publish basically anything with little review, and have a quite dubious reputation. Tataral (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – ...but possibly rename. The main topic here is the Double Genocide debate. (A Google search for "Double Genocide" -Rwanda returns "About 21,400 results.") Any terminology introduced in this debate is out of necessity a neologism, as the debate was only started in 2008 with the Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism. At the moment Wikipedia has tons of articles presenting one POV in this debate, the icing on the cake is the template "Prague Process" which in itself is an attempt to win the argument by presenting the debate in a POV context with a POV title.

Although the phrase "Holocaust obfuscation" is mostly used by Dovid Katz the concept exists by other names, including "Double genocide" and "Red equals Brown." Others using these terms include Efraim Zuroff. The most notable "anti-Prague" declaration is the Seventy Years Declaration.

I have told User:Hypatea (the creator of the stub) and User:Spitfire3000 to get their act together and present the anti-Prague POV somewhere. This may not have been the best title to start with, but as it stands, this is what we have. I created a redirect from Holocaust obfuscation (no capitals) a half a year ago. It is high time it redirects to somewhere. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. – The strongest argument for keep under the present title is the huge number of high quality sources repeating or presenting Katz's opinion. The fact that Katz said "obfuscation" is notable in itself! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with the last part of your comment. The article could be renamed, expanded or refocused to grasp the problem in a broader context, but the information should be kept. I changed my vote to 'keep'. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. – I started working on a main article at User:Petri Krohn/Double Genocide debate. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that your user space creation is a POV fork of Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism and Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin and could easily be merged into the respective articles. The term "debate" generally means both sides are presented and discussed, but as it stands it seems to only be critical of those two topics, hence it is a POV fork. As a general note, there may be a possible element of WP:ADVOCACY if not WP:COI in this topic area, so we must tread carefully. --Nug (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Speedy close and redirect to Double Genocide debate#Holocaust obfuscation. I have created a new article in Double Genocide debate. This topic should be redirected to that page. There is no point in trying to improve on the current article, even if the topic was notable in itself. There just does not seem to be the manpower available and I am not going to waste any more time on it. There is also the option of defining the concept in Holocaust denial. I believe inclusion there would be supported by reliable sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a Non-Notable Neologism. Actually, come to think of it, a redirection to the phrase's creator, Dovid Katz, would be another good result — maybe the best one. Carrite (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with redirect) to Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism as this is a pure and simple response/criticism to this declaration and has no significant notability outside of it (it may in the future, but it doesn't now). The above proposed solution to a (to be created) article of Double Genocide Debate doesn't really work either, as that, again, is a direct response to Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism and can easily be dealt with there until such time (if it occurs) that it gains wider notability or influence. Ravendrop 21:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "proposal to merge with Dovid Katz" appeared within seconds of the appearance of the new stub. It is either an automated process or someone is patrolling a little too heavily. The term is important as a description in newer Holocaust literature and needs to be explained carefully. Deleting it as a separate entry would do a disservice to wikipedia readers who expect impartial information and easy access to information, including newer developments in any given field. The term crops up in other sources and can be expanded to include those references by other more knowledgable editors. "Specifically in the Baltic states" and "political forces" are not POV terms, in any event. The term is meant to describe a political ideological movement being spearheaded by certain forces, mainly in Europe, mainly in Eastern Europe, and notably in the Baltic states. "Obfuscation" arguably could be considered a pejorative in certain contexts, but Katz is describing a new phenomenon which is neither Holocaust denial nor Holocaust affirmation. It needs to stay, it needs expansion. Hypatea (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks to me as if the new article on Double Genocide theory is a fairly unhistorical account of what could properly be titled the Holocaust uniqueness debate. The new article only presents Katz' POV and ignores all previous debate which is extensive. See Talk:Double Genocide theory for a more in depth comment. Tataral (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a neologism. Estlandia (dialogue) 11:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Delete per the sources presented by Nug. Note that per WP:NEO articles are not deleted on the basis of being neologisms, but being unsourced, non-notable ones. A412 (Talk * C) 01:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia policy is clear on this, per WP:NOTNEO: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted"; the policy goes on to state that in order to be kept the term itself must be the subject in independent secondary sources, not just used in newspaper opinion pieces as the presented sources show. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay then. A412 (Talk * C) 05:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Nug:The term "Holocaust Obfuscation" is a valid and significant part of the "Double Genocide discussion" or "theory", it is an unquestionable fact supported by many reliable sources. Do you (and others !voting to 'delete') really want to delete the explanation from Wikipedia completely? Why should Wikipedia suppress the information? We are not judges or censors deciding what is appropriate for our readers and what is not. I have a strange feeling that political opinions and standpoints in this discussion predominate over the encyclopedic effort to present neutral and relevant facts. I may be mistaken, it is just my opinion. Dovid_Katz#Double_Genocide_debate is the most appropriate target for redirect at the moment. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - If it's a new theory (actually more like name calling against opponents) mostly used by one person, it's not notable as a stand-alone article. It could be mentioned in a different article, for example the biography of the term's creator. And please explain how exactly two sentences and not a single reliable source (the opinion piece in the NYT does not mention the term "Holocaust Obfuscation") make an article. The only source cited for the existence of this alleged phenomenon is the personal blog of the term's creator. Tataral (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        At an AfD, we should discuss potential of a topic, not just current state. I brought some good sources here (see above) and now I added the most important ones to the article. The theory is not so new, the sources discuss the term continuously (at least) from 2006. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. The sources you added, the first is authored by Dovid Katz himself and the second and third quote Dovid Katz. These are not secondary sources about the term, they only use the term, hence there is no basis for keeping this neologism. --Nug (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not talking about keeping the article separately. Dovid_Katz#Double_Genocide_debate is a good and eligible target for a redirect. Definitely better than deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said when I nominated this page for deletion: "This could be mentioned in the biography of the term's creator." I'm happy to see we agree on that. In any case, this sub stub is so short, so there's really nothing to merge, the Katz article already has a more detailed description of this. Tataral (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The underlying reality may exist in some form, but I think it would be hard to say that this is really a distinct concept, and it certainly is not yet an accepted one under this terminology. DGG ( talk ) 08:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Holocuast denial. The article is tagged for merger with David Katz, who allegedly conined the neologism: that hardly seems appropriate to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:28, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgetters

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

The page has been tagged since 2009 for a lack of sources. Doing a search turns up no additional reliable third party sources. The band was short lived, and only released a single, self-published album, thus it does not meet the requirements of WP:BAND. Rorshacma (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The band meets the criteria of WP:BAND for a number of reasons, most strongly "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles."

JanusKie (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I went and added some more reliable third party sources to the page. JanusKie (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I had actually considered whether or not it met WP:Band due to the "contains two or more independently notable musicians" clause, but decided that of the two members that actually had individual wiki articles, only one really qualified, as the other seems very unnotable himself. Great work on the sources, though. Rorshacma (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the adequate sources, also the notable artist. benzband (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not convinced that "contains two notable members" is by itself a reason to keep, but the sources push this one over the edge. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - from the article's sources, there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources in my view; subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 04:17, 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 delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bitchin' (band)

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

Unnotable band that fails WP:BAND. The only reference provided in the article is to a blog, and thus does not qualify as a reliable third party source, and no reliable source can be found elsewhere. I tried tagging it for Speedy Deletion under criteria A7, but the tag keeps being removed by non-admins, so I brought it here in an attempt to circumvent that. Rorshacma (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Not enough sources to establish notability.--Stvfetterly (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A band's own blog is not the multiple reliable and independent sources needed to satisfy WP:N, and the band does not appear to satisfy the specific notability guideline for musical groups. Edison (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication that notability requirements are met. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:55, 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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of left-handed boxers

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

Six items is not a list, particularly when the only source is of dubious notability. This is borderline WP:PUTEFFORT failure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

̶K̶e̶e̶p̶ Redirect and Move Contents to List of Southpaw Stance Boxers - No valid reason given for deletion. WP:PUTEFFORT is an essay, not a policy. This particular list serves the purpose of navigation (per WP:LISTPURP). If the nominator believes that more work should be put into a particular article, he can improve it via editing. This list can easily be added by making use of google and the many many sources available:( Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL ).--Stvfetterly (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added a couple more boxers to the list and formatted the page to look a bit nicer, so it should be very obvious now that there's no reason to delete the article.--Stvfetterly (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fairly shockingly incomplete, which I take it is the primary objection of the nominator. The question at AfD, however, is whether a nominated page is worthy of inclusion under notability rules. Left-handedness has historically been regarded as one of the most important facets of the fight game, along with weight division. It seems pretty clear that the subject itself is encyclopedia-worthy. Consider this a stub list — to be improved through the normal editing process, not deletion. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wouldn't a list of southpaw boxers be more relevant? As the Southpaw stance article (which already contains a list of southpaw fighters) points out, the stance favoured by boxers does not always correspond to whether they are right or left handed. --Michig (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The list in Southpaw stance contains fighters from many different martial arts (Muay Thai, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, MMA, Kung Fu, even the NHL for some reason). It is much broader in scope than a list of lefty boxers and could easily be overrun with entries from various martial arts. It makes sense to me to have a seperate article specifically for boxing. --Stvfetterly (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

but should we have a list of left-handed boxers or a list of southpaw-stance boxers?--Michig (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
now I get what you're talking about . . . yeah, changing the title to 'southpaw-stance boxers' would probably make more sense. A redirect from 'Left-handed boxers' to the article would make sense I think. --Stvfetterly (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In keeping with this idea I've created a duplicate article "List of Southpaw Stance Boxers" and will change my Keep to a vote to move content.--Stvfetterly (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea. A WP:MOVE would have been better than copying and pasting by keeping the edit history attached to the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, seems I've made a bit of a mess of this one. Can we get an admin to move the page to "List of Southpaw Stance Boxers" once the AFD is closed?--Stvfetterly (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, this needs to close Keep first; then moving the category to a new name should happen with the MOVE THIS PAGE link to preserve the history. I do concur that the key aspect making this a relevant list is the stance, not which hand is used to eat peas and carrots with a fork. Carrite (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no such thing as a PUTEFFORT failure, and no basis for deletion. . There is just an article that has not yet been developed, and there is no deadline for improvement. Had there been one, Wikipedia would have been dead long ago, because improvement usually comes very slowly and gradually. DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I won't say any more as I'm starting to channel Les Grossman. Warden (talk) 10:04, 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid roller coaster

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

This terminology is made up. There are no coaster magazines, books, or organizations that refer to a hybrid roller coaster as defined on this page. That is why this article has no citations. Recently, Six Flags started to use this term for the New Texas Giant, but it is a term they made up. A coaster is either wooden or steel, depending on the track. The underlying support structure is irrelevant. If you want to keep this article, then find a reliable source. JlACEer (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you take a look at RCDB, Gemini, http://www.rcdb.com/14.htm, for example lists it as Hybrid so i feel this article needs to stay. --Astros4477 (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the majority of the RCDB pages are categorised as hybrid because that is exactly what they are - a combination of steel track and wooden structure (or vice versa). You will notice that the type of roller coaster for Gemini is listed as steel. Themeparkgc Talk 09:12, 1 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 1. Snotbot t • c » 05:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge then~~ delete: I feel that the information in this article could be merged into the respective steel and wooden roller coaster articles. Roller coasters like Gemini and Texas Giant are listed as steel according to RCDB and they should be classified as such here on Wikipedia. As the nominator stated, there is no reference to coasters that are purely known as "hybrid roller coasters" and it seems that it is a term that was first coined here on Wikipedia. Themeparkgc Talk 09:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Our licence doesn't allow such actions, as attribution history will be lost, if the history of the merged content is deleted. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - altered my position above to be just delete. Themeparkgc Talk 06:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the "notable hybrid coasters" that are listed you will see Voyage, Hades, Ravine Flyer II; these are all products of The Gravity Group. Go to http://www.thegravitygroup.com/ and you will see that these are listed as wooden coasters according to the designers. You won't find the term "Hybrid Wooden Coaster" on any manufacturer's website. When most people talk of hybrids, they are usually referring to a combination of ride types, like a coaster-flume hybrid, or coaster-dark ride hybrid.JlACEer (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The entire second paragraph is incorrect. The main advantage to using steel structured on a wooden coaster is the reduced footprint. The bents can be narrower with fewer angled supports, and therefore fewer footings are needed. A wood track steel-structured coaster still needs to be walked every day so the statement "lower maintenance in terms of daily labor hours and the need for fewer routine replacement parts" is false. Pressure-treated wooden bents can last 50-60 years, there's no need for frequent replacement. Whether it's steel-structured or wood-structured, the track bed is going to need the same amount of maintenance.JlACEer (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a subject not referenced adequately to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. Edison (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find a reliable source to establish notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:24, 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 merge to Samick. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Bennett Guitars

AfDs for this article:

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

Warning: I'm doing something I don't usually approve of. I am renominating this article, days after the nominator withdrew it. I have looked and looked, and despite a promise signaled in the first AfD, I cannot find anything that's even remotely reliable. GBooks produces a few Wiki-based publications and a self-authored book by someone who supposedly endorses them--but nothing meaningful or reliable that would establish notability. The article was an advertisement; not so anymore. Even guitarplayer.com, not the most discerning of sites, offers nothing.

So, with apologies to everyone involved, I think that the first AfD suffered from a lack of decent keep arguments and this should be revisited. I will notify all previous participants. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With your research in mind, I change my vote. I'd prefer the article be deleted unless more reliable information exists. —Ed!^(talk) 17:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer creating articles for guitar manufacturers, but deletion is the only option here, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but bear in mind that I am the nominator of the original AfD). I am now beginning to see that I shouldn't have withdrawn, as some original "keeps" didn't really address the issue of notability that I had raised as the nominator. The problem of failing GNG and ORG still stands, and I think that it is still grounds for deletion. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 19:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't feel bad. Not all AfDs get the attention they deserve, and Ed voted early on in that protracted process. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Samick? In a brief search, I found very few reliable secondary sources for Greg Bennett Guitars. Doesn't Samick produce this guitar brand? It seems that it gets favorable reviews from those who report playing it. Have we considered merging this article into the Samick article? This is preferable to losing info about this interesting guitar brand.drs (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we have not considered that, and we have no explanation for that. I wouldn't oppose--and in the process we might improve that article a bit (if you start, of course). Drmies (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not oppose a merge to Samick, either. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 12:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Samick seems appropriate, as Greg Bennett Guitars is simply a brand produced by Samick, rather than a separate company. Indrek (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, merge with Samick looks like it's the best way forward. Obviously it would still need to be cleaned up, but I'd always rather keep an article than lose one. Sebread (talk) 10:38, 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. -- Lear's Fool 10:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azure Urban Resort Residences

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

Non-notable hotel complex. Makes as far as I can tell no attempt to show why this particular building (under construction no less!) is of encyclopedic notability. Notability is not inherited, so partnership with celebrities does not help this topic's notability.

Add to that copyright and advertising problems: Phrases used in this article can be found all over the web, e.g. 1 2. It's in my opinion likely that the marketing of that hotel complex has had an active hand in creating that wording.

Prod declined by author. Amalthea 18:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from author. Amalthea 18:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This hotel/resort/condo may eventually become notable, but all the sources I could find (the few of them) were about Paris Hilton. Without her, this would just be your ordinary hotel/resort/condo. Notability is not inherited, and I failed to find any reliable sources (except for the ones with Paris Hilton) that says otherwise. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:43, 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, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 03:34, 1 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 1. Snotbot t • c » 05:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - glaring commercialism, blaring advertising, invisible notability. Probably need to PROD this user's other articles also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks and reads like an advertisement for the business. North8000 (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, could well have been a speedy G11. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually G11 would not apply here, because of the endorsement of Paris Hilton. Not that it would make it anymore notable or be rescued from deletion. It's still non-notable anyway. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:53, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac McIntyre

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

An autobiography of an apparently self-published author who is either 17 or 37. No evidence he or his games are notable. Only ghits are to his own site or forum posts and social media. Unable to verify claims that books are available elsehwere. His video game is also at AfD. StarM 05:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI autobiography of non-notable, self-published author which also happens to be an unsourced BLP. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unpleasant mix of self-promotional spam and bullshit (i.e. the supposed "television shows"). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, self-promotional, unsourced BLP. A veritable buffet of bads to select... Carrite (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 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 withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seawater desalination in Australia

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

Article is written in an essay-like manner and does not maintain NPOV. It's written like a paper that would be presented at a conference. Paris1127 (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but eliminate the non-Australia-specific discussion. There are sufficient references to support an article. Alternatively, merge into Desalination#Australia. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging (a cleaned up) article into the desalination entry seems like a good alternative to deletion. No other country has an article about desalination, so why should Australia? Paris1127 (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but delete/move 80% of it 80% of this is coverage of desalinization in general. All of it needs work because it it written like an essay rather than a article. North8000 (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Lots of wiki articles are substandard, the solution is to fix them. This is clearly a noteworthy topic. --99of9 (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keep arguments - No other country has an article about desalination, so why should Australia? is not appropriate argument for deletion Satu Suro 10:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: AFD is not cleanup. Currently cleaning the article up a bit. A412 (Talk * C) 01:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw The article can be improved. I just hope that someone else knows how to close this AfD, because I don't. Thanks everyone. Paris1127 (talk) 02:33, 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. Merge and redirect to Chonga is a possibility that could be pursued by normal editing. JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chongalicious

AfDs for this article:

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

Well, notability does not expire, but internet links do, apparently. All but one of the links are dead, and GNews produces nothing. GBooks has one or two mentions, but nothing to write home about. The one live link is this one, which proves that these women apparently sang this song. Is that enough? In my opinion it isn't. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two remarks: I just saw the first AfD and I'm not swayed by the arguments (not even mildly). Second, I watched the damn video--somebody owns me a barnstar and a Wikipedia t-shirt. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm gonna give the Wikipedia community the benefit of the doubt and hope that keeping this in 2007 was the starry-eyed optimistic hope that this random youtube video would somehow lead to a music career for those involved. Half a decade later though it's obvious that that didn't happen and frankly isn't going to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure why GNews produces nothing for you: I get about 30 hits[5] including a May 26, 2008 paywalled Miami Herald article for which the GNews excerpt includes the phrase, "made "chongalicious" a household word", multiple articles in the Miami media, and a February 29, 2009 use in the Village Voice that's not substantial coverage but does suggest that the term spread past Miami. (In any event, it looks like this article should be added to Category:Culture of Miami, Florida.) If we had an article about the broader topic of the chonga I could see an possible argument to merge this there, but since we don't, I don't see any compelling reason to overturn the result of the first AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add note: GScholar turned up a 2009 scholarly piece in the National Women's Studies Association Journal (now called Feminist Formations) entitled "'Miss, you look like a Bratz Doll': on chonga girls and sexual-aesthetic excess" that discusses "Chongalicious" along with several other works. (See [6] for an excerpt.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, your Gnews link doesn't produce anything for me. I did get the PDF of the article, which does discuss our subject and could be called meaningful coverage. Speaking as an academic, I think you are right and we need an article on chonga, which Hernandez's essay (she needs a proofreader) could help establish. But this is Wikipedia and everything needs to be included. I might try my hand at Chonga--perhaps you can help, and then maybe we can merge. Does that sound fair? Because I still think that the video is a fly-by-night thing and also, ahem, IDONTLIKEIT! Drmies (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled about why the GNews search works for me but not for you; maybe someone else will have an idea about that. As for Chonga, it would be highly beneficial to get through the Miami Herald paywall, as well as incorporating information from the detailed Miami New Times article that's cited here; not surprisingly, the scholarly article takes the whole thing rather more seriously than the fun-loving folks quoted in what I can see of those news articles, which may leave something of a POV problem. Anyway, the "Chongalicious" content seems likely to be pretty much the same whether it's here or there, and its edit history has to be preserved, so does that mean we're now effectively in agreement that this AfD should close as a "keep", subject to discussion of a potential merge down the road? --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait a day to see if the Article Deletion Squad comes by and outnumbers you. Well, I can't really withdraw and close this, since we have a keeper. Moreover, I'm not actually convinced that I want to keep this article, even if I think we can keep some (a sliver, really) of its content and keep the redirect. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-quite possibly the most non-notable "notable" entry, but the news coverage is clearly significant. Meets WP:GNG. A412 (Talk * C) 02:21, 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Chonga - The only two references I've found are this and this. The first is about the people who wrote the song; the second is about "chonga girls", and only mentions the song briefly in the middle of the article. If there is other substantial coverage of the actual song, I will change my vote; I am yet to see any, not have I seen any provided. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Upon quick review, appears to meet wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 11 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 Deleted by Jimfbleak as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Way of the Warrior (role-playing game)

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

Promotional article for an RPG of questionable notability. Google search on "The Way of the Warrior" "Dumonia Media" (to disambiguate from the Conan stories of the same name) shows only 5 results, none from independent reliable sources. Searching on "The Way of the Warrior" Dumonia shows only 13 unique results. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac McIntyre, the author's autobiography also at AfD StarM 05:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a blatant attempt to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool. No independent sources that suggest notability seem to exist; everything I can find is traceable to Dumonia Media, the author's self-publishing company. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant spam for non-notable kid's project. Based on the "blog" section, even the writer got bored and gave up on it after a couple of weeks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously promotional material/ advertising--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 17:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication of notability. SL93 (talk) 14:07, 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 The Miami Herald. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Knight Awards

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

You'll find Google Book hits for this term--but not all of them are for this one, and I am not convinced that the mere mention of someone having won this makes it notable. One finds phrases like "awarded to fourteen students in Miami-Dade county annually", but no significant discussion of its origin and meaning. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure yet on this, maybe a merge to The Miami Herald article. I am familiar with the award, although that doesn't make it notable. I will say that The Miami Herald#Community involvement mentions that 18,000 students (I presume that includes runners-up) have been honored with this award. A back of the envelope calculation gives well over 1,000 recipients of the Silver Knight itself, so the list of recipients really needs to go, even if the article stays. I see five or so people with WP articles that mention them receiving this award. In the end, though, it will take substantial coverage in reliable sources other than The Miami Herald to establish notability for the article. -- Donald Albury 00:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Miami Herald. This is a close call, as many people have been named as having received this award in reliable sources; it is also likely to be well-known locally, as it has received a lot of coverage by its sponsor, The Miami Herald (although we obviously cannot use this coverage to judge notability). I also found a third-party mention of the award here, although it is only brief. Having said this, I agree with Drmies on the most important point - the award itself does not seem to have received the level of coverage from third-party reliable sources that we usually require of an article. I think cutting the list of recipients and merging to The Miami Herald would be the best course of action here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:16, 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. At AFD notability is almost always the main concern, but in this case there is more serious problem, the lack of verification of even the most basic facts about this channel. We cannot have an article on a subject that cannot be verified to exist, and we can't fill in the blanks ourselves. There must be sources which are clearly referring to the article subject, which currently does not appear to be the case. If anyone wants to try and work on this to rectify this issue I'd be happy to WP:USERFY this for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disney XD (Russia)

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

Doesn't have info about that channel. jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 08:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What I can gather from Disney's website and the WP articles here and on ru:WP [7] is that there is no such channel called Disney XD for Russia. Jetix was renamed to Disney Channel on August 2010, and apparently they did released a new channel at the beginning of this month in place of channel "Seven" [8]. It would seem that this article refers to the new channel given the release date, but I can't tell if it's meant to replace the previous one or not. I don't think there's any need to delete the content, only to set the information straight, which might require a rename — Frankie (talk) 22:08, 17 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?} 14:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should stay, it has info and is real--TBrandley (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being real is not enough to save an article from deletion. Topics for articles must have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). Judging solely by this article's references, it has not, as the references are either unreliable (blog posts, Wikipedia entry) or affiliated with Disney XD in Russia (USTREAM channel). It may have received significant coverage elsewhere, however. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 22:56, 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, BusterD (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's fake. SergeyTitov (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't fake, however it might not have another sources.--TBrandley (talk) 03:43, 11 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shaykh Aminiya

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

Zero refs, zero ELs, zero gnews hits (English or Arabic), zero gbooks hits (English or Arabic). Appears to be NN by wiki standards. Tagged for zero refs for over 3 years. The creator of the article is a 1-article-edited-ever-only SPA, who was blocked indef 3 years ago for being a vandalism-only account.Epeefleche (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 17 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?} 14:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 31 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, BusterD (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Family autobiography, perhaps? No proof this "clan" exists, let alone has notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:40, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Harbic

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

Possible autobigraphical (but definitely COI) promotional article about a lawyer of questionable notability. Per this talk page post, the article creator is the subject's son. A Google search on "James Harbic" "constitutional rights" lawyer shows only 4 results. A search on "James Harbic" Ottawa lawyer shows only 74 unique returns, with little significant coverage of Harbic himself - articles are generally about his clients. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 17 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?} 14:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notwithstanding the size of the article and its claims. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 31 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, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 03:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In addition to the accurate nomination, much of the article itself isn't about the subject. WP:GNG not met. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:02, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MetLinkInternational

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

I cannot find in depth coverage in independent reliable sources for this online project. Has been tagged for lack of sources since June 2007. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL May meet WP:GNG, e.g. [9], [10], [11]. -- Trevj (talk) 14:26, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only minor coverage. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 31 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, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 03:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Undoubtedly worthy, but sources are not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Question Then on what basis have you concluded that it is "worthy" ? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Royal Meteorological Society as not enough sources for stand alone article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:10, 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meadowbrook North, Iowa

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

Unencyclopedic.

Article is one sentence long *Kat* ^(meow?) 02:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A search for this term on Google Maps does not bring up any results. It looks like it may just be a small neighborhood. --Andrew (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only places I could find which even mention Meadowbrook North are real estate websites, most of which list it as a neighborhood of Bondurant or West Des Moines. In my experience, real estate websites are not reliable sources, since they tend to use location data from other sources including Wikipedia itself, so the article probably fails WP:V. Either way, it fails the general notability guideline, and neighborhoods are not inherently notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find squat about this in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:34, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pitchfork 500

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

Per the edit history of The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, just displaying 500 songs is trivial. Since there is no outside commentary presented for the notability of this book/list, it's deletable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as I understand it, this is a copyvio because its a reprint of someones opinion, not a ranking built on verifiable facts. Some possibly reliable sources do appear to come up in GNews. OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
- ~~Removed the full list and "Statistics" section from the article. As the article stands it does not meet WP:GNG. OSborn^arf_contribs. 03:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)~~ struck OSborn^arf_contribs. 05:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it and fix it. This is a notable work, notable enough to have been featured in TIME[12] and dozens of other reliable sources[13]. Add content from these sources in lieu of the complete list. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:13, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The complete list of 500 has been rightfully removed, and as for the book itself, it meets WP:NBOOKS (criterion #1) and WP:GNG as the article now demonstrates that coverage exists in multiple independent, reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 05:16, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melville Jones

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. No sources that discuss the subject in detail. Main roles seems to be "Guard" and "First Cyberman". IMDB shows no major credits. No evidence of multiple notable roles, awards etc Tassedethe (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Melville_Jones, he's not even significant in Doctor Who fandom, nor were the roles, so if that's all he has to hang his hat on... postdlf (talk) 19:52, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:10, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 6 total appearances as a ~~supporting~~ supporting character is his strongest claim to notability would be what I call not notable.Curb Chain (talk) 07:57, 8 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yardley volunteer awards

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

Non-notable awards, lacking RS coverage. Article has zero refs. Has been tagged for that failure, and for notability, for over 2 years. Created by a 1-edit-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local volunteering award with no coverage in reliable sources. I didn't even find a mention in any local press. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 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) 02:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Forget being notable enough for an encyclopedia, this isn't even locally notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable local award. SL93 (talk) 14:08, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irek Grabowski

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

Lacks substantial coverage in RSs. Gnews never heard of him, and Gbooks barely heard of him. Tagged for notability for over a year. Zero refs. Created by a 1-article-edited-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 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, Der yck C. 21:51, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I too am unable to find any substantial coverage in reliable sources that would indicate this performer is notable. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:49, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congruity Inspector Software

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

I found no notability. This software fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 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, Der yck C. 21:54, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find independent coverage based on a quick Google search. wctaiwan (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam: Inspector supports IT best practices by providing consistent, easy access to day-to-day internal control status and resource (communication, bandwidth, time, sessions, failed connections) impact information. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, created by an SPA; unreferenced; no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 17:27, 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi Causey

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

Delete. Does not meet WP:FILMMAKER -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note – The above statement is the actual nomination for deletion, and not an !vote, as the formatting may suggest. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is ...? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: to prevent the nomination from being mistakenly read by Wikipedia editors as an !vote. Nothing personal. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Academy Award nomination qualifies as having "won significant critical attention" (WP:FILMMAKER criteria #4). Restar32 (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For a mere nomination? That is a long bow to draw. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A win for a minor Oscar would be pretty borderline, but a nomination? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being nominated for an Academy Award is notable and no doubt would have coverage in the press about such a nomination. Lugnuts (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO.[14] While an argument might be made that the awards were for her film, we then look to WP:FILMMAKER and see that coverage, commentary and review of her work[15][16][17] has her meeting that criteria as well. We improve stub articles on notables, not delete them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Come on. She doesn't qualify under BIO or FILMMAKER. All but two of the links you've cited just mention her name, nothing more; one is a link to IMDb (which is worthless for Afd purposes) and the other is a trivial dispute about a permit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend (talk • contribs) 11:33, 27 January 2012‎
  - While the GNG is the easiest way to determine notablity, guideline offers that it is not the only way. We have verifiability of WP:CREATIVE#3 in that "The person has created... a significant or well-known work... that has been the subject of... multiple independent reviews." Seaches show that her multi-award winning film has received the neccessary commentary and review. Guideline does not demand that a significant work must have the coverage of Star Wars or Harry Potter in order for WP:Creative to be met. And as her work has received the coverage to be determined as notable, she is herself per guideline verifiable as notable. And searches show both her award and her film's coverage as verifiable away from IMDB. Or is it somehow being contended that her film did not recieve commentary or review or awards or that she did not receive the further recognition of a major nomination? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is an 11 minute comedy short a "significant or well-known work"? That's debatable. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 1 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) 02:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if we say the 11-minute comedy short is absolutely and unquestionably notable (and even that's a strech), she produced it rather than directed it, so I don't think notability can be inherited from that alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To politely disagree, producing a notable project can indeed be impart notability... most specially if it is a project that not only receives significant coverage through commentary and review, but also recognition through an Academy Award nomination and multiple film festival award wins. Wikipedia as an encyclopdia is intended to offer our readers more than just articles on feature length, big-budget, studio films... and even producers of smaller films can be found worthy of note if their projects get the coverage required by guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here is substantial coverage from the Los Angeles Times. I do note, however, that most of the coverage I'm seeing is about Causey and her husband and co-nominee Andrew Bowler. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an excellent source for Time Freak, but the only thing it says about Gigi Causey herself is that her husband has to trick her into watching sci-fi on TV. Not exactly a solid foundation for a BLP article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Signifcant does not depend upon world-wide box ofice receipts, but rather upon a work receiving comentary and coverage in multiple reliable sources, nor is notability dependent upon the length of the work being so covered... and such will remain as the yardstick by which we measure notability and significance until WP:N is re-rewritten. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep - Topic ~~just~~ meets WP:GNG. The first article listed below constitutes significant coverage, in which Causey herself is mentioned numerous times. The second article is very short. Hence, weak keep !vote for now until more reliable sources that address the person significantly can be found.

Rome, Emily (January 28, 2012). "'Time Freak': Sci-fi short and an Oscar moment to remember". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 03, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"UT grad goes crazy when her short film gets an Oscar nom". The Houston Chronicle. Retrieved February 03, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed !vote to "Keep", per additional sources added to article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Academy awards are one of the very few awards for which even a nomination amounts to notability, in part because of the extensive press coverage in this industry, DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant independent coverage, as for DGG's point that even a nomination amounts to notability, if that is true then sources should not be so hard to find, in this case the fact they seam to be, indicates that perhaps it is not a fool proof guide. WP needs significant independent coverage not only to demonstrate notability but also to ensure that a good, well sourced and verifiable article can be composed. Mt king ^(edits) 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Guess what!! Its a borderline case! Let's not pretend otherwise; that's why we have differing opinions here. Unless its true that an Oscar nomination is sufficient by itself, perhaps I'll root around for some prior AfDs to see how we've treated that in the past.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed all the bad wikilinks that linked to something unrelated to this person. They meet WP:ARTIST, which covers filmmakers, among others. 4c The person's work (c) has won significant critical attention. Time Freak got nominated for an academy award, ample news coverage from that. A significant amount of critical attention, surely. Dream Focus 08:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has inline citations from The Los Angeles Times, The Houston Chronicle and BBC News, all reliable and independent sources. She has a nomination for an Oscar, and other earlier awards. It seems to me that readers will want to know about Oscar nominees, whether they go on to win an Oscar or not. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:46, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Lavery

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

Delete. Non notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable.Babakathy (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Should I have been notified of this nomination? I don't understand this nomination - people say "non notable", but if you click on the "books" and "scholar" links supplied with the nomination, there are so many things listed that I only had time to include a few of them in the article. Lavery is a well known writer, academic, and editor of analysis of popular culture. PermanentVacay (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I get 5 books and 8 journal articles from scholar but I am not sure all are academic outputs. Per WP:ACADEMIC I am not sure this is enough for criterion 1. Cannot see evidence other criteria apply? Am I wrong? Babakathy (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at his CV here [18]? There is an awards section at the bottom. It also lists that he has chaired several departments. Between these and all others, I believe he fits many points under WP:ACADEMIC. PermanentVacay (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from his CV (which is not an independent source), I see no evidence that he has chaired a department, which does not meet any of the requirements of WP:PROF anyway. The list of awards is long, but contains trivial things (being an external reviewer is nothing out of the ordinary), minor awards (a small travel grant to go to Heidelberg...), and nominations (but apparently not won). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found a newsletter from Brunel that mentioned him as the chair of their department. I guess they don't keep historic chairs on their website. I just googled burnel.co.uk and david lavery, fyi - it was on the first page... PermanentVacay (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should use that as a source, not his CV, which should not be used as a reference at all. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether a scholar has published a few or a lot of papers/books has absolutely no bearing on notability. What is important is whether those writings have had any impact, which we generally measure here by numbers of citations. As I have no time to look into this in detail right now, I'm abstaining from !voting, but I would like to note that the article currently has no evidence whatsoever of notability. All references are to works of Lavery, except reference 3, which is inappropriate (has nothing to do with Lavery) and reference 4, which is actually the only reference showing somebody has actually read his works. If it is to show notability, the article needs a lot of work. I just used Reflinks to format the references, but would like to note that links to GBooks are not really ideal. Oh, and yes, PermanentVacay, it would have been good form that you as article creator be notified of this AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Unfortunately this AfD is almost half over and I only just found out about it, and I don't know if I'll have time to add anything to the article by then. Hopefully someone more familiar with him than me will do so (I like to create articles for people that I'm doing research on who don't yet have them - this means I don't necessarily yet know all that much). PermanentVacay (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the CV, very helpful. Going through the criteria:

The criterion on awards (number 2) requires a national award or higher and that it should be "highly prestigious". Most of the awards are institutional rather than national or better, and some of them are publishing rather than academic awards. That leaves things like "Mr. Pointy Award for Buffy Studies Scholarship" which I doubt we could call a highly prestigious academic award.

Nothing in the CV for criteria 3, 4, 5, 6 or 8. (Chairing a dept is not enough for 6. 8 requires head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal: he has 3 where he is an editor of a journal rather than an issue, but 2 are very recent so not "well-established". That leaves Critical Studies in Television, where he is one of six editors (not head or chief). So I do not think so.)

Criterion 1 needs an analysis of citations.

Criterion 7 might work - how widely popular are his general audience books? His CV cites interviews - is he frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert? There are quite a few google news hits that are interviewing him.Babakathy (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, criterion 7 seems like a good easy way to show notability. I'm not sure how to incorporate that into the article though. PermanentVacay (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you do some work on Google News to provide (many) references to a statement such as his work in television studies has led to him being widely recognised as an expert on genres such as XX YY ZZ. I think you'd be able to pick up quite alot. Babakathy (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changed my mind): I believe this academic meets sub-criterio 7. Babakathy (talk) 09:37, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:18, 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, BusterD (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm satisfied that WP:ACADEMIC/7 is met. The nomination is too vague for me to judge if the nominator's concerns have been resolved but the article has certainly been improved. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a notable author at least, and probably meets WP:PROF as well as an expert on several related genres of television. Worldcat shows that 15 of his books are each in over one hundred libraries; his book on X files is in 513. ^[1] Reviews need to be looked or, but the probability of finding them with such widespread library holdings is very high. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 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 Ninja. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intonjutsu

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

Unsourced non notable martial arts related dictionary definition, which does not justify a self-standing article, as per WP:NOTDIC Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep:Fairly broad coverage on web, not sure how reliable? Babakathy (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Among valid references all I can find is this dictionary type definition "Intonjutsu (escaping and concealment)". This is a term which may be used in an article about martial arts terms but as far as I can see there is nothing to justify developing a stand alone article out of it let alone enough material.

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Samuraiantiqueworld - there are plenty of hits, but I've yet to see anything that's more than a passing mention (and most of those are on some seriously dubious "modern ninja" websites that would fail WP:RS quicker than you can say, "learn the mystical arts of the Ninja!"...). Yunshui 雲‍水 14:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ninja. My searches in Japanese were inconclusive - I found a few mentions of the word, but no concrete connections with ninjutsu. However, the majority of Japanese books on Google Books are set to "no preview", so this by itself doesn't prove much. The term is not in the Daijirin Japanese monolingual dictionary (very large and comprehensive), although I found it in WWWJDIC (includes some vetted, user-contributed definitions). I did find a couple of English sources that mention it in passing, but none that goes into to any detail. If there is an article in here it would probably require some Japanese-language library research, and until someone puts in that effort I would consider this topic of questionable notability. There are enough results on the web that people could search for it though, so redirecting to a relevant article would probably be best. The most appropriate one that I found was Ninja. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:47, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to just be a dictionary definition which no indication of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 20:52, 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, BusterD (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Ninja) - No reliable, in depth sources to be found on the web regarding this term.--Stvfetterly (talk) 15:16, 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 redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Testing 1-2-3 (Grey's Anatomy)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Testing 1-2-3 (Grey's Anatomy)

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Grey's Anatomy episodes. Lugnuts (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). bd2412 T 21:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite the plot section . Unlike most of the other articles nominated, the plot section is long enough, but it is not encyclopedic: various incidents are mentioned, but we are not told what becomes of them. Reducing the length of the section into a list would make it even less coherent. A plot summary needs to be sufficient to say what happens in the episode as well as what is left unresolved. The source for the plot is as it should be the episode itself. The source for the production data is presumably the DVD jacket, but does need to be stated. Has the nominator or anyone looked for reviews or coverage of the episode in appropriate on and off-line sources? The criterion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced.
Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to find proper sources in the necessary time: it takes 1 minute to do a cookie-cutter nomination, hours of research to source an article. I consider these nomination therefore to disruptively frustrate the twin goals of deletion policy, which is to rescue what can be rescued and delete only the unrescuable--of which we have enough. . DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy) Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to season article. With all the serial noms, I do not have time to check each one for notability. But even any that are not notable should be redirected to the season article per WP:TVEP. Rlendog (talk) 21:27, 17 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 Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Desire (Grey's Anatomy)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Desire (Grey's Anatomy)

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Synopsis is a direct CV from http://www.yango.tv/greys-anatomy/season/3. The rest of it may be OR, or copied, who knows, no sources are listed. Not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). bd2412 T 21:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and condense the plot section . Unlike most of the other articles nominated, the plot section is more than long enough, but it is not encyclopedic: various incidents are mentioned, but we are not told what becomes of them. It is not easy to write the summary of an incident like this, where most of the matters are left unresolved A sharp reduction into a list would make it even less coherent. What it needs is a more careful approach to what is significant detail. The source for the plot is as it should be the episode itself. The source for the production data is presumably the DVD jacket, but does need to be stated. Has the nominator or anyone looked for reviews or coverage of the episode in appropriate on and off-line sources? The criterion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced.
Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to find proper sources in the necessary time: it takes 1 minute to do a cookie-cutter nomination, hours of research to source an article. It even takes a while to write a proper response to each AfD; it requires at least reading the article, unlike the explicitly identical AfD nomination. I consider these nomination therefore to disruptively frustrate the twin goals of deletion policy, which is to rescue what can be rescued and delete only the unrescuable--of which we have enough. . DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is pretty much fancruft. The bulk of the article is the plot of the episode. I see no notability from this episode. Do you?Curb Chain (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). I do not see any significant coverage of this. --He to Hecuba (talk) 16:24, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to season article. With all the serial noms, I do not have time to check each one for notability. But even any that are not notable should be redirected to the season article per WP:TVEP. Rlendog (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is some additional coverage here. Rlendog (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:11, 17 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time After Time (Grey's Anatomy)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Time After Time (Grey's Anatomy)

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, episode features an Emmy-winning performance, which should be easy enough to source. bd2412 T 21:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and condense the plot section . Unlike most of the other articles nominated, the plot section is more than long enough, and a little too detailed--perhaps too detailed to be fully coherent. It also goes into motivation a little more than it should--not that the motivation and connections of most of the characters in this show are not perfectly obvious (to the point of tedium; this is one of the few such series I've even watched, but I gave up after the 2nd series long before this episode). An excessively sharp reduction into a list would make it even less coherent. What it needs is a more careful approach to what is significant detail. The source for the plot is as it should be the episode itself. The source for the production data is presumably the DVD jacket, but does need to be stated. Has the nominator or anyone looked for reviews or coverage of the episode in appropriate on and off-line sources? The criterion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced.
Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to find proper sources in the necessary time: it takes 1 minute to do a cookie-cutter nomination, hours of research to source an article. It even takes a while to write a proper response to each AfD; it requires at least reading the article,and ideally thinking about it, unlike the explicitly identical AfD nomination. I consider these nomination therefore to disruptively frustrate the twin goals of deletion policy, which is to rescue what can be rescued and delete only the unrescuable--of which we have enough. . DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BD2412, should be notable - needs cleanup, not deletion. --He to Hecuba (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would that make every Emmy nominated episode of every show to be notable?Curb Chain (talk) 07:48, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per BD2412, there should be notability with the Emmy nomination.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 17:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There may be some question about the notability of some of the many Grey's Anatomy nominations. But the Emmy Award clinches this one as a keep for me. Rlendog (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the Emmy win. But the whole recap needs to be trimmed to 1 paragraph. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:18, 17 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 Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Favorite Mistake (Grey's Anatomy)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/My Favorite Mistake (Grey's Anatomy)

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). bd2412 T 21:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unlike what the nominator seems to think, these articles are not identical. In this case, the plot section is about than long enough, and we are given an idea which matters are left unresolved, and how they fit into the series as a whole. A sharp reduction into a list would make it less coherent. The source for the plot is as it should be the episode itself. The source for the production data is presumably the DVD jacket, but does need to be stated. Has the nominator or anyone looked for reviews or coverage of the episode in appropriate on and off-line sources? The criterion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced.
Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to find proper sources in the necessary time: it takes 1 minute to do a cookie-cutter nomination, hours of research to source an article. It even takes a while to write a proper response to each AfD; it requires at least reading the article, ideally in the context of the other articles, unlike the explicitly identical AfD nomination, which could have been written just the same if the person had no idea what the show is about. I consider these nomination as a group to disruptively frustrate the twin goals of deletion policy, which is to rescue what can be rescued and delete only the unrescuable--of which we have enough. . DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to season article. With all the serial noms, I do not have time to check each one for notability. But even any that are not notable should be redirected to the season article per WP:TVEP. Rlendog (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:20, 17 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 Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scars and Souvenirs (Grey's Anatomy)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Scars and Souvenirs (Grey's Anatomy)

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). bd2412 T 21:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, especially expanding the plot section . . What the plot section needs is expansion: the content is just mentioned, not described. It makes little sense unless one already knows everything before and after. Reducing the length of the section into a list would make it even worse. A plot summary needs to be long enough to say what happens in the episode as well as what is left unresolved. The source for the plot is as it should be the episode itself. The source for the production data is presumably the DVD jacket, but does need to be stated. This particular article mentions reviews--they need The criterion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced. It's odd to see an objection that it uses a common format--we would expect it to, just like all articles on settlements, or sports events--they all have defined formats. Just like them, all television series articles in fact are going to need to discuss the same sorts of things. If the format were different for each, the material would be much less readable.
Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to find proper sources in the necessary time: it takes 1 minute to do a cookie-cutter nomination, hours of research to source an article.This nomination is especially telling, in that the article is completely unlike the two articles before it in the list, and different objections would hold: one is too scanty, one others too detailed. It thus makes it clear that the nom. and the delete !voter above have either not read the article, or not bothered thinking about it, or perhaps consider all episode articles identical no matter what they say. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no argument to keep based on notability here.Curb Chain (talk) 05:36, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to season article. With all the serial noms, I do not have time to check each one for notability. But even any that are not notable should be redirected to the season article per WP:TVEP. Rlendog (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:21, 17 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 Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some Kind of Miracle (Grey's Anatomy)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Some Kind of Miracle (Grey's Anatomy)

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"~~Tagged as failing WP:GNG.~~ Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). bd2412 T 21:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, especially expanding the plot section . . What the plot section needs is expansion: the content is just mentioned, not described. It makes little sense unless one already knows everything before and after. Reducing the length of the section into a list would make it even worse. A plot summary needs to be long enough to say what happens in the episode as well as what is left unresolved. The source for the plot is as it should be the episode itself. The source for the production data is presumably the DVD jacket, but does need to be stated. This particular article mentions reviews--they need The criterion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced. It's odd to see an objection that it uses a common format--we would expect it to, just like all articles on settlements, or sports events,--they all have defined formats. Just like them, all television series articles in fact are going to need to discuss the same sorts of things. If the format were different for each, the material would be much less readable.
Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to find proper sources in the necessary time: it takes 1 minute to do a cookie-cutter nomination, hours of research to source an article.This nomination is especially telling, in that the article is completely unlike the two articles before it in the list, and different objections would hold: one is too scanty, one others too detailed. It thus makes it clear that the nom. and the delete !voter above have either not read the article, or not bothered thinking about it, or perhaps consider all episode articles identical no matter what they say. ). I assume they haven't read or thought about the others either. I consider these nomination therefore to disruptively frustrate the twin goals of deletion policy, which is to rescue what can be rescued and delete only the unrescuable--of which we have enough. I urge people to check my comments to see that I have individually considered each individual article--I use some common phrases, because some aspects are similar-- but not all. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to season article. With all the serial noms, I do not have time to check each one for notability. But even any that are not notable should be redirected to the season article per WP:TVEP. Rlendog (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:22, 17 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 Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wishin' and Hopin' (Grey's Anatomy)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wishin' and Hopin' (Grey's Anatomy)

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). bd2412 T 21:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contracting the plot section . There is too much detail. For example, the section on the operation on the toxic patient could have been done in half the space or less. . The source for the plot is as it should be the episode itself. The source for the production data is presumably the DVD jacket, but does need to be stated. This particular article mentions reviews--they need The criterion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced. It's odd to see an objection that it uses a common format--we would expect it to, just like all articles on settlements, or sports events,--they all have defined formats. Just like them, all television series articles in fact are going to need to discuss the same sorts of things. If the format were different for each, the material would be much less readable.
Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to find proper sources in the necessary time: it takes 1 minute to do a cookie-cutter nomination, hours of research to source an article. This nomination is especially telling, in that the article is completely unlike the two articles before it in the list, and different objections would hold: one is too scanty, one others too detailed. It thus makes it clear that the nom. and the delete !voter above have either not read the article, or not bothered thinking about it, or perhaps consider all episode articles identical no matter what they say. An altogether destructive approach , discouraging intelligent decisions. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have nominated these articles if I thought they were notable.Curb Chain (talk) 05:41, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to season article. With all the serial noms, I do not have time to check each one for notability. But even any that are not notable should be redirected to the season article per WP:TVEP. Rlendog (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is some additional coverage here. Rlendog (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:23, 17 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 Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great Expectations (Grey's Anatomy)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Great Expectations (Grey's Anatomy)

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also think it would be better to delete this article because of the reasons mentioned above. Other episodes like this one for the first 5 seasons should also be redirected or deleted.--Sofffie7 (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). bd2412 T 21:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contracting the plot section . There is too much detail, and not every individual plot line the episode gives a minute's space to for continuity to has to be described. For this particular article, the writing is a little incoherent; the parts do nbot have to be told in the exact same scene by scene sequence as the production. The source for the plot is as it should be the episode itself. The source for the production data is presumably the DVD jacket, but does need to be stated.
Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to find proper sources in the necessary time: it takes probably less than 1 minute to do a cookie-cutter nomination, hours of research to source an article. This nomination like the others makes it clear that the nom. and the delete !voter above have either not read the article, or not bothered thinking about it, or perhaps consider all episode articles identical no matter what they say. An altogether destructive approach , discouraging intelligent decisions. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to season article. With all the serial noms, I do not have time to check each one for notability. But even any that are not notable should be redirected to the season article per WP:TVEP. Rlendog (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:27, 17 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 Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Six Days, Part 2

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). bd2412 T 21:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and condiense the plot section--this is one of the few in this group where it is excessive. . The source for the plot is as it should be the episode itself. The source for the production data is presumably the DVD jacket, but does need to be stated. This particular article mentions reviews--they need The criterion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced. It's odd to see an objection that it uses a common format--we would expect it to, just like all articles on settlements, or sports events,--they all have defined formats. Just like them, all television series articles in fact are going to need to discuss the same sorts of things. If the format were different for each, the material would be much less readable. But otherwise the articles are not cookie-curtter--I don't think the plot section can be written without being aware of what happened in the episode, nor the other content in the boxes.
Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to find proper sources in the necessary time: it takes a minute to do a cookie-cutter nomination, hours of research to source an article fully. I consider these nomination therefore to disruptively frustrate the twin goals of deletion policy, which is to rescue what can be rescued and delete only the unrescuable--of which we have enough. I urge people to check my comments to see that I have individually considered each individual article--I use some common phrases, because some aspects are similar-- but not all. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to season article. With all the serial noms, I do not have time to check each one for notability. But even any that are not notable should be redirected to the season article per WP:TVEP. Rlendog (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:29, 17 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 Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Six Days, Part 1

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). bd2412 T 21:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and condiense the plot section--this is one of the few in this group where it is excessive, probably the worst of the lot--excessive to the point where it is hard to follow. The source for the plot is as it should be the episode itself. The source for the production data is presumably the DVD jacket, but does need to be stated. This particular article mentions reviews--they need The criterion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced. .
Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to find proper sources in the necessary time: it takes a minute to do a cookie-cutter nomination, hours of research to source an article fully. I consider these nomination therefore to disruptively frustrate the twin goals of deletion policy, which is to rescue what can be rescued and delete only the unrescuable.. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to season article. With all the serial noms, I do not have time to check each one for notability. But even any that are not notable should be redirected to the season article per WP:TVEP. Rlendog (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:30, 17 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 Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Stand So Close to Me (Grey's Anatomy)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Don't Stand So Close to Me (Grey's Anatomy)

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). bd2412 T 21:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and condiense the plot section--this is one of the few in this group where it is excessive, but , though long, it is a little more coherent than some of them, perhaps because this episode begins to tie up some of the plot elements. . The source for the plot is as it should be the episode itself. The source for the production data is presumably the DVD jacket, but does need to be stated. This particular article mentions reviews--they need The criterion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced.The articles are not cookie-curtter--I don't think the plot section can be written without being aware of what happened in the episode, nor the other content in the boxes.
Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to find proper sources in the necessary time: it takes a minute to do a cookie-cutter nomination, hours of research to source an article fully. I consider these nomination therefore to disruptively frustrate the twin goals of deletion policy, which is to rescue what can be rescued and delete only the unrescuable- DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to season article. With all the serial noms, I do not have time to check each one for notability. But even any that are not notable should be redirected to the season article per WP:TVEP. Rlendog (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:31, 17 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a Whisper to a Scream

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, episode features an Emmy-nominated performance, which should be easy enough to source. bd2412 T 21:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Eric McCormack's win of his emmy nomination for Lows in the Mid-Eighties, yet the article is not notable. I don't see how a emmy nomination makes an episode notable.Curb Chain (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it results in additional coverage for the episode; it marks the episode as being in some way special - i.e., notable - relative to non-nominated episodes; because it results in additional information to provide in the article, e.g., why it was nominated, etc. Rlendog (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you haven't explained why a emmy nomination in this particular show confers notability, when other emmy nominated episodes of other shows do not.Curb Chain (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and condense the plot section, which is in too much detail. . The source for the plot is as it should be the episode itself. The source for the production data is presumably the DVD jacket, but does need to be stated. This particular article mentions reviews--they need The criterion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced.
Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to find proper sources in the necessary time: it takes a minute to do a cookie-cutter nomination, hours of research to source an article fully. But in this particular case it is absolutely clear that the nom did not even read the first paragraph of the article, because of the Emmy nomination--there is real out of universe content here. I knew they were caelss, but not this careless. Proof, therefore, that these nomination disruptively frustrate not the twin goals of deletion policy, which is to rescue what can be rescued and delete only the unrescuable, but are so recklessly done as to impair the role of AfD and discourage proper discussion. I was wondering which article would make the best case for saying that such nomination do not meet my standard of responsible work here, but this is the one. I think honest work would call for the nom to be retracted. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Emmy nomination at least.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 17:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an emmy nomination makes something notable, as my above comment.Curb Chain (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you mention the emmy nomination in your AfD nomination? The nomination simply says "Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy." That prior Afd garnered one vote in two weeks of being listed, its hardly a precedent of note.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There may be some question about the notability of some of the many Grey's Anatomy nominations, but the Emmy nomination clinches this as a keep for me. Rlendog (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Emmy nod is notable. Trim the plot section to a paragraph though. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:41, 17 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 Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Staring at the Sun (Grey's Anatomy)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Staring at the Sun (Grey's Anatomy)

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). bd2412 T 21:27, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per BD2412.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 17:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to season article. With all the serial noms, I do not have time to check each one for notability. But even any that are not notable should be redirected to the season article per WP:TVEP. Rlendog (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:42, 17 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 Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Boys Are (Grey's Anatomy)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Where the Boys Are (Grey's Anatomy)

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). bd2412 T 21:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contracting the plot section . There is too much detail. Otherwise, the same basic objects to deletion hold: primarily that the criterion is unsourceable, not unsourced. Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to do proper work. The whole series of nominations was careless, obviously done without reading the articles--just as some of the delete comments. A destructive policy-defiant approach to deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the articles are not notable. I think the nominations were made in good faith.Curb Chain (talk) 07:27, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to season article. With all the serial noms, I do not have time to check each one for notability. But even any that are not notable should be redirected to the season article per WP:TVEP. Rlendog (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:43, 17 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the Guilt (Grey's Anatomy)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Oh, the Guilt (Grey's Anatomy)

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, episode features an Emmy-nominated performance, which should be easy enough to source. bd2412 T 21:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though the detail needs to be greatly condensed--even more than some of the other too-expansive articles. As with another nomination above, the failure to notice the Emmy proves recklessness in nomination and a decision to delete without thinking, in defiance of policy. The entire group of AfDs should be rejected as the work of a person deciding to imitate a bot. Whether further action should be taken I leave to others, but if I were the nom, the shame of my inadequate work being demonstrated in this fashion would be sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the emmy nomination was selfnominated, I don't think that would pass GNG.Curb Chain (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Eric McCormack's win of his emmy nomination for Lows in the Mid-Eighties, yet the article is not notable. I don't see how a emmy nomination makes an episode notable.Curb Chain (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you mention the emmy nomination in your AfD nomination? The nomination simply says "Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy." That prior Afd garnered one vote in two weeks of being listed, its hardly a precedent of note.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the same problems are there. Once again, I do not think an Emmy nomination makes something notable, especially consider the nominee chooses the episode for his/her consideration for winning.Curb Chain (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that being nominated for a major award marks the episode as being particularly special. And that the nomination provides something additional to write about in the article. And it gets covered by reliable sources. Rlendog (talk) 20:46, 17 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (But condense article a bit.) I think the Emmy nomination for the episode is evidence of some notability.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 17:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if there are questions about the notability of some of the many nominated episodes, the Emmy nomination clinches this one as a keep for me. Rlendog (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also some coverage here. Rlendog (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would think that an Emmy nomination is individually notable, or at least some evidence in that direction. Rlendog (talk) 02:48, 18 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 Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I Am (Grey's Anatomy)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/What I Am (Grey's Anatomy)

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). bd2412 T 21:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contracting the plot section . Everything I've said before about the destructive approach being taken holds. There's mass-production, indeed, but it's of the nominations and the delete comments: I ask North80000 to tell me how to mass produce plot sections of this length--or even lists of guest performers. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The plot is ofcourse not mass produced, but the articles are. This is fancruft with no facts. He is explaining that the collection of articles where made without consideration of notability.Curb Chain (talk) 07:26, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to season article. With all the serial noms, I do not have time to check each one for notability. But even any that are not notable should be redirected to the season article per WP:TVEP. Rlendog (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:47, 17 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 Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a Fantasy (Grey's Anatomy)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sometimes a Fantasy (Grey's Anatomy)

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). bd2412 T 21:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contracting the plot section a little--it would make it easier to follow the relationships. Everything I've said before about the destructive approach being taken in these nominations holds. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to season article. With all the serial noms, I do not have time to check each one for notability. But even any that are not notable should be redirected to the season article per WP:TVEP. Rlendog (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:48, 17 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 Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Am a Tree

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). bd2412 T 21:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contracting the plot section a little--it would make it easier to follow the relationships. Some detail is needed, but only the highlights. Everything I've said before about the destructive approach being taken in these nominations holds. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to season article. With all the serial noms, I do not have time to check each one for notability. But even any that are not notable should be redirected to the season article per WP:TVEP. Rlendog (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:41, 18 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 Grey's Anatomy (season 2). Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deterioration of the Fight or Flight Response

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"~~Tagged as failing WP:GNG.~~ Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy." Curb Chain (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contracting the plot section a little, with perhaps a little less detail and omission of minor plot lines. Certainly remove the duplication of the synopsis and plot--no point saying everything twice. Everything I've said before about the destructive approach being taken in these nominations holds. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Grey's_Anatomy_(season_2).--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 17:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to season article. With all the serial noms, I do not have time to check each one for notability. But even any that are not notable should be redirected to the season article per WP:TVEP. Rlendog (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 2). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:42, 18 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 Grey's Anatomy (season 2). Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

17 Seconds

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy." Curb Chain (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contracting the plot section a little--it would make it easier to follow the relationships. And adjusting the emphasis. It needs to be indicated by the writing that this episode holds one of the critical plot developments--even the episode title hints at it. Careless article writing, almost as careless as the deletion nominations. I agree that in many of these series it's hard to tell one episode from another, but that's all the more reason for doing it carefully to not miss things like this. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen any keep arguments per WP:N. Have you even ~~seen~~viewed the episodes? I certain have seen all of them of season 1, 2 and 3.Curb Chain (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing from a third party indicates this is a notable episode. The GBook hits are WP mirrors or TV Guide type listings. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 7 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No attempt to establish notability. Needs independent sources. Tigerboy1966 18:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete due to absence of notability. Cloudz 679 10:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to season article. With all the serial noms, I do not have time to check each one for notability. But even any that are not notable should be redirected to the season article per WP:TVEP. Rlendog (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 2). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:50, 18 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 Grey's Anatomy (season 2). Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damage Case

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"~~Tagged as failing WP:GNG.~~ Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy." Curb Chain (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep expanding a little. We now have am article with different problems than the group nominated above--but you couldn't tell it from the nominations, you have to look at the articles. It's all too clear that we need to develop policies to prevent this sort of work,. We can't make people think, but we probably can make them at least look as if they've been thinking. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note~~Not really. No argument for keep provided per WP:N Curb Chain (talk) 07:32, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to season article. With all the serial noms, I do not have time to check each one for notability. But even any that are not notable should be redirected to the season article per WP:TVEP. Rlendog (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 2). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:43, 18 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. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Datamatics Global Services

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

Advertisement for another software services and consulting company. Current text is unambiguous advertising:

The company provides business solutions to a wide range of industry verticals and the service offerings span across IT consulting, business process transformation, off-the-shelf technology solutions and customized software services.It also provides services to embedded engineering and telecommunications, solutions for ticketing, toll and parking applications.

References are to press releases about executive hires, routine contract announcements, and stock market data pages. Being the first company in the world to guarantee 99.997% accuracy level in Data Capture does not seem to be the sort of achievement that should be remembered for all time in an encyclopedia. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we work towards improving than deleting? KuwarOnline ^Talk 18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's just another IT outsourcing business. Why should such a thing be covered in an encyclopedia? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing notable here, and certainly not neutral (the term 'solutions' appears three times in the first four paragraphs. Even if this is notable, it will require a fundamental rewrite to achieve the required neutrality. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks to me like it just about passes the GNG and, specifically, WP:CORP. I was hitherto unaware that our policies set a higher bar for IT outsourcing businesses or excluded them altogether - could somebody point out the specific policy? bobrayner (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do you have specific sources that establish that this business has made history in its field? I don't believe the references currently in the article get there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which policy requires that a business "makes history in its field"? I searched through Wikipedia:Notability and didn't find a single mention of "history". It's mentioned in your essay, of course, but that's not a policy no matter how often you link to WP:B2B at AfD. It would also help if you could clarify how we set a higher bar for IT outsourcing businesses or excluded them altogether, as I can't find a policy basis for that either. bobrayner (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the beginning, when 'notability' was selected as the name for the kind of significance needed to make something a stand alone encyclopedia article subject, it has always meant long term historical notability. "Notable" for our purposes is exactly the same thing as "important enough to support a stand alone encyclopedia article", and since notability is not temporary, if it's notable now it must be notable forever. For that reason, the business notability guideline asks whether a business has had significant effects on history, technology, or culture, and when the possibility exists of commercial conflict of interest, I think it's reasonable to expect that kind of significance before allowing in obvious spam like this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:54, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets the relevant guideline. "Makes history in its field" is more like the equivalent of famous, and is not required for notability--but in fact the article claims it has reached the highest rate of accuracy ever in its field--it would be good to have a 3rd party source for that. The only special problem with outsourcing companies is that it's usually harder to find references than businesses that directly serve consumers. . When there are, this makes all the more reason to keep it. Smerdis' argument amounts to IDONTTHINKITBELONGSHERE, as a pure personal opinion, unsupported by policy and consequently irrelevant to the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 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) 13:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Appears to just barely meet wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 11 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Chisholm

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

No reliable sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 20:32, 24 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) 15:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage needed to establish notability. The article reads like a linkedin profile rather than an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 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) 01:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article makes no assertion as to why this individual might be notable in his own right, only that he has been associated with notable companies and individuals. "An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership." Rubiscous (talk) 04:20, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Morris (comedian)

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

A comedian. Has a podcast on iTunes and made some radio appearances. I'm unable to find any reliable information on him. The Prod was contested with, "This person is noteable and the sources are correct, there is not much information about this person". Bgwhite (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the page to include further reliable sources on Aaron Morris, most from his official website. The information on the article is correct, yet as a stub it has room for improvement, I think it should not be deleted but improved over time. 109.156.23.3 (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given that there is not much information about him currently available from reliable sources. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "there is not much information about this person" is a good candidate for understatement of the year. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is well known comedian in the south of England and there are comedians with less notability included in wikipedia 86.147.121.244 (talk) 11:53, 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. Renaming can be considered as part of normal editing and development. JohnCD (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser Known British Comic Strips

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

This article appears to embody the very antithesis of WP's notability requirements in that it actively seeks to list comic strips that are lesser known. This is besides the fact that it is a list and should be named as such. Rubiscous (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to List of British comic strips. At least one of those in the list is notable Tim, Toots & Teeny Spotlight on Sally gets a few hits also[19] Darkness Shines (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently OR. If you're going to make a list of British comic strips, start with the ones that already have articles, not this mass of non-notable examples. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia should be a collection of fact without the qualification of how important they are. The strip cartoons in this entry, although relatively lesser known today, were highly popular in their time and individually lasted for decades. Rather than have a group of stubs it is, in my opinion, better to collect them in a single article. The importance factor will be different for different individuals. How can any person or group take the right for deletion of an item that was highly accepted in its time. This becomes sencorship. The entry could, however, be combined with another relavant entry, but never deleted!

DonJay (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that "lesser known" is highly subjective. What constitutes "lesser known"? There's no way you can objectively define that term, putting it in direct violation of WP:NPOV. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If the cartoons in this list were highly popular and notable in their time, then considering that notability is not temporary it is inappropriate to describe them collectively as 'lesser known'. The notability in its own right of each individual strip in the list is not in dispute right here and now, just whether the article should exist as a whole. You are correct about things being different for different individuals - the degree of how 'known' a comic strip was is completely arbitrary. Unless a notable list of 'lesser known british comic strips' exists off-project in a reliable source, or we have reliable sources for each individual strip describing each one as 'lesser known' then putting together a list in this manner is original research. To cut down on stubs by collecting together a list is fine, the above suggestion by Darkness Shines of List of British comic strips, or by publication for example List of Daily Mail comic strips would be more acceptable alternatives because the criteria for inclusion in such lists would not be subjective. Note that such lists would have to include all the more notable strips that fit the criteria which have their own articles, and that these strips should be given appropriate prominence, thus the current article would make a poor starting point compared with simply starting another list from scratch. Rubiscous (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is for deletion, not modification. Consequently it should be rejected. The original entry was not a true list, but rather a collection of stubs, which it was hoped could be enlarged. A better title might have been "British Strip Cartoons of the Early 20th Century". It was my hope that, when each item had been enlarged, that a separate entry could be made, By collecting the stubs together it would be more obvious that additions to them was needed. There has been several edits of this nature. My objection has not been because of change, but rather of deletion due to the use of "Lesser Known" in the title. DonJay (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason as to why "British Strip Cartoons of the Early 20th Century" would not also be completely arbitrary? Was there a notable change in the nature of British comic strips circa 1950? Whilst Wikipedia is a work in progress, each article should stand on its own merits, not by what other articles it might encourage to spawn. Your intentions are noble but such project-work is best confined to the project-space. Consider getting involved with WP:WikiProject_Comics, in particular WP:WikiProject Comics/British comics work group. Rubiscous (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Lesser known" anything is problematic. If something is both notable and verifiable enough for a general-interest encyclopedia, in would generally not be "lesser-known" by definition. Looking at the article, I'd say neither of the first two entries are "lesser known": the first ran for 23 years and the second (apparently) almost 30. A better approach to the same material might be a (non-list) article on 20th century British newspaper comics or similar, but since fixing it would require a total rewrite up to and including the title, my vote is to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of items in an encyclopedia are "lesser known" (in fact, unknown) to an individual. That is why they are there, to become "better known". Deletion is to destroy this possibility of becoming known. Unless the information is preserved within the encyclopedia, the information is likely to be lost. Consequently a deletion should not occur unless the content is elsewhere.

One reason that a collection of stub articles is attractive, is that a peson with knowledge on a subject can easily see where information is sparse, and can possibly add to it. This cannot be done with descrete entries, as it would be necessary to refer to a list and examine each independantly. DonJay (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the material in this article is interesting, and I have no reason to believe it isn't true, but I agree that as it is it fails WP:OR (containing no sources) and WP:IINFO. 'Lesser known British comic strips' is simply never going to work as a topic of an article. However, a List of British comic strips, or an article on the History of British comic strips, would be acceptable, providing that they were properly sourced.

Robofish (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons given by Robofishtalk are not relevant . Sources (WP-OR) are given within the text as being the newspapers. These are available in many public libraries. WP-INFO does not apply as the entries are not indiscriminate, by any of the categories given in WP-INFO. In fact they are part of a set. Also the statement "never going to work as a topic of an article" can not be proven, and is unlikely to be true.

The opening sentence of WP-INFO is "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia" . The definition of Encyclopedia (OXFORD) is "a work containing general information on all branches of knowledge". Rejection of this 'request for deletion' should be made. DonJay (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reanem, per DarknessShines. This is a good example of just where a list article can be useful. We don't have to show formal WP:Notability for each and every entry here, and it can defuse much of the trouble over just such an argument. Besides which, several of these are almost certainly notable anyway: Varoomshka was the infamous "Tits in the Grauniad" strip, Lord God Almighty was an early work by Steve Bell and both Sporting Sam and (the utterly ghastly) The Larks are noteworthy on the basis of their long-running.

If anyone is itching to delete British comic strips, then I suggest starting at the mess that is Category:Beano strips, where any number of unreferenced one-para and entirely trivial articles refuse to die, despite regular attempts. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That something is lesser known does not make it unimportant, or even non-notable. WP should have appropriate coverage for subjects depending on their importance and the extent of sourcing available, and in many cases this will be less than a full article, if if the notability guidelines permit an article to be written, they do not require that there should be a separate article in all cases--we have the flexibility to do what is suitable to the specific topics. And if these are regarded as non-notable, the guidelines are all very specific that notable does not apply to the content within an article--logically , how could it, because then every event in a person;s life would need to be separately notable if it were to be mentioned at all. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I've added two more sources to the article. It's a list article with a focused, discriminate criterion for its entries. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User:DonJay started this article in July of 2007. After a comparison, one will find that all of his original contribution still exists within the article, with others having added bits and pieces over the years. His original comment was "Created page with 'A number of comic strips in British newspaper ran for many years, but little information is still available on them", which leaves me to question any kind of move as it would defeat the purpose of the page's original creation. We understand User:DonJay, you started the article, and while you have mentioned in this afd that "The original entry was not a true list, but rather a collection of stubs, which it was hoped could be enlarged".. What have you personally done with the article since its original creation in 2007 to ensure this was indeed the outcome? Telling other users like Robofish that their opinion is "not relevant", is hardly productive, and is actually frowned upon by administrators that close AFD's. Instead of fighting with others here as to whether or not their opinion is valid, why not make improvements to the article itself while this discussion is taking place such as Northamerica1000 has done? You've been a contributor for a long time, you should know how this process works by now. SaveATreeEatAVegan 03:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. Lesser known does not mean not notable. Cavarrone (talk) 08:53, 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 keep. Wifione ^Message 05:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of power outages

AfDs for this article:

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

If the article has to have a "To be included, it must meet this crtieria" in the lead, then something's wrong. No matter what cutoff you institute, it will always be arbitrary. And if there's no objective limit, then there's no point in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I sympathize with the nominator's take on this, with two dozen editors making five or more edits to the page and nearly 100 footnotes showing, the deletion cow has already left the barn. It's best to roll one's eyes and move along, I think... This list has established criteria, is logically constructed, is properly footnoted for the most part, and provides not only an in-link function but also serves as a good merge target for future "Blackout News" stories that spring up. Better in one place than in fifty, eh? I don't see any good point in blowing this one up the way it sits. Carrite (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists ought to have criteria, and this one's seem reasonable to to me but could be changed through consensus. It is reasonable to assume that people may want to study the history of serious power outages, and this well-referenced list would be a useful and encyclopedic tool for such research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that having a criteria is good. Lots of info there, and reasonably good subject. North8000 (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable power outages will get their own articles because of the massive amounts of independant, reliable, significant coverage; this will attract editors to write brilliant prose. We don't need this list. We may want an "Index to articles about notable power outages" some day. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see what you think is wrong with a list having criteria for inclusion. We even have an entry on selection criteria for lists in the Manual of Style and it specifically suggests inclusion criteria be included in the in the lead section of a list article. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but... I'd say this is a reasonable enough article topic, but it would be much better keeping it to outages with their own articles or at the very least related events with their own articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup I can see your point on why you think this article fails notability, but if you think about it, it's not that bad of a subject, ~~however, the entire article is in list form, this is not of an encyclopedia, which is more formal in prose.~~ Also, there are like 50+ in there. ~~A complete rewrite may sound ominous, but I think its required for this article to meet its requirements.~~ --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widespread, unplanned, and prolonged power outages have serious effects on societies, and can lead to restructuring of power companies or legislation, not to mention economic consequences comparable to natural disasters. That said, someone will have to keep out the addition of every piddly outage which gets some newspaper space. It is reasonable to have screening criteria such as prefaces the list, but I'm not sure the "customer hours" get widely reported, rather than being internally kept data belonging to utilities. "At least 1000 people for one hour" sounds too small. "At least 1,000,000 customer hours" sounds more reasonable, if the editors can get that data rather than estimating it in original research. Some industry defined standard for a "major outage" would be more encyclopedic .Edison (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the outage had a significant effect, it will have significant sources. But "hey, were the lights out last night at your place, too?" is not signficant. The General Notability Guideline is our touchstone and prevents us from compiling trivial lists. If the Springfield Times is the only place reporting on the outage in Springfield, it's not terribly notable...if the London Times reports the outage in Springfield, it's notable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still think you're missing the point here. No matter what cutoff we use, it'll always be an arbitrary one. Who's to say that a power outage that affects X people is relevant when one that affects Y people isn't? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - No, that's exactly the point; GNG trumps arbitrary cutoffs every time. If Obama couldn't recall the missiles because he got stuck in a White House elevator due to a power failure, that would ptentially change history and get written up in multiple sources (assuming the Wikipedia was still accessible after such an event). But Toronto plunged into darkness for a couple of hours is just a momentary inconvenience. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see a cutoff as a screen to keep OUT articles about outages which made the newspapers for one news cycle, and which were judged "newsworthy" by news editors, but which are simply not of encyclopedic importance. Another approach to achieve this would be to require national or international coverage for more than one news cycle. Edison (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Arbitrary cutoffs are not uncommon in article content. For example, we have List of centenarians but not List of nonagenarians. There is a list of NFL quarterbacks who have passed for 400 or more yards in a game but a similar list for 300 yards was deleted. And the List of top 300 MLB home run hitters was recently arbitrarily trimmed from the top 500. I think the key is that we keep the general notability guideline in mind and establish a cutoff which basically says, "if you meet this cutoff, then you would probably meet the GNG, but language or timing may make it difficult to find the references, so in the interest of having a global and non-current perspective and avoiding endless discussion about inclusion of each item, such references (beyond those needed to establish the facts, of course) would not be needed to prove notability." Ma^t_chups 15:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says "Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid." It seems to me that there is some validity to the comparison that Matchups made to that other stuff. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not seeing how "other articles use totally arbitrary-ass cutoffs, so this one gets carte blanche" is a valid argument. Maybe, I dunno, the other articles are in the wrong too? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it's clear the point of both Matchups and Cullen328 is that your argument 'it has an arbitary cutoff and therefore has to be deleted' is invalid, unless you can make an argument that all articles with an arbitary cutoff should be deleted, which is rather unlikely. (Realisticly, if you tried to delete all the articles listed you'd likely find yourself at WP:ANI and I suspect that's one of the reasons why you haven't nominated them all for deletion, so just saying they're in the wrong is a bit pointless.) This doesn't mean this article should be preserved, but without a valid argument for deletion, there's no reason to delete it either so we would default to keep. Nil Einne (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A well-referenced list article with a concise, discriminate focus. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added to new Further reading section in the article: *Hordeski, Michael F. (2005). "Emergency and backup power sources: preparing for blackouts and brownouts". Fairmont Press. Retrieved February 04, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) ISBN 0881734853 Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica et al. Hammer, I have to disagree that the inclusion criteria are random. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment It's not a vote, we don't decide by counting hands waved in the air. Does anyone have a basis for the arbitrary 1000 people and 1,000,000 people-hours as being in some way a notable outage? Nice, round, completely thin-air numbers. Guaranteed the North American economy blew more than 1,000,000 people-hours on the Superbowl half-time show and the economy seems to have survived. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:53, 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 delete. v/r - T P 01:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel (Kazakhstan)

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

Again, there's no info about that channel. jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 01:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. Inherited notability does not count. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added the information for this to the international page. My use of {{main}} is for temporary purposes. 72.137.97.65 (talk) 02:26, 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 speedy delete, hoax. Something in the state of being far more than beautiful, amazing, or god-like. This state of appearance may only be achieved by young women. I also suspect that it is someone's private joke and based on a person's name. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aulatasticing

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

Contested prod. Dictionary definition. Protologism that someone wants to introduce in the English language out of his own poetic muse, but there is simply no evidence that its usage is already widespread enough. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and warn. The sole Google hit on this word is the article. Clearly made up. Rubiscous (talk) 02:36, 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. I'm impressed by Quickbeam's commentary :) Irrespective, it's a delete here Wifione ^Message 05:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Miliband

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

Notability is not inherited Darkness Shines (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case why do we have articles on Obama's mother-in-law, step-father and pet dog? Quickbeam44 (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We really have an article on Obama's dog? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Quickbeam44 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton's cat too StarM 00:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is just, sad. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lest anyone think we're partisan, Barney (dog). StarM 03:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:POINT, nominate any articles if you felt it should be deleted. ●Mehran ^Debate● 09:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't trying to make a point. I've had nothing to do with any of those, or this one. Just answering Darkness' question about whether we had such an article StarM 14:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her husband's article. StarM 00:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Ralph Miliband. Newspapers write about presidential pets, not so much about reclusive Holocaust survivors. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I even opposed to redirecting. It fails WP:BIO. ●Mehran ^Debate● 09:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The usual exceptions are for spouses of heads of state, but otherwise only for famous people who can be proven to have had a significant influence discussed in reliable sources. This may be the case, but I don't see it. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet our notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:28, 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.

^ [20]

[1] [20]

[1]