Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 November	30 November >

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 redirect to Elis (band)#Discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Clouds in a Perfect Sky

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for albums. Neelix (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMG#Recordings. Morefoolhim 20:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Allmusic has a placeholder entry for the album, but no review. I couldn't find much else, other than some user reviews at metal-archives.com, to show that the notability requirements are met. Fails WP:NALBUMS. — sparklism ^hey! 08:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coren ^(talk) 00:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability per WP:NALBUMS. - Mr X 02:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or redirect to Elis (band) Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elis_(band)#Studio_albums - An English Google News search provided several results but nothing sufficient for Wikipedia. Nearly all of the results are minor mentions aside from this Portuguese link that briefly talks about the album. Unfortunately, I wouldn't have the capacity to search for German sources but, from an English perspective, it seems this album isn't notable, but hey, not all albums receive significant attention or are notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band article. This is a plausible search term and should redirect appropriately. --Michig (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per SwisterTwister. Apparent non-notable album; plausible search term with a reasonable target section within the band's main article. Gongshow ^Talk 20:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Even without the clear consensus to delete, this article is an OR nightmare at best, and a partisan screed at worse. — Coren ^(talk) 00:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Influence on the 2012 Presidential Election

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

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

Keep and cleanup If the topic may warrant an article and your only concern is that it includes opinionated material and synthesis, then why didn't you just tag it as such? Remember, AfD is not for cleanup and that there is no deadline. While I understand these are both essays and not firm policy, I think they are both solid principles. Therefore, though the article is an absolute mess, this has the potential to be a readable article, so I would !vote to keep and cleanup. Go Phightins! 20:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind. This article is worse than I thought. I would almost lean toward tagging this for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax. Go Phightins! 21:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw this unsourced opinion piece earlier on and watchlisted it, not really knowing what to do with it. No sources, and even the title is wrong (the election? Y,ere must have been multiple presidential elections in 2012, France, for example). Paranoid navel-staring essay. Does not meet any notability guideline that I am aware of. --Randykitty (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty much random thoughts and minor incidents and statements. Secondary sources have not said that people outside of the USA had much influence at all on the election. Some of the examples probably had the opposite effect intended, for instance Hugo Chavez's "endorsement" of Obama. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I'd normally agree with Go_Phitins! view, if you stripped away the OR, SYNTH and COATRACK, there'd be nothing left. --Dweller (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's pretty much why I struck it. There'd literally be a few thes, ands, and buts, but not much else. Go Phightins! 22:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a WP:HOAX if anything --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup, rename Foreign money in United States elections. I deleted all of other speculations, but this one seems to be valid legal topic . Staszek Lem (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to DreamWorks#Distribution. Already done for a week without further comment, no need for another seven days. Non-admin closure. Nate • (chatter) 01:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Smith Entertainment

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

Revert to DreamWorks: It's a new company, and the only notable thing they've done so far is being the foreign sales agent for Spielberg's DreamWorks. Regardless, that isn't notable enough for a separate article. Besides, you can see the same information on the DreamWorks page anyway, so it isn't a big loss. Freshh (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I might as well redirect the Mister Smith article to the DreamWorks article. TheWikiMan95 (talk) Mario Saenz 21:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Uncle G makes a strong argument that the subject is notable. I also hope Uncle G uses his clearly very good library to improve the article. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 00:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting correctly

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

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

Not sure how relevant this page is but I suppose we could redirect this to Low information voter. Looking for constructive community feedback (not just votes). Vcessayist (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really just the obvious dictionary definition of two words, so against WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Not too different from "driving correctly", "adding correctly", "dialing a phone number correctly", etc. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might merit a mention on a page on psephology, voting or similar (and/or a redirect), but hard to see it meriting its own article: there's no shortage of uses of the term, but is it really a distinct concept or just the product of its terms? --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator, Wikipedia is not about something you thought up one day --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Low information voter per Vcessayist and WP:CHEAP, and then protect the page. It will not harm the Project to have a redirect, but it will be harmful to have what looks like it could be a voting guide for a Moron in a hurry. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, as above -silly Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and consider salting per Bearian. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to Colapeninsula's question is "Yes.". It is a distinct concept that has been discussed in political science literature (such as Boudreau & Lupia 2011, p. 179 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBoudreauLupia2011 (help)) for over a decade now. This is a stub that barely even explains the concept — as can be seen by the several people above who, not knowing or having researched the subject themselves (or even having read the citation in the article), make such wholesale errors as Sue Rangell erroneously thinking that it was made up by the article's creator and Steve Dufour erroneously thinking that it's a combination of two words.
In fact, it was made up in 1997 by Richard R. Lau, who is now Professor of political science at Rutgers University, and David P. Redlawsk, who was a professor of political science at Iowa and who now is also at Rutgers. It was published (Lau & Redlawsk 1997) in The American Political Science Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal, and has been discussed in the literature many times in the years since. A full article would, for example, include (University of Arizona) ethics professor Jason F. Brennan's taking Lau's and Redlawsk's definition to task on ethical grounds (Brennan 2012, pp. 166–167) or the analysis by (University of Amsterdam) politics professor Catherine E. de Vries's and (University of Twente) political science professor Martin Rosema's application of Lau's and Redlawsk's experimental model to real election data from the European Union (de Vries & Rosema 2011), amongst other things. I don't know what Vcessayist's search was, but my search turned up university press book after university press book referencing and discussing Lau's and Redlawsk's notion. I didn't even need to check the academic journals at all.
Let's not delete an article on a valid subject in political science because Wikipedia editors didn't do their research and reading at AFD.
- Lau, Richard R.; Redlawsk, David P. (September 1997). "Voting Correctly". The American Political Science Review. 91 (3): 585–598. doi:10.2307/2952076. JSTOR 2952076.
- Brennan, Jason F. (2012). "How Well do Voters Behave?". The Ethics of Voting. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691154442.
- de Vries, Catherine E.; Rosema, Martin (2011). "Assessing the Quality of European Democracy: Are Voters Voting Correctly?". In Rosema, Martin; Denters, Bas; Aarts, Kees (eds.). How Democracy Works: Political Representation and Policy Congruence in Modern Societies : Essays in Honour of Jacques Thomassen. Amsterdam University Press. ISBN 9789085550365.
- Boudreau, Cheryl; Lupia, Arthur (2011). "Political Knowledge". In Druckman, James N.; Green, Donald P.; Kuklinski, James H.; et al. (eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521192125.
Uncle G (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coren ^(talk) 00:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Snell

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

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

Delete unless additional significant sources can be found. The magazine interview may or may not get us halfway to WP:GNG, but I don't see the second half being covered by any of the remaining sources. I did make some attempts (some failed) at retrieval of the deadlink references via Highbeam and via the Wayback Machine with little success. My own searches didn't come up with much, with this perhaps being the next-longest reference to Snell. Additional sources welcomed, as always. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the guy who nominated it for speedy deletion. Very heavily promotional and seemingly unnotable as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Tokyogirl, not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He isn't notable. Stowonthewolder (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, as above Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

International Youth Fellowship

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

Organization does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. There are two pieces of news coverage that I'm aware of: [1], and [2]. While this technically meets WP:GNG, I still don't think it really indicates notability. The first article is about one specific event in India, and it's published in the city section of TOI. The second covers a trivial "controversy" involving a couple of event attendees. As such, I don't think this organization is notable enough for inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A search for "International Youth Fellowship" and a couple follow-up clicks brings one to material such as THIS PIECE from the New York Times about International Youth Fellowship/Good News Corps. Based upon this, I would suggest a name change to Good News Corps. Here's a blog post on "THE GOOD NEWS CULT", which doesn't count towards notability but should be of help in digging up additional published material on this New Religious Movement. THIS BLOG POST, which does not count towards notability, alludes to published coverage on the IYF in The Daily Pennsylvanian, which does. Although not showing sufficient sourcing in the piece, this is pretty obviously a group which is the subject of multiple instances of independently-published coverage in the mainstream press. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I now see the nominator has already provided the NYT link. One would think this would have deterred the initial nomination. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there is probably massive amounts of sourcing in Korean. Someone capable should investigate that. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was aware of the NYT post. And, having read it, we can't use it in the article, because doing so would violate WP:UNDUE. The article is a one-off complaint by 2 people who claim that they didn't know the group is religious before going to one of their camps. No corroborating evidence was provided, no investigation was begun, and the group itself denied it. We cannot include negative information about a group based upon the passing claims of two people. Had the article been an in-depth analysis of the group, or showing some sort of overall trend, it would indicate notability, but as written it does not. It seems odd to hang notability on a source that WP:NPOV says we can't use. However, on the Korean sources issue, you could be right--if someone can find said sources and provide trustworthy partial translations, we could consider keeping the article. Care would be needed to ensure the sources meet WP:RS, since it can be a little tricky (in my experience) with Korean sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 01:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 17:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per nominator's own sources. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is coverage of them from reliable sources but it isn't significant. Morefoolhim 20:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep They are just about notable. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the deletion nomination. --Elongated shorty (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Prince Philipp of Hesse (b. 1970)

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

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

Delete The House of Hesse now seems rather obscure since Hesse was annexed by Prussia in 1866 and Germany became a republic in 1918, this person is only a second son of the current head of the house and so seems unlikely ever to become the head. PatGallacher (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One source refers him as (potential) claimant to the Finnish throne. That means he is already head (of the Finnish royal house). But I can't judge the source is reliable or not. If it is reliable -> Keep, it is not reliable -> Delete. Genealogiajapan (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The source, I say, is Article about the House of Hesse and the throne of Finland Helsingin Sanomat (in Finnish). Genealogiajapan (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment I think you're true. This article didn't describe why he(Prince Phillip) is a claimant. But family tree of the source(Page 4) seems to treat him as claimant VAINO IV. I don't know why. Genealogiajapan (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Election of his ancestor less than 100 years ago to become King of Finland is covered in the relevant Wikipedia articles as a noteworthy event. Article cited above provides coverage of descendant's connection to/prospects for that throne. Additional references to him are made in such reputable Burke's Guide to the Royal Family, Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Le Petit Gotha, Queen Victoria's Descendants and other reputable on royalty. As a photographer who's been published in Vanity Fair, there's potential for discovering more noteworthy coverage. FactStraight (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the comments by FactStraight and additional references. The members of the German, and other deposed houses are still notable for instance his wedding was reported on.[3] - dwc lr (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So basically you're both saying this persons most significant achievement was being born? As it stands now there certainly isn't anything like significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that is required to meet the notability guidelines. Rotten regard 23:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a legit noble. Theres plenty of secondary sourcing. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite a bit about his Nazi grandfather but I could find hardly anything about him, so therefore not notable. Stowonthewolder (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He isn't notable according to the WP:GNG. Morefoolhim 21:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Legit nobility - and yes, their claims to an article may come down to them just being born! Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite being nobility he doesn't seem notable. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tricky one, on the surface I thought notable but after digging a bit I found very little to show notability. Bruddersohn (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's not notable. --Elongated shorty (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that Savannah Phillips, a great-granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth II of the UK, redirects to her father Peter. So if even the great-grandchildren of the best known reigning monarch at the moment are not regarded as inherently notable (they may be notable for additional reasons e.g. being high up the line of succession) then I question whether we should regard very minor royal figures like this person as notable. PatGallacher (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence has been provided of the subject passing the general notability guideline, and I can see no reason why a "royal" without any past, present or future constitutional role should be considered an exception to that guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Razzle Bam Boom

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

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

Delete Per nominator, not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find adequate sources. Stowonthewolder (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, as above Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom rationale. Bruddersohn (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable organization. Mostly, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as no secondary or third-party sources discussing the organization exist. — Ṟ Ṉ™

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ADAPA

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

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

Delete It looks like this article was tagged for speedy deletion, which was rejected as not blatantly promotional. In my opinion, this article still reads like an advertising whitepaper. The main contributor to this article, Sunsetsky, has almost exclusively only contributed to this article and the closely related PMML article; there are possible WP:COI issues here. But the main problem is lack of independent reliable sources for ADAPA. I could not find any independent sources in Google books, Google scholar, or a general Google search. While I consider the peer-reviewed publication references in the article to be reliable, with the single except noted above, I could not call them independent. If independent sources are found, I would change my recommendation to keep and improve the article. Mark viking (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator, not notable. This is a puff piece that should have been speedy deleted. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and promotional. Stowonthewolder (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo spam. Bruddersohn (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Mark viking. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Lovesick (album)

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

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

I put up a speedy delete tag since the author blanked the page. -24.101.193.186 (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to AFL Darling Downs. SarahStierch (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coolaroo Football Club

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

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

Merge & redirect to AFL Darling Downs. --Shorthate (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage in independent sources. WP:ORGDEPTH. --Ben Ben (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This club is not notable per guidelines. Morefoolhim 21:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AFL Darling Downs as it's a plausible search term, but the excessive lists of past award winners are almost certainly not recorded in any independent reliable source, so we shouldn't be being used as a webhost. The-Pope (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, as above Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AFL Darling Downs, a useful redirect. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Prince Otto Heinrich of Hanover

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

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

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

Keep - Bunte published a piece on him earlier this year, the younger generation of the House of Hanover are becoming more public and Prince Otto has been accompanying his cousin to events recently that get reported on.[4][5] Not sure what relevance Hanover being annexed in 1866 has but the Duchy of Brunswick which his family ruled "only" ceased to exist in 1918. - dwc lr (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The minor coverage is mostly fluffery and in no way the significant coverage required to meet the general notability guidelines. Rotten regard 17:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per dwc lr's comments above. In addition, he became the object of considerable interest when his parents died unexpectedly on the same day during his infancy, and there was coverage of his needs, prospects and surviving family during the bitter, public custody battle which ensued over him between his maternal grandparents, who won, and his paternal uncle, Prince Ernst August of Hanover in light of his father's desperate final plea to the latter to provide care for the about-to-be-orphaned child. Periodic coverage of his subsequent fate can reasonably be expected, so the potential for article expansion is substantial. FactStraight (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do add all these additional sources to the article, I look forward to reading them. Rotten regard 23:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A legitimate Prince. Adequite secondary sources. Bunte is like Time Magazine in the USA. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find much about him, not sure if his title is even legally recognized. Overall doesn't meet the WP:BIO guideline. Stowonthewolder (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per dwc, Fact, Sue; he is "a real Prince." Royalty are almost always notable; see WP:OUTCOMES. See also User:Bearian/Standards#Consorts_of_nobility. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references as they are do not indicate notability, they are either about the death of his parents or brief mentions about his lineage. Morefoolhim 21:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple notable sources discussing him, and legitimate nobility Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, references that exist mostly don't appear to be about him, those that are, just give brief mentions and pretty insignificant. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not up to the WP:GNG standards. Bruddersohn (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't say he's notable, just another one of Europe's aristocratic nonentities. --Elongated shorty (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dale J. Stephens

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

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

KEEP to summarize the statements below, Dale J. Stephens more than meets the criteria for notability. There are sources from Inc. Magazine, CNN, The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, ABC, and New York Magazine. Godfatherscookies (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This section includes the discussion from WP:PROD

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

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

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

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

We did consider that, but the sources had no further insight into his notability other than a self-appointed expert. The number of sources (and quality) still, in this case, don't justify encyclopedic record—at least not until he's accomplished something "notable," which the discussion failed to show. Again, this seems to be rehashing what was actually in the article and not discussion of the article itself; these arguments were made and addressed in the Talk page so until something changes, it doesn't belong. I'm actually actively looking for someone who knows him (and I know people) to try to see if there's something to be revived here, but no luck thus far. Steuben (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW RESTORE, KEEP, AND CLOSE Subject easily meets WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Putting this article up for deletion walks a tightrope in assuming good faith, in my opinion, but nominator has already agreed to keep the article. I don't understand this AfD at all, it should never have happened. The sourcing is overwhelming. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was various debate—some old, some new—in the Talk page and quite a bit of editing about the relevance of Stephens, the legitimacy of the coverage, and quite a bit of messy edits. This AfD was instituted so people could either air their grievances coherently and timely, or put the issue to rest for now. Of course, it doesn't preclude another AfD from appearing in the future if the article stands (which, unless the critics appear in force here, now, it probably will stand). Steuben (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tweetware

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

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

Delete Non-notable neologism. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to only have been used for MockApp, which doesn't seem to be notable either. Not widely used, not widely discussed, not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator, not notable, and Wikipedia is not the urban dictionary --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Isn't notable. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nantucket#Education. SarahStierch (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nantucket Lighthouse School

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

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

Redirect to Nantucket#Education. Doesn't meet notability requirements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per above. I've vacationed in Nantucket half a dozen times, most recently August 2012, and never heard of it. It is not even on the NRTA map. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Bruddersohn (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this school is not notable. --Elongated shorty (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nantucket#Education.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Murphy

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

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

Redirect to Operation Overdrive Power Rangers or Power Rangers Operation Overdrive which mention her role (I'm not sure if they should be merged). Not a notable actor. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator, not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's not a notable actor. Morefoolhim 19:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not meet the actor notability guidelines. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Muhammad

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 14:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thanks but they are both insufficient to support the entire article. I think another problem here is that she hasn't been very active to gain much attention. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails to meet the correspondent guidelines of notability for musicians. For what I can see, he has no notable album releases, nor singles. And anything he may have made have charted anywhere, which are notability requirements. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Hermon Christian School

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

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

Delete - Although the article indicates that the school covers classes through 12th grade, for which longstanding consensus indicates a Keep should result, THIS states that the school covers Pre-Kindergarten through 8th grade. Consensus is for redirection of all but the most exceptionally noteworthy elementary schools to their school district or town and failing that to delete. I see no redirect targets here. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The schools own site [6] says they currently have K5 to 6th grade. Also, their "national championship" in flag football is for a small independant association of private Christian schools. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per info on school website --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when the school is giving conflicting information about themselves in their own website and online, it clearly has issues with WP:V. Secret ^account 06:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Fort Myers, Florida#Education. I can't find non-trivial reliable source coverage or evidence Mt. Hermon was ever a secondary school. According to ed.gov, Mt. Hermon is a PreK–6 school with 22 students. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- clearly NN. I would discourage redirecting as it is too easy to revert to a substantive article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - according to its own website, it is a very small middle school. Also fails my guidelines. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very small school. Fails notability. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Page blanked - G7 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hark Lung Mun

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nyrthos (the game)

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

Unremarkable RPG, currently in development which implies that it violates WP:CRYSTAL. Unsourced except for the given link to the game's site. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 13:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, no references. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator, not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn't notable. Stowonthewolder (talk) 01:53, 1 December 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) 15:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Comment~~: The game has been receiving news coverage in reliable sources over the past year as it is apparently in closed beta. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and videogame-wikify. The coverage on Rock, Paper, Shotgun, as well as these from Game Insider [13], Gamers Only [14], Gameranx [15], and even Gamasutra [16] are way enough to showcase the notability of the title. Also, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply for games that are currently in development, but for those who are not yet in development. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The GamaSutra article is a press release, the Gameranx and Gamers Only do not appear reliable, but the Game Insider article does appear reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases count as reliable if published by Gamasutra :) The other two, I have my doubts, but they count for the coverage thing... — Ṟ Ṉ™ 18:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another one from The Indie Games Magazine' [17][18]. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 23:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources Odie5533 provided show notability for the article and with those sources it meets the general notability guideline. - Sudo Ghost 10:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now meets WP:Notability (video games). —Theo polisme 22:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Willie Rivera

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply having had a notability tag on the article is not a reason for deletion. Have you checked whether the subject is actually non-notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but after five years it might be an indication. Non-notability can't really be proved, only disproved. I did a search on him, and didn't find anything in particular, hence the nomination. Bjelleklang - talk 16:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)#[reply]
  - That is what you should have written in your nomination. If you've searched for sources, say so. Uncle G (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. In addition to the source already present, these two are the best I could find in terms of coverage, but it isn't too significant, and both articles from El Comercio are more focused on Aníbal López instead. There's also a series of passing mentions [19] [20] [21] [22]; they're not exactly trivial, but still fall short of what we need. Going for a weak !vote because while notability is not clear, the links do show that the subject is a somewhat recognized salsa singer in Peru, so no prejudice to revisit this if better sourcing becomes available — Frankie (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 12:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are some sources. Plus I am not happy with how this was nominated in the first place per Uncle G and Phil Bridger --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage from reliable sources. Morefoolhim 19:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Much as I am consternated by the result going against the (presumptive) wishes of the family, I agree that BDP does not stretch far enough to cover this article. That said, and while I am closing this discussion as no consensus, I would nevertheless recommend that the content here be merged with the disaster's article with a redirect to the appropriate section. There is no policy that compels us to do so, but it seems to be that common decency and compassion should encourage it. — Coren ^(talk) 17:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Boots

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

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

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

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

Merge to 1996 Mount Everest disaster#Indo-Tibetan Border Police. There are a few bits of information not included in the latter article. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amending my !vote, see below. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per DoctorKubla. I agree with nom, given WP:BDP and the rather particular image, this article is a bit much really. On the other hand, if the material is still going to be in 1996 Mount Everest disaster I'm not sure that's a lot better for the family: what's the position with the image? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote per my comments here and the ticket details below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG with multiple independent reliable sources discussing the subject, most recently a day ago by the Smithsonian. The corpse is so well known that the nearby cave is named Green Boots' Cave. Attempts to recover the body have further cemented notability.

A merge to 1996 Mount Everest disaster is not recommended because it is not certain that Green Boots belonged to that expedition. As the article states, while the body is presumed to belong to Tsewang Paljor, it is by no means definitely him. WP:BLP1E is inapplicable here because the subject is not a living person. Similarly, it's a stretch to apply WP:BDP, as it is meant for recent deaths and suicides and is reserved for material that is contentious or questionable or for individuals who may still be alive. Paljor died over 15 years ago and applying WP:BDP here would be an overly broad interpretation, tantamount to censorship. Perhaps concerns over implications for any potential living relatives can be addressed through editing the article instead of outright deletion. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 20:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability beyond question in my opinion. Many people with an interest in Everest climbing history would have heard of Green Boots. The well known incident of David Sharp involves Green Boots Cave. Oppose merge per Gobonobo's comment and add that even if the body is determined to be that of Tsewang Paljor, the other members of the Indo-Tibetian Border Police expedition have their own articles. Paljor would be at least as notable as those individuals, though admittedly this is an 'other stuff exists' argument on my part. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 23:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have also listed the photograph of the corpse at FFD. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But I do wish there was a larger article to merge this with, there's over 200 more bodies up there and some probably more notable. Cowicide (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: no opinion about keep or delete, but if this is kept, I'll strongly advocate moving back to the proper name Tsewang Paljor. This article is about a person, not about a corpse. "Green Boots" may be common, but is still nothing more than an informal and irreverent nickname for what are, after all, a real human being's mortal remains. We don't write about human remains as if they were mere objects. If this guy deserves an article, he deserves an article as a person, not as a piece of ice that serves as a macabre "landmark" among climbers. The page was recently moved to the present title on grounds of "common name", but that doesn't apply to human beings in this way – a human being has a right to be treated under their real name. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I disagree with you since I moved the article. :) But beyond that, I don't think WP:V allows us to move it to that name when the source naming him says he is "presumably Tsewang Paljor". It doesn't seem to accord with WP:V to assert positively that he is this person when he hasn't been positively identified. Beyond that, the living people in this case would prefer to draw less attention to him, not more. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One other factor in terms of the naming. While it's my preference that the article simply be deleted (I still haven't seen two sources that offer more than 2-3 sentences of coverage to the person, and I feel that BDP has some weight here), or, in lieu of that, at least the photograph removed, there is an additional problem, in my view, with including a photograph of a corpse on an article named "Green Boots". See the Wikimedia resolution supporting the principle of least astonishment. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I noted on the OTRS ticket, I have some doubts about its deletion under WP:N (due to the icon), but I'm sensitive to the way his family must feel. :( The changes I made to the article were done certainly with that in mind. Sorry for not noticing that the image was non-free; it didn't even occur to me it might be. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep This article is important and improves wikipedia. The image doesn't show much more than a boot, it's not as if the corpse image was phantasmagoric. The article is very informational and interesting. I also agree with Cowicide's thoughts. There should actually be more articles, or a larger article covering these bodies. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Can someone explain to me how the BLP (or BDP) aspect has a bearing on this AfD? The BLP policy doesn't mandate the deletion of relevant, well-sourced material, except in cases of marginal notability, upon the subject's request. So if it was Paljor's family that requested this article's deletion, that needs to be clarified. If not, then BLP concerns aren't really relevant. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer Fair question. As Moonriddengirl has previously noted the existence of an OTRS ticket, and given the original request, I feel comfortable saying that I responded to said ticket from a family member of the subject of the article there, and that deletion was requested. I apologize for the nomination obfuscation, but in general, OTRS agents are required to maintain privacy for those whose tickets they're working, this creates somewhat awkward conflicts at times. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. In that case, I'll !vote delete, out of respect for the family. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (striking old !vote above), I agree with that. the family's wishes (that I suspected must be behind this) above are paramount. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure why his family should be able to get his Wikipedia page deleted? Could someone explain? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that "they can get..." as that living people who through no fault of their own find themselves with an unwanted and upsetting article here can politely request its removal, and we consider it on its merits. Still more tricky is the WP:BDP case, as here, where family make such a request. It behoves us to consider it sympathetically. If it was the president we'd likely refuse as it'd be in the public interest. If it's you, me or John Doe I hope we'd agree. That's my understanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not trying to be insensitive, but if the subject is notable, I think there should be an article. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No implication. Just to be aware that whereas 99% of the time, AfD is all about notability, in this rare case the desires of the millions of silent readers to know the notable must be weighed against the desires of the family. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Appropriate Target: I would be in favor of removing the photo (which may be deleted anyway), but we have many articles on unfortunate notable deaths, I would suggest most every day some are created, and these deaths caused real pain to living people. That is why we have a responsibility to be accurate and respectful in our writing, but does not extend to a duty to erase reference to these subjects.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upverter

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

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY. Relies on references to primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject. Searching only shows press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Hu12 (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Searching yielded some in-depth independent reviews of the Upverter product/website, but these were blogs or semi-journalistic sites, e.g., Hack a Day that probably don't meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. Nothing came up on Google Scholar that was related to this company or its product. Note that 'upverter' is a term already in use in electronics and typically refers to a low to high voltage power converter. When the company or product garners independent reviews or news articles from reliable sources, re-creating this article would be reasonable. Mark viking (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although the company and product is interesting, I could only find a few press releases and three articles on ITbusiness.ca when searching HighBeam and NewsBank. Not really enough to establish notability. - Mr X 02:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with the nom that the sourcing is insufficient to demonstrate notability; the article was wholly written by what seems to be an editor with no other contributions to the project Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above comments, there is not enough to demonstrate notability. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Craig Brittain (Web designer)

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

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

Strong speedy keep. By now the notability has been fully established in numerous interviews and mentions from NPR, techdirt, GQ Magazine, Huffington Post and more. -TheWesternWorld (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong delete Best known for something that's not well-known? A tenuous attempt at notability at best. Add the non-BLP compliant quality/quantity of references, this should have been allowed to be speedy deleted, lest the subject be further embarassed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete once more for reasons given by Shritwod. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited; Mr Brittain's website Is Anybody Down? is notable (it's possible that Takedown Hammer is as well, though we don't yet have an article on it), but I can find no coverage of him which amounts to more than "he founded Is Anybody Down?". That's not enough. Aside from unreliable sources such as blogs, there's insufficient coverage of the man himself to warrant an article. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this is a sock puppet campaign against a notable person. This article has been effectively vandalized by people who dont want to give the man his notabilty, mostly jealous kids. Notability is inherited - we all know Jimmy Wales would not be notable if not for Wikipedia (Personal attack removed). Likewise if Jimbo is notable, so is Mr. Brittain under WP:JIMBO-184.232.133.97 (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources indicate that Mr. Brittain himself is a notable person. The article itself needs to have more of the notable sources added to it. -64.34.180.32 (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough reliable sources out there to establish independent notability, and frankly, Mr Brittain should take that as a blessing. Worth also pointing out that the article's creator, TheWesternWorld (talk · contribs) has been indef'ed for disruption and personal attacks (with a particular penchant for WP:ATWV), and I see a few WP:DUCKs have parked themselves here. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment interesting how there are several IP-only people trying to keep all of TheWesternWorld's articles, and barely contributing elsewhere... Lukeno94 (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it survives AfD it needs a hatnote link from Craig Brittain. PamD 15:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IsAnybodyDown?. Not separately notable, but mentioned at the IAD article and a reasonable search term for someone looking into the situation around that web site. If not Redirect then Delete, but prefer Redirect. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I would suggest delete over redirect is that "Craig Brittain (Web designer)" is an unlikely term to be entered into a search box. As PamD suggests though, a "see also" link from Craig Brittain through to IsAnybodyDown? would be useful. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete per TexasAndroid. Clear case of WP:BLP1E. Huon (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete per WP:NOTABILITY. --GSK ● talk ● contribs 16:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G5. Article created by sockpuppet of CollectorOfSouls.—Kww(talk) 19:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Trahan

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

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

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

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

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

Delete for the reasons Shritwod has given - also note that almost every article the creator has made is up for AfD. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. A redirect to IsAnybodyDown? might be appropriate, but there's no notability otherwise. Huon (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chance Trahan also has a notable association with heavy metal band Chimaira. -64.34.180.32 (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how is designing their app and website a notable association? Lukeno94 (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are a blog, a self-publishing content site, a picture site, and Facebook - all of which (particularly the latter of these) are unreliable. No evidence of notability whatsoever. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IsAnybodyDown?. Not separately notable, but mentioned at the IAD article and a reasonable search term for someone looking into the situation around that web site. If not Redirect then Delete, but prefer Redirect. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete per WP:NOTABILITY. --GSK ● talk ● contribs 16:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G5. Article created by CollectorOfSouls.—Kww(talk) 20:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Alan Levy

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

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

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

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

Delete I would note that pretty much everything User:TheWesternWorld has created from scratch is in an AfD. Besides that, I've been through the article, it has one source (which is not enough), and the only attempt at showing notability fails WP:INHERIT. I can't currently check the single source in the article (damn web filters), but it doesn't look to me like a reliable source, in fact it looks to me like some kind of blog-site from a brief Google search. In fact, it seems like this guy may even be more of a news reporter/spokesman only - [23] does not remotely seem like a lawyer's type of report. I can find nothing on Google that makes him seem notable - the fact that the top searches on him include a Facebook profile/page and a Twitter account speaks volumes. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs a few more sources, but definitely a keep. -64.34.180.32 (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And your grounds for this are? Lukeno94 (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per news sources here, here, here (plus several other news hits). Not an awful lot of notability there, but I think there's just about enough to tip him over the edge, and only the fact he's been around the block a few times and lawyered for several different places stops me from suggesting a redirect / merge. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete per WP:NOTABILITY. --GSK ● talk ● contribs 16:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Amstislavski

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

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

Delete Does not meet WP:ARTIST or any other part of WP:BIO. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided Lousy article, no clear sourcing, no attempt to explain him as an artist. This article would be no loss if deleted.

However if you read the article, rather than just weighing the reflist, then this is an artist with exhibitions on two continents, as well as vague claims to his work being sold and collected in a substantial way. Maybe these don't pan out - they certainly need some sourcing. However this is nowhere near a clear "Delete as just not notable". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of people-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nominator. Not Notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Marginal notability, horrible article. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bimal Banerjee

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

Non-notable artist. Also, the content is almost irretrievable and it is embarrassingly bad. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've decimated most of the article. It was almost entirely unsourced by unreliable or primary sources, plus the way it was laid out was fairly promotional or at least non-encyclopedically written. It's not even a fourth of what it was, but the current state looks far better in comparison. I am finding some mention of him in some books, but much of it is brief. I do see the Who's Who mention, but I don't know if that's one of the 1% of Who's Who that actually counts towards notability or if it's one of the other 99% that simply list names for a fee. I'm currently looking into that.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Not Notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, quite a few mention in google books. Not bad coverage for an artist whose most productive period probably preceded the www. --Soman (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, refs are passing mentions--Nixie9 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gardenist

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

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

Delete as per WP:DICTIONARY. Perhaps this could be useful on Wiktionary, but it shouldn't be here. Greengreengreen red 10:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedia article. --Shorthate (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Not a dictionary. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of extreme weather events

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

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

Delete "WP is not news." That's what any list of events is. In this case there doesn't seem to be much logic as to what's included. Kitfoxxe (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Not News. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is basically an historical list of extreme weather events, so it is not news. Can see no reason why a list of events such as these should not be on an encyclopedia. I think it needs a fair bit of work, but valid information for an article, and probably quite useful. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not news, I agree on this, but this article is far from WP:USEFUL just because of the vagueness and POV of the term "extreme" and remaming the article to something like List of weather events makes the list obviously unmaintainable. Secret ^account 23:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is simply too broad a subject for a list. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One should create lists by individual types of disasters, such as List of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks, List of named tropical cyclones, List of floods, Lists of earthquakes and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Strikeout and Secret. Also, My very best wishes' recommendation seems to be very plausible. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed - now the subject of a consolidated AFD here (non-admin close). Stalwart111 05:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kahani Comedy Circus Ki

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

Non-notable season of the show Comedy Circus. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed - now the subject of a consolidated AFD here (non-admin close). Stalwart111 05:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Circus Ke Ajoobe

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

Non-notable season of the show Comedy Circus. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect all articles. Salix (talk): 09:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Circus Ke Taansen

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

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

Also enlisting following articles for AfD....

Question What's wrong with these page titles or with old revisions in the histories? If the answer to both questions be "neither", we'll do better by redirecting them to Comedy Circus than by deleting them. I've not looked at the articles, so no opinion on keeping or deleting. Nyttend (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Neither" is the answer to your question. But the show comes up with new season like every three months and hence with a new name. And it's not like the season ends and there is a gap of few months or so. There are same old judges and same old competitors. Plus the gags from this show are used as time-fillers by various other channels also. It is aired anytime and anywhere. I am doubtful whether people even notice what season it is. Hence i don't consider them worth keeping even as redirects. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main Comedy Circus and merge any content missing from this article. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all to Comedy Circus. Unless we are going to re-tell the jokes (which I expect would be against WP policy) the main article gives all the information needed on each season. If not add some more. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all the mentioned articles to Comedy Circus. Add the information provided in these articles to the main article, if needed add some more information along with citations. If the same is done you can summon me for help. --Tamravidhir (২০১২) 09:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect There won't be enough content for each season of the show. Not to talk about references. Also, totally agree with what Dharmadhyaksha (talk · contribs) has mentioned above that these seasons (of this show) occur more than once per year. Having separate sections in Comedy Circus should be sufficient coverage in Wikipedia on this subject.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Cornell Concert Commission

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

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

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

Procedural close Seriously, the previous AfD closed today with no consensus... Relisting it now will make absolutely no difference. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was non-admin closed with no !votes. There's nothing wrong with a re-list.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was closed a few hours before re-listing, and I'm fairly sure you're supposed to wait a while before relisting, regardless of consensus. Besides, relisting now when it was ignored before is unlikely to make any difference. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No consensus closes due to a lack of quorum are, technically, WP:NPASR (no prejudice against speedy renomination). This is ... a really speedy renomination, but I guess that's what it says on the tin, so I don't think it's grounds for a procedural close. On the merits, I'm pretty ambivalent about the article. There's quite a bit of coverage of their hosted concerts in general, but I don't really see reliable third-party sources about the commission. I'm not quite sure I'm willing to firmly advocate deletion here, but if this AFD doesn't attract a quorum on what is effectively its 4th relist, WP:SOFTDELETE may be the way to go. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, CLOSE and lock for at least 30 days I was just looking at this and here it is again already! Was this done with a bot? We should have a wikipolicy about this sort of thing. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the references this is a notable organization. Stowonthewolder (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which references do you believe are "significant coverage in independent sources" that show that the CCC has received "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly The Cornell Daily Sun has a lot to say about them. Anyone else? Um .... Show me a good source outside Ithaca and I'll change my mind quickly. Until then, it's all fine and good they're Ivy League, but I went to a FCS school too. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 09:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: 2nd nomination not a problem. Its borderline, but I'm not convinced its not notable either.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. The only notability is the acts they book, but that sort of notability is not inherited--it's like saying a bookstore is notable because it has books by famous authors on the shelves. Otherwise it's just a routine student organization, and the absence of any real content in the article shows it: If the individual concerts discussed are notable enough, then there can be separate article on them, or a mention of them in the articles on the group. That the Agency booked the Grateful Dead doesn't make the agency notable. It is not too soon for relisting a no-consensus close a month afterwards; it would have been wrong had it been a keep. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin's world

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

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

Delete per nom. No evidence has been provided that this series meets the notability criteria for books. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metro. Dengero (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Not Notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with the nomination statement. Appears to be self-published. I did a quick filtered Google search and struggled to find sources related to this topic. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

FTM cross-dressing

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

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

Merge No need to delete this. Insomesia (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles There are only (unless I'm missing something) 2 types of cross-dressing. If we split it this way the only thing left in the main article would be cross-dressing in general. One article seems like the best way to go. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at the very least, Merge, agree with Insomesia (talk · contribs), zero need to delete this page. — Cirt (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep However i would suggest that the linked articles be merged eg Breast binding etc be placed within the main article as having too few content in both to warrant individual pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.138.21 (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In East Asia, there is a word refer FTM cross-dressing, (男裝,男装 :same word.) --Jeonggwa (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting point, but it doesn't explain why this needs to be a separate topic from cross-dressing. Pburka (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to appropriate article. Morefoolhim 19:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question why Drag king, Methods of passing as male, Transman remain separate article? --Jeonggwa (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are only (unless I'm missing something) 2 types of drag. but Drag queen and Drag king did not merged. --Jeonggwa (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cross-dressing. There's consensus that this variant of cross-dressing doesn't need a separate article. The two "keep" opinions don't address the issue of content forking. Whether there's anything to merge is not clear from the discussion, but can be done editorially from the history. Sandstein 10:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MTF cross-dressing

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

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

Merge. No need to delete. Insomesia (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with a redirect page. According the the nominator sourced content is already merged. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles There are only (unless I'm missing something) 2 types of cross-dressing. If we split it this way the only thing left in the main article would be cross-dressing in general. One article seems like the best way to go. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at the very least, Merge, agree with Insomesia (talk · contribs), zero need to delete this page. — Cirt (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep In East Asia, there is a word refer MTF cross-dressing, (女裝,女装 :same word) --Jeonggwa (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question why Drag queen, Methods of passing as female, Transwoman remain separate article? --Jeonggwa (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are only (unless I'm missing something) 2 types of drag. but Drag queen and Drag king did not merged. --Jeonggwa (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to cross-dressing. It's reasonable to have articles on distinct cultural phenomena like drag queens and drag kings (and other cross-dressing subcultures or behaviours), but MTF cross-dressing can be done for many reasons, and therefore it's better dealt with in an article on cross-dressing in general. Since there are only 2 types of cross-dressing, there's no argument that a split is needed for length or comprehensibility. Additionally, for many people cross-dressing is synonymous with MTF cross-dressing (i.e. they don't think of women crossdressing) so covering the topic under cross-dressing is what would be expected. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP --게이큐읭 (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to cross-dressing. Doesn't independently justify an article in and of itself whilst relevant content has been moved over already. -Rushyo ^Talk 13:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please see relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FTM cross-dressing. — Cirt (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WebWiz@rd

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

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article history shows nothing but a couple of WebWiz@rd WP:SPA advertising-only accounts. no sources out there but PR and trivial coverage from non reliable secondary sources. Nothing more than using Wikipedia for Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, SPA/promotional, and lacking reliable sources to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 05:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This nomination has been relisted for about a month and its clear there is non-consenus (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gyula J. Obádovics

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

The subject of the article seems clearly to fail WP:PROF. Few of his publications seem to be indexed by Google Scholar, and still fewer have received any citations. Only one of his publications seems to be indexed by MathSciNet, and only three by Zentralblatt. None of them jumps out as being especially notable or significant. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know how significant the awards listed in the article are but as a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences [24] he passes WP:PROF#C3. I suspect that the lack of coverage in Google scholar is more due to his work being pre-internet and not in English than in its significance. The lack of coverage in MathSciNet and Zentralblatt is more of a concern, but I think his evident local notability within the Hungarian mathematics community should be enough to make up for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think you're mistaken. He's not a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Member profiles there all indicate what kind of membership they have (Regular/Corresponding/External/Honorary), as well as the year of their membership. None of this information appears on that profile that you linked to. Moreover, his name does not appear on a search of the mta.hu members, nor is it in any of the lists of members available from the mta.hu website. Apparently, he's not a regular member, a corresponding member, an external member, or an honorary member. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is a member of the Köztestület of MTA. Any Hungarian citizen can be a member, who has a Ph.D. or equivalent degree. There are, I don't know, maybe 20000 members. Eppstein's above ref mixed up two search engines of mta.hu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.181.202.103 (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am striking my comment, since it seems to be based on a mistake. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article conspicuously makes one of the common newbie mistakes: Give biographical details in chronological order first; mention anything that could constitute notability later. It should be exactly the other way around. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of national level awards. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the awards listed even notable (an explicit requirement of WP:PROF#C2)? Google has never heard of any of these awards, as far as I can tell (at least, in English), which strongly suggests that these are not notable awards. Also, most academics have won some awards. How do these awards distinguish this particular academic? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obádovics is apparently a mathematician but has only two publications that reached Mathematical Reviews. Neither seems to have been cited. This is an obvious case. Tkuvho (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of those awards is actually the highest ranking state order, the Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary, but its name was translated differently in the article, that's why Google couldn't find it. He has several books and other publications, and according to the Hungarian wikiarticle he was instrumental in the spread of computer science education in Hungary. (I know it's not a valid argument but even I heard about him and I'm as far from mathematics as anyone can be.) The article needs some improving. – Alensha ^talk 23:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if he was born in 1927 then he spent most of his career under communist rule, and I'm not sure academics were allowed to publish in Western countries, so it's no surprising that an American mathematics review site doesn't list them. – Alensha ^talk 23:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Alensha. Even allowing for difficulties of communication between Communist and non-Communist countries during the Cold War period, WP:PROF#C1 is fairly obviously not met - in fields like mathematics, at least some major academic journals from Communist countries were indexed in Zentralblatt or Mathematical Reviews, and publication in Western journals, while sometimes difficult, was not uncommon, so one would expect at least a little more evidence on GScholar than there is. However, the Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary, together with GNews results (allowing for Hungarian name order) and some of the other biographical details, do suggest he probably meets WP:PROF#C7 (and quite possibly #C4) - but it would be nice for someone to confirm this from Hungarian sources. PWilkinson (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pending confirmation of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary award. That award is sufficient in itself, regardless of strength of publication. (signing later -- forgot to sign at the time: -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Question is the award of the Order of Merit verifiable anywhere? I'm having trouble, but I don't speak or read Hungarian. Ray^Talk 20:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per all the above, if the Budapest University of Technology and Economics website is a reliable source: here (if my Google-Translated Hungarian is good) they mention Obádovics as one of two of their alumni to win the "Knight's Cross" class of the above-mentioned Order of Merit. (Also, if the Knight's cross class qualifies for #C7.) הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Changed !vote per consensus below (Tkuvho and Lankiveil) that the "knight" level of the Order of Merit does not meet Criterion #7, and there is nothing else going for keeping the article. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 07:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Both the "order of merit" and his allegedly large publication list are entirely invisible from the point of view of the English wikipedia. Therefore they constitute an argument in favor of retaining the page in the Hungarian wiki, which is not the subject of this page. What year exactly did he get his "order of merit"? One wonders to what extent he may have gotten it as a result of being a well-connected party apparatchik rather than a notable scientist. Similarly, it is altogether unobvious that his allegedly numerous "publications" (invisible in the standard english sources such as mathematical reviews and google scholar) may not be merely teaching manuals that do not establish his notability as either scholar or professor. It is odd that someone with an h-index of about one-half should pass here. Tkuvho (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, notability does not have to be in English—either one is notable, as mentioned in any reliable source, no matter what language—or one is not. Secondly, had you followed the link I gave you would see that he received the Order of Merit in 2003—so which "party" are you referring to? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 14:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I checked your source. It does mention Obádovics. But it also mentions several hundred other laureates of these prizes. Note that the "knight's" prize is not the first, nor the second, but the sixth level of this national prize. What you are essentially arguing is that several hundred wiki pages be automatically added for each of those names. I emphasize that there is no evidence of notability as a scientist. The link you provided is the best evidence that the page should be deleted. Tkuvho (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - A comparison with Vilmos Totik sheds light on the present academic. Totik has 170 articles in Mathematical Reviews, inspite of language problems. Tkuvho (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is precisely the question I asked (somewhat unclearly) in my first post above: is the Knight level of the Order of Merit a PROF-C#7–worthy award? (The other hundreds of laureates, though, seem to be those of even less noteworthy awards.) הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - lovagkereszt is the level he got. According to the hungarian page, this is the last of the six levels of this national prize (I assume the hungarian page is more accurate than the English page which lists additional levels). I don't think that kind of thing establishes notability particularly if no other factors are present. Tkuvho (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability seems to rest on the "Order of Merit" prize, but that prize is at the sixth and most minor level. With no disrespect intended to the subject of this article, that's not quite good enough. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per discussion above of the level of notability of the Order of Merit at the most minor level; there were no other grounds for notability. Ray^Talk 21:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears notable, but sourcing for a WWII / cold war era Hungarian mathematician is difficult to come by. I think we should defer to https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ob%C3%A1dovics_J._Gyula Tha Hungarian Wikipedia needs attention and improvement, and this is not helped by our rejecting tranlations of their articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

María Susana Flores Gámez

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

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

Keep. Worldwide press coverage. Maybe rename to Murder of ... NickSt (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Come to think of it yes, a rename would be good here. But I'm not entirely sure there is significant world-wide coverage of this. §FreeRangeFrog 02:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think I've seen any source that indicates her killing was a murder, so I don't think renaming the article to "Murder of . . ." would make sense. Calathan (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - currently, the article only has American sources; however, I've found [25] which, being British, shows a wider spread than just the neighbouring countries. I'm sure there are foreign language sources (beyond Mexican ones), but I don't speak the languages. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So I waited for a bit to see what kind of arguments would be made for this and I guess I wasn't disappointed :) Here's the problem: Move it to something like Murder of María Susana Flores Gámez and we have WP:NOT#NEWS, plus as someone already pointed out, it's not a murder. I'm seeing hints in some of the articles that she probably was involved with one of the cartels, so that also complicates things. So 'Death of X'? Still WP:NOT#NEWS, because it wouldn't qualify as a major event anyway. Let's face it, tens of thousands of people have died in Mexico in the last few years - this makes the news because the girl was attractive. So what then? Do we leave it as a bio? It's still a textbox case of WP:BLP1E. Those are the reasons I brought this to AfD, so please consider them when casting !votes. §FreeRangeFrog 19:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear obvious WP:RECENT violation. She wasn't notable before her death, and then she was only in the news because she was a beauty queen that was shot and killed because she was with the cartel and starting shooting at police. Other than her being a "beauty queen" her death wasn't notable at all. Secret ^account 00:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think it deserves an article. It got a couple of days of coverage in Mexico because she was a beauty queen that happened to be with a cartel. Most sources talk about the same thing, so it won't be able to stand on its own and will have to remain a stub forever. There have been a few other beauty queens that have been linked to the cartels, so maybe a separate article about the "narco-culture" behind that would be interesting. If the article manages to stay, let me know so I translate the Spanish-language sources to English ... I'll probably may be able to get a few paragraphs on the incident/investigation. That's pretty much it. ComputerJA (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she is not notable. I think it would be good to mention her in the Sinaloa article's Notable natives and residents section. --Vic49 (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sikh. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Sikhs

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

There is no such term 'Mona Sikhs'. This article have not any source. This has not any value. However, this article also express personal opinion of the creator. It should be deleted. This article can be called Duplicate of Patit. Patit is actual as well as legal term used for Sikhs who cut or trim their hair. Thanks. Theman244 (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I did not believe this article was quite of unique enough content to warrant its own article in the first place, and had suggested it might be merged with Sikh in order to benefit both the above article as well as the suggested parent, and I still believe this to be the case. This also appears to be a separate socio-religio-cultural group from the aforementioned Patit, which appears merely to be how one group of Sikhs defines another, not how the latter perceives and refers to themselves, nor does it necessarily begin to cover the cultural and historical distinctions. Any verifiable or unique content that can be sourced should be merged instead, as I do find many references on a simple google search, such as here and here, the latter of which was originally published in 1989 by a credible publisher, so without doing significantly more research, I'd have to presume it's a real cultural distinction of merit and satisfies notability for a merge, if with significant general cleanup and improvement. besieged^talk 02:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is written by only one person without any source only express his\her personal opinion, not the whole community or others. Many sentences in article also contradict with each other and contain original research and many other major/minor errors and problems. Before merge with other article all problems should be sorted out otherwise should be deleted. If not deleted then merge with Patit not the main article. Merger with Patit will be more appropriate rather than main. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I wholeheartedly agree that the article would need a significant amount of cleanup from experts or others with more knowledge in the area than I can provide, my limited research (completely independent of what is covered in the parent article) indicates this is a specific socio-cultural group, whereas Patit seems to be little more than a definition of religious law in how the main body of Sikhs defines a subsect, whereas the Sikh article has appropriate and in-depth coverage of the socio-cultural and historical aspects of Sikhs and Sikhism. Barring reliable sources/evidence to the contrary, I must continue to contend that Sikh is the appropriate article for merger. besieged^talk 04:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 22:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The term mona, meaning shaven, is certainly used of Sikhs who cut their hair and there are numerous sources which support this such as Sikhism. Warden (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mansour Amer

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 01:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The compan(ies) he controls doesn't seem to be notable, let alone him. Dengero (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

MKTO

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

Contested PROD. While the members of this group seem to meet WP:GNG, the group itself does not seem to meet WP:BAND, and notability is not inherited. Beyond self- and fan-generated content and the usual twitter/facebook/myspace links, there is minimal independent coverage [26] [27] [28] that is hardly WP:RS. §FreeRangeFrog 21:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Minor Contributor. MKTO meets the first criteria for the musicians and ensembles, which states: 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. MKTO has covered by the following independent sources:

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

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

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 01:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete it is WP:TOOSOON for this group to be notable. Beyond that, the article is written very much like a press release. I'm tempted to speedy this under G11, to be honest - it's that blatantly promotional. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The Green Hope

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a known series in Hong Kong. It's very old, I'm pretty sure I still see posters of it sometimes at old video shops, but other than that I don't think there will be any internet references for it. Maybe in very old print gossip magazines. Dengero (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep: Not sure what the guidelines are for notability of TV shows, but this was a reasonably well-known show, still recognizable and "referable" as a pop culture artifact. Regarding systemic bias, I'm fairly sure that a US TV show with similar impact and audience would be covered (extensively) in En-wikipedia, for whatever that's worth. That said, not many reliable sources in English (search "The Green Hope TVB" and a number of blogs and the like appear, which speak to lingering interest, which suggests but does not prove notability). Obviously a lot more in Chinese, probably sufficient if anyone wants to do some digging. BTW, 2000 is "very old"? I feel ancient now...

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 01:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep widely broadcast TV show. Stowonthewolder (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice against the opening of a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slut-shaming

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

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

Keep Going with keep on this one. It's a neologism, but a cursory gsearch seems to indicate that it's quite widely used. §FreeRangeFrog 02:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word "maddening" is also widely used, as even a cursory gsearch will indicate, but that is not an encyclopedic term either. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't get the WP:NEO argument; the article isn't about the word, it's about the concept, which is illustrated in many sources. I'm not totally opposed to a merge to slut (though not to SlutWalk), but it would have to be a merge and allow for expansion of a section to discuss the subject, not just a redirect. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. Urban Dictionary is thattaway... ----> Carrite (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Slut where it will be more widely read - and explain the two photos in the article; too new and too few WP:RS. CarolMooreDC 18:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or Keep). Passes WP:NEO as there are several books and journal articles that discuss the concept of slut-shaming (rather than just using the term).[29][30][31] As the article is quite short right now, I would favor merging into slut, but I believe a longer article could stand on its own. Kaldari (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has received significant coverage in secondary sources including: 1) News articles with this term as the title of the news article, 2) Multiple different sorts of books with significant discussion of phenomenon, and 3) Lots of academic journal coverage from scholarly sources. More info at: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). — Cirt (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Delete per WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, it seems to pass WP:NEO (see my comments above). Kaldari (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt. PianoDan (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per CarolMooreCC. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a well-known concept and the most common phrase to describe making women who are sexually active feel bad about it while considering it natural behavior for men. It's the topic of multiple main stream news articles[32][33][34][35][36][37], scholarly research and discussion, and even a Planned Parenthood campaign. --David Shankbone 05:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable, as demonstrated by reliable sources such as this. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 06:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Expand per Kaldari. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Although the article should be rewritten and has a neologism for a title, it discusses a type of discrimination deserving attention on any extensive encyclopedia, let alone Wikipedia. It has been suggested on the talk page of the slut article that “it might be good to add a section on ‘slut-shaming’”, and should the gentry refuse to keep this one article on, it's to be exported into a section of the aforementioned article, until a time when it may be resurrected as an article in its own right. EIN (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt and Roscelese.--В и к и T 15:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Werkdiscs

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

I am bringing this article about a record label based on simple WP:CORPDEPTH. Beyond that, at least one of the artists claimed to be released on that label is now PRODed as not meeting WP:BAND. While the person who created the label might be a notable artist, the label itself is not. §FreeRangeFrog 01:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I found it hard to believe that a label with releases by notable artists (e.g. Actress, Zomby, Lone) would fail our criteria for inclusion, so I googled it. There isn't much independent coverage of the label itself (more of its artists and/or founder, as the nom suggests), so I can understand why it's been brought here for discussion. There is some coverage though: there's a fairly decent feature article here (which is already included in the article) from XLR8R, as well as some news coverage from Fact Magazine. The same news story appears here, covered by The Quietus, and here, where Clash describe the label's back catalogue as "slim but influential". The label was also described by Allmusic as "one of the most revered dance labels". That same news story was reported in lots of other places ([38][39][40]), if that makes any difference. Admittedly, that doesn't add up to much, but I think it might be just enough to keep. — sparklism ^hey! 12:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 12:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sparklism. also more coverage exists [41] treating of the label in some depth [42][43] 86.44.25.145 (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (WP:Non-admin closure) Bruddersohn (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melya

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

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

Keep it's notable enough. Tag it for improvement tho. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 01:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems widespread enough. §FreeRangeFrog 02:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most beverage articles are always a stub because the history isn't always known especially for foreign beverages. Although this article could be better, there are far worse articles. SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems notable. Morefoolhim 19:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. on 1 December by tucoxn. ʈucoxn\^talk 19:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be quite a few sources on the web, although some should be added to the article. ypnypn (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted CSD G11 - Once the promotional material was removed, the article no longer met the minimum criteria of CSD A7.. v/r - T P 13:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

24/7 Techies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep : The company got 5th position in online tech support industry from customer reviews. - http://online-tech-support-review.toptenreviews.com/ Samuelno (talk) — Samuelno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

comment I agree that Techcrunch is a solid source, my concern is that it will fall short of the significant coverage criteria. Whitewater111 (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 00:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Not meeting the notability guidelines. Yawalapiti (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Eminent tech industry pro's have invested in 24/7 Techies Sanjiva Weerawarana Open source evangelist ,Rajan Anandan current the Head of Google India and Dave McClure who founded and runs the business incubator 500 Startups. Dineshvwiki (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC) — Dineshvwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep : 24/7 Techies - The company has also been featured in several leading independent local newspaper articles including The Sunday Times (Sri Lanka)^[1] and The Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka)^[2]. Kothwala (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Rukshan Kothwala — Kothwala (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In depth coverage is lacking. One article (TechCrunch) which has been cut and pasted elsewhere is not enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant self-promotion of non-notable start-up company. Google searches turned up nothing but local, trivial or tangential coverage, far too insignificant to establish notability in accordance with any of our guidelines. Both newpaper articles seem to be more armchair journalism based on press releases rather than actual investigative reporting, and the mention in TechCrunch is far from being substantial. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear promo article. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with the established, non-sock, consensus that this is advertising by a startup. I would have even considered speedy deletion. Go Phightins! 11:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "SL IT startup 24/7 Techies raises Rs. 80 million in funding". The Sunday Times.
^ "The first Sri Lankan company to be featured in Tech Crunch". ft.lk November 12, 2012.

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

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

The result was delete. Will userfy upon request Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dusi Benarjee

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 16:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, it seems this musician existed at the middle of the 20th century so any sources are probably not Internet-based or English at all, but I searched at Google News and Books with no avail. Emphasizing that sources are obviously not English is the fact that all references currently listed are not English. It saddens me to say this seems to be the case with too many India-related topics. What makes this article worse is that it is written like a personal biography. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have heard about this singer. Searching in Google News and Google Books will not be helpful! He is a singer of pre-internet era! Can you ask someone who knows Telugu ?, he may help to collect sources! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is another page with identical content: Dusi Benarji Bhagavatar.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected it to Dusi Benarjee. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on the Noticeboard for India-related topics WT:INB to see if someone can provide some sources. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I saw Callanecc's post on WT:IND so I started browsing around. I was at a library and tried to search few books in which he might would have some mention. I searched about 7-8 books but didn't find anything. The reason was that the books here are having ample amount of sources regarding the culture of Western part of India and this person hails from South. He should have some mentions in books either in Telugu literature or somewhere in South India. I cannot help much because from where I come from, there are hardly any ways to access Telugu works or materials about south in minute details or remotely notable topics such as this bio. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. The Telugu Academy Award may be notable. The award (to someone else) is metioned in Who's Who of Indian Authors. Finding this prompted me to look for Who's Who of Indian Musicians. Such a book (and several similar ones) do exist in English language, but sadly not accessible online. Someone would have to go to a library to verify if he has an entry. Spinning Spark 22:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the responses so far, if we can't source it, and we can't determine under which guideline it should be kept, then it should be deleted. Userify it, with no prejudice to a return to article space once it can be actually sourced. Sometimes the lack of depth in the internets sucks, but that's how it is. And I'd be more than willing to reverse my !vote if someone can add some references to it. §FreeRangeFrog 02:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the 5 only 2 are from a news source. I guess given the age of the subject it will be hard to find online sources, but per above, this seems to be difficult as well. I agree with userfying it for future additions. Dengero (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Not Notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Not Notable.Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

2007–08 Delta Ethniki

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

Season article of an amateur football league, which has no notability independent of the main article, that being Delta Ethniki. The scope of this nomination also extends to similar articles (six in total), where the same is true. Cloudz 679 12:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles as indicated above:

--Cloudz 679 12:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 12:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - This is the most serious and upsetting set of deletions that has been put forward in many months in my view. The deletion covers a "tier 4" league which is defined as a "Grey Area " in WP:NCLUB. How can we decide if a club is notable if we delete all the relevant tables? One only has to look at the debate on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aris Esymis F.C. to see that one league above the Delta Ethniki the Football League 2 (Greece) is a fully professional league in which players are notable. It seems very unsound proposal to delete the league below in my view. A lot of work has gone into producing the tables by the relevant editors. League Octopus (League Octopus 13:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Quite a few teams have been relegated from the professional ranks and I have recently identified those clubs that are notable in my sandbox (marked in yellow). These are some of the venues in the Delta Ethniki League Octopus (League Octopus 13:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

2011–12 Delta Ethniki - Lots of references on the equivalent Greek Wikipedia page - Δ΄ Εθνική ποδοσφαίρου ανδρών 2011-12. League Octopus (League Octopus 14:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

comment according to your essay at NCLUB, Central Midlands Football League is in the same grey area yet I am sure that league doesn't have season articles as noone covers that, and even if sources exist, that's not a criterion for inclusion. I am not suggesting the league article is deleted, just the season articles. Surely a club is notable if it's played in a professional league or a national cup, neither of which is related to this AfD. --Cloudz 679 13:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nomination. Note, however, that the league is semi-pro, not amateur as the nominator suggests. The Delta Ethniki article itself needs some major work, and only the template of the seasons actually links to them - no links are present in the Delta Ethniki article. (Is it possible to include the template in this AfD as it's a group AfD? If it is, that should also be done.) Lukeno94 (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – this is a tricky one to access. Lukeno94, the Delta Ethniki is in papers at least an 100% amateur competition; most players only get expenses covered, whereas a selected few top-profile players receive 1000 times their expenses under the table, while appearing on par with anyone else. I doupt if this is considered semi-pro since there are zero contracts involved. In any case, the league is considered a national competition one level under the professional leagues of Greek football. Online sources to satisfy WP:V can be found relatively easily for the current season, but they are susceptible to link rot, so older seasons are a trickier to find online. The real problem is if an article about each individual season would satisfy WP:GNG, and this is what's difficult to access, as significant coverage in non-routine reliable third-party sources is a good notability criterion for the competition's article but doesn't work as well for season articles. However, most recent seasons of Delta Ethniki individually receive just enough non-routine coverage in newspaper websites such as sentragoal.gr, especially during seasons where top-profile clubs are relegated to it due to dept, so I reckon those seasons would (barely) pass WP:GNG with a lot of time and effort. Alas, it's a burden which I'm not sure I can undertake considering the poor state of my internet connection at home... *sigh* – Kosm2 fent 10:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Normally I would vote based on a policy, but in this case it's rather the other way around. After reading through WP:NOTSTATS I can't say that these articles fails that policy, but rather that these articles should "contain more explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". I would say that season-articles like these are one of the key-articles in the football-encyclopedia with it's wikilinks to every club. Yes, these articles needs improvement and sourced prose, but deleting these article would cause a dangerous precedent I can't live with. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm still saying that a non-fully professional competition does not justify having season articles; however, there *might* be some grounds for having a reference in the 2007-08 in Greek football article, if we must absolutely keep the data (after streamlining it a bit)? Lukeno94 (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ALL per wiki guidlines. No notability outside of the main article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ALL - I agree with others views that the deletion covers a "tier 4" league which is defined as a "Grey Area " in WP:NCLUB.There are many club which are notable and even played first division.It seems very unsound proposal to delete the league below in my view because a lot of work has gone into producing the tables by the relevant editors.Also according to Greek Football Federation the restructuring of greek football championships will happen next season and this league will no longer exist and this is the last season of the league. Papagrikas (User talk:Papagrikas) 09:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can you explain why you think these season articles are notable beyond the scope of the parent article, Delta Ethniki? Cloudz 679 22:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Season articles are an essential element of the football encyclopedia of Wikipedia enabling us to trace the movement and progress of clubs up and down the divisions - they are in my view the "lifeblood" of our football encyclopedia demonstrating the dynamic nature of soccer over time. Yes we need boundaries Cloudz679 but they need to be set at the right level and in the case of Greek football the obvious place to delete season articles is at level 5 which covers the many District Championships. As a general rule in my view if a league is listed in the user essay WP:NCLUB then it should be a strong candidate for a season article. I would exclude Level 11 leagues in England such as the Central Midlands Football League which you rightly refer to above. In the case of Delta Ethniki there is another issue which we have not touched upon and that is that Soccerway only covers 2011/12 and 2012/13. I do not know where I could find similar information (in English) for the 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11 seasons. RSSSF covers 2003/04 and 2004/05 in detail and the seasons back to 2001/02 are covered in Greek Wikipedia (if you can read Greek). We need league season tables to write informed club articles and this is particularly the case for clubs that move between Football League 2 (Greece) and Delta Ethniki. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Reply to Cloudz679: I think these articles are a reasonable WP:SPINOFF of the parent article. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -Thanks for your reply and I can see your point, however I still believe that the articles in question do not assert independent notability from the parent article and a summary on the main page (e.g. winners in each season) would suffice. Cloudz 679 20:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. Without looking at the articles carefully, I can't have an opinion on whether these should be considered notable. However, it's easy to see that they've been around for several years, so it's reasonable for people to have searched for them and to have bookmarked them and linked to them on other websites. Therefore, deletion wouldn't be helpful; if we judge them not to qualify under WP:GNG, we'll serve readers better by redirecting all of them to the league article. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Age of an article is not a valid reason for keeping it. A redirect would probably be fine, but these low-quality articles about a minor league are far from notable. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a valid reason for keeping it as an article, but it's a valid reason for keeping its name a bluelink. As I already said, I don't have an opinion on whether or not it should be kept as an article. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is unreferenced, appears to be no evidence of notability. Eldumpo (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ALL For the same reasons as Mentoz86 said 94.65.184.125 (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Style Foundation

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

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

Keep This is a good example of the limitations of Google News. There is sufficient coverage found via HighBeam, General OneFile and ProQuest. Or just look at their press page. I'll finish formatting these and add them to the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please provide actual sources. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said I was going to add them to the article, and I did so on November 13, eight days before your request. A single article, like this is sufficient to keep this article. There are twelve such citations. This is a slam dunk according to the criteria at WP:N and WP:ORG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ while there are sources, I'm struggling to find significant coverage in the sources, [44] just talks about a blog, FT just says they give awards and have a definition of sustainability and New Yorker says they together with ID magazine and the treehugger website sponsored a prize for a design competition. All these a brief mentions in longer articles.--Salix (talk): 09:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

week delete The seattle-pi article this does count as significant coverage. However this is from 2005 and I can't see that they have really created much impact from there.--Salix (talk): 09:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. after some research I have revised my opinion.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatantly fails WP:ORG for lack of reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is false to say it "blatantly fails". It could I suppose, arguably fail, but only just barely. There are 12 quality citations. In order to say all 12 of these are insufficient, the ball is now in your court to argue they are trivial, as described in WP:GNG, WP:ORG, etc. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why aren't these citations incorporated into text? this is a one line mention. this is another one line mention that merely mentions they sponsored a contest. this is a short mention. this is a blatant self promotional piece.LibStar (talk) 07:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a stub? I contributed to the article by adding some references that demonstrate notability and aid future editors in improving the article. If this article were a higher priority for me, I'd expand it and incorporate the citations. If you think expanding it is a high priority, then be my guest. If not, leave it and let someone else take over. The only relevant issue here is that the notability criteria have been met. Dealing with fixable issues is outside the scope of AfD. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the references are self promotion. Lifestyle sections of newspapers are paid publicity sections via PR firms. The other one liner mentions do not bring notability. Grist.org is the house organ for the "green economy" and the first stop for spammy PR... When an AfD discussion transcends into sentence counting to determine notability, then it should be clear there is no notability to be found. Especially in an article that has only 3 sentences. PeterWesco (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care that much about the Sustainable Style Foundation, but if you have any evidence to support the accusation of paid stories in the sources cited, such as the Seattle PI and The New Yorker, or your claims about Grist, that would be useful for future AfD discussions. I'm sure similar sources will be cited again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In PR, the deal is made with the reporters and editors rather than the advertising representatives from network and publications. Check out VerdePR's post: VerdePR and how about this: co-branded Skinny Dip beer promotion with the environmental website Grist.org. PeterWesco (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That source says nothing about the Seattle PI, the New Yorker, or any of the sources cited here. It's just a cynical take on how the media works. There's nothing in Wikipedia:Notability that suggests that we have to start throwing out entire sections of newspapers because somebody once said that they are influenced by PR. If you want to suggest a change along these lines at Wikipedia talk:Notability, you can do that, but this deletion discussion depends on the notability criteria as they are now, not as someone might wish them to be. The only evidence against Grist is that they accepted paid advertising on their web site, and had a promotion of some kind. Newspapers are supported by ads. Newspapers have promotions. So what? Sustainable Style Foundation is an environmental topic and it got covered in a newspaper that covers environmental topics. Because it's notable. You've offered no evidence that the Sustainable Style Foundation has been writing big checks to media outlets. They're not that rich, for one thing, making the whole conspiracy theory rather implausible.

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

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

Clearly you are a little too close to the subject of the article. 'I made no accusations as you claim. I merely stated that the lifestyle sections are the fodder for PR firms. I made no statement at anytime that this particular article was purchased.' PeterWesco (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did. You said "Lifestyle sections of newspapers are paid publicity sections via PR firms." Paid publicity fails WP:SPS, which is the whole issue here. Either you were saying the articles cited were paid advertising, or you came here to waste everyone's time.

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

At some point, repeatably making false statements like this is considered disruptive editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment my !vote still stands. blatantly fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Delete After a little digging, the sourcing for this article seems 100% PR driven. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The most significant press comment on the SSF is probably the mention in the New Yorker in 2008. It's a passing mention, but it counts for something. On the other hand, there is no coverage that shows that SSF is notable within the world of 'sustainability' provided there is such a thing. If you do Whatlinkshere in Wikipedia you find no mentions in articles except where the SSF has given one of their awards to some famous person like Pierce Brosnan. This is SSF recognizing the importance of Pierce Brosnan but not vice versa. Even that mention is sourced only to SSF's own web site. The website at sustainablestyle.org has a press page where they list some coverage. That page has no entries since 2008. From their web site you can't verify if they have any paid employees; the impression is that they don't. They seem to be a volunteer-based organization. They sponsor occasional meetings and they give out awards. If you do [links:sustainablestyle.org] on Google it finds 109 inbound links. This is tiny compared to a larger website like http://earth911.com which has some interests in common with SSF, but gets over 200,000 incoming links. The Earth911.com site does not even have a Wikipedia article, though I imagine one would be justified. Earth911.com gets 8,561 views per day according to Alexa; sustainablestyle.org gets 152 views per day. EdJohnston (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC). I struck out my web site analysis; may not have been done correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (WP:Non-admin closure) Bruddersohn (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DOMO Group

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I suspect the article does not do the company justice but any organisation with a turnover of nearly 1 billion Euros must be notable. Malcolma (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As this is a private company it is not listed in any stock exchanges, but it does seem to be borderline notable. Not sure if revenue in an of itself is sufficient basis for inclusion. WP:CORP has nothing on that. I see some basic third-party mentions [45] and even Business Week has a blurb about it. §FreeRangeFrog 00:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), Bloomberg is just a list of companies. It doesn't say anything for notability other than the fact that the company exists, similar to Proff.no(translated version). Bjelleklang - talk 07:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they're notable. --Shorthate (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus/WP:NPASR. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skrijelj

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - There are plenty of sources about this clan (link and link). Since most of sources are on Serbian language and article did not present Serbian language name nominator was probably unable to realize its notability. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Antidiskriminator, since he's an established editor and there seem to be no English sources to back this. §FreeRangeFrog 02:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will provide deleted content upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silver bands in County Fermanagh

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move To something like Irish Silver Band, remove the prose as needed, make a section for County Fermanagh, paste this and call it a day. See the book hits, it's a topic of historical and cultural importance, which is not limited to that particular area of Ireland. §FreeRangeFrog 00:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence silver bands from this county are notable. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't notable. --Elongated shorty (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luke K. Cooperrider

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

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

Delete Per nominator, not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article does not establish notability. -- Scray (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's notable because of his role on the Board of Student Publications during the '60s and '70s crises. Lawnaut (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question does nothing to establish why that role, or that Board, would rise to the notability threshold for WP. -- Scray (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with above. Doesn't appear to hold a named seat or any characteristic that would qualify him under WP:PROF. Lord Roem (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't present any evidence of passing WP:PROF, but I'm more strongly convinced that he doesn't pass this criterion by reading his retirement memoir which goes on at length about activities that are important for academics but not usually associated with notability (committee work and teaching) and says nothing about influential research. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

List of football referees

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even improving the article with inclusion criteria (i.e. all FIFA international referees) does not inspire confidence - it would still be overly long and of little interest/use. Giant Snowman 15:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Categorize - then later~~ Delete - I agree that this list is overly long, and will never be completed and will get longer in time. However, I have noticed the large numbers of blue linked entries for those football referees who are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. If those entries are catagorized properly, then this list is not needed. Because of American football and European based football are totally different, the category should reflect that. I am no expert on categories and some help may be needed. Example: [Category:Football (soccer) referee] and sub-category by country should be included [Category:Football (soccer) referee#Germany]. And this list should be maintained or moved to the editor's sandbox so the editor can work through the list for categorizing. Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rename to List of association football referees (it is currently a list of soccer referees only) and delete the redlinks (or non-notable names). Quite a few soccer referees are notable (see WP:NFOOTY for eligibility), and having a list of them is legitimate per WP:L etc. It is totally legitimate to have both a list and a category for referees - see WP:CLN for an explanation why. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I agree with Colapeninsula, category differe then article and we can have both, it will be a problem with two similar articles or two similar categories. I agree too with Colapeninsula to rename the article. And finally to Mr. Jrcrin001, u gives exemple of [Category:Algerian football referees], I think most have the same probleme, see [Category:Association football referees by nationality]. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename blue linked articles - Then delete - Note: I struck out some of my text above because there is a catch all category, as mentioned above. May I suggest the following? Rename blue linked articles within the list with (A.F. referee) after the name. This distinguishes them at a glance. Then in the catch all category, ([Category:Association football referees by nationality]) add the following text: {intitle|A.F. referee} . An example of this working with Carpenter in the title follows and it is an auto-generator that does not need to be maintained.
All pages with titles containing Carpenter

The main problem is that Wikipedia is not an end all of everything. And a list of all Association Football referees - even with red link names removed - is duplicative of categorization and proper naming of articles.

As mentioned before, such list articles need proper references and maintenance. It is a lot of work. And without those references and clear cut inclusion criteria, then this list fails the WP:List criteria.

By using the proper naming criteria of all Association Football referee related articles - then you can auto-create a list whenever it is needed, on the catch all catergory or even on the See also section each related article. This is a win-win and improves the Association Football referee articles. And this list is no longer needed. I am trying ... Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wow...This is just a list of "every" referee? Not specially awarded refs or World Cup/Olympic refs, etc... but every ref? That is not close to being notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and clean up. Rename to something like List of international association football referes, restrict list to officials who have appeared on the FIFA International Referees List. Hack (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a list of FIFA referees, but it should created separately from this article. This article is not only on FIFA refs, nor was intended to be (see the section on England for example). Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should this article stay, as is? No. But I definitely think there is mileage in a revised version of it with defined inclusion criteria. It may be that a more precise title is preferable for such a list, but at the very least this would be a plausible redirect, and a move would be better than deletion. As I wrote at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_72#Referee_notability, we have a number of articles on marginally notable referees, that would be better served by consolidation into a list. In summary, the article strikes me as more of a candidate for cleanup than deletion, much as Hack suggests. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Yes. As it is now, we have a list which is a duplicate of Category:Association football referees, and I don't see the point in having such WP:LISTCRUFT. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:Association football referees. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hack. The topic is conceptually solid; maintenance needed, not deletion. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete why on earth would we need this pointless article when we have categories that serve this purpose? Also, the name is ambiguous - one could expect it to serve either American Football or Association Football (and I'm a Brit), so it really needs a rename at the very least. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This needs a name change and a refining of inclusion parameters, at a minimum. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do not delete lists to favour categories. See WP:CLN. Warden (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, it does not address the fact that the list has next to no encyclopedic value. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is notable per WP:LISTN as sources such as The Guinness Football Encyclopedia list notable referees. See also WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Warden (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree that WP:LISTN covers this list. At the highest levels, referees are notable, of course, but this is true of almost any group of people sharing a common past time or profession. The term referee includes the likes Howard Webb and Pierluigi Collina just as much as it includes the teachers who officiate the local schoolboys league. While obviously containing some notable sub-groups, referees as a group are not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are not required to be exhaustive and there are many such lists in which we just include the more notable cases. See Lists of association football players for examples of lists of people who play football. Warden (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Such lists have the default inclusion criterion of notability of the individual entry. A list of notable referees is a perfectly valid article. I don't see any "delete" opinion above that comes anywhere close to having any basis in our policies and guidelines for lists. Of course this can be renamed to "List of association football referees", and if it gets too large it can be split into sublists, but none of that requires deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , per Warden and Phil Bridger, perhaps renaming to clarify scope. This is a perfectly sensible list and the subject is obviously notable. Nomination complains of things that can be solved by editing instead of deletion, per deletion policy. Most delete !votes are either variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or ignore WP:CLN point 1. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've struck my delete vote per WP:CLN, but I've never understood the value of generic lists with no real inclusion criteria. Hack's suggestion to rename this list looks like the best option. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (CSD A7). --Bongwarrior (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juyce Capone

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

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

Delete This fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND so badly it's not even funny. §FreeRangeFrog 02:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - looks like a textbook case of WP:HOAX to me. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not a hoax, the guy exists, but WP:CSD#A7 no credible claim of importance or significance, so tagged. JohnCD (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Redefinition

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we usually merge less notable episodes into the season or show article? Bearian (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no information worth merging that isn't already present in Angel (season 2). Worryingly, it appears that every episode of Angel has its own article, most of them tagged with {{notability}}. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources which reference this topic such as Sexual Rhetoric in the Works of Joss Whedon; The Essential Cult TV Reader; Reading Angel: the TV spin-off with a soul; Once Bitten: An Unofficial Guide to the World of Angel; Angel: The Casefiles ; The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film and Television. The article therefore just needs work per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't doubt they reference the series as a whole, but do they give significant coverage of this particular episode? Rotten regard Softnow 19:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Angel episodes. --Shorthate (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This particular episode doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Morefoolhim 21:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of Angel episodes, not notable. Bruddersohn (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Angel episodes. I am an Episode Article fanatic and sadly this one did not get expanded enough to warrant an article. Half of it is trivia and the other half is plot, which can be put in summary form on the Episode page. — ^Wylie_Coyote 21:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo (newspaper)

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

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

Note: I do see Greenberg's book in scores of university libraries ranging from California to South Africa. OCLC 3294090.--S. Rich (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is barely verifiable, so definitely isn't notable. Stowonthewolder (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As RL0919 has found "the most extended discussion" in Ayn Rand and Alienation, I wonder what the discussion was. Dismissing the Greenberg as SPS is not getting to the meat of the content, especially in light of the decision of university librarians to include it in their collections. If Ayn Rand and Alienation does have verifiable content (which I think would be of some interest), I hope s/he will provide it.--S. Rich (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC) PS: Ergo is available around the country. See OCLC 15206372. Except for Fullerton, I'm not near any of these libraries, so a look-see is not feasible at present.02:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could dig the book out of whatever box I have it in, but "most extended" does not translate to "useful". The book describes an incident where an editor upset Ayn Rand by passing out the paper at one her appearances. So it tells us little that is relevant, even if it were to be accepted as a reliable source (which it definitely isn't, IMO). It is only "most extended" in comparison to the stark lack of coverage elsewhere. --RL0919 (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ha! AR & A has gone from an SPS publication (which, for unknown reasons, seems to be inherently unreliable) to one actually bought (or given), read, remembered (if only vaguely), and boxed away. But how do we address the fact that both AR&R and Ergo are maintained by reputable librarians as evidenced by the OCLC listings I've provided? (Don't take this the wrong way, RL, the fact that you've commented is appreciated. Moreover, it adds interest and spice to our discussion.--S. Rich (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't "gone from" anything. Greenberg's book is still self-published, regardless of whether I own a copy. And yes that makes it presumptively not a reliable source under the guidelines. The presence of something in a library (even a whopping 67 of them worldwide) doesn't necessarily make it reliable. Similarly, 10 libraries having some holding of the newspaper doesn't make it notable. --RL0919 (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. I see [46] that AR&A started off "from University of Michigan". While I don't know exactly what that means, perhaps it adds credence to Greenberg's scholarly status. 2. Presumptions are rebuttable. 3. Many (most) of the 67/10 libraries are university libraries. 4. Another source say Greenberg's book was published by "Bridgeberg Books" (I don't know what sort of house that is -- legitimate or of cards); 5. There is a review of AR&R in Reason magazine (again, I don't know if that helps). 5. Ergo, after all, was published at MIT, a school that has enjoyed some favor in the academic world. Ergo, I suggest we leave this start class article as is. Perhaps other editors will expand on it. (I've made a small effort by providing OCLCs.) --S. Rich (talk) 06:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Another thought -- perhaps we can merge Ergo into the MIT article. People interested in MIT history will see it and then expand upon it. 06:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Books info says "original from" U of M is because that is where Google got the copy that they scanned, not because the university had anything to do with the book's publication. Greenberg describes himself in the book as a "poet" and is explicitly the publisher. He has no "scholarly status". The review in Reason was negative and suggested reading "serious thinkers" instead. In any case, bootstrapping speculation about this one non-reliable source doesn't create notability for Ergo. Even if Greenberg's book was usable, it doesn't contain enough information to support an article on the subject. --RL0919 (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before I add my support to the nomination, what comment can you provide regarding Nelkin, Dorthy (1972). The university and military research: moral politics at M.I.T.. p. 106 [47] "The Society of Radicals for Capitalism distributes 5,100 free copies of Ergo Newspaper weekly to the M.I.T. community. 13 "MIT and Military Capitalism," SACC Newsletter, September 26, 1969. ..."? --S. Rich (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a reliable source, but I don't have a copy, just the Google snippet you provided. If it is just the one sentence then I don't think that would meet the "significant coverage" criterion from WP:GNG. If it does provide significant coverage, then that would be one source. I think more would be needed, but it would be a start. --RL0919 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rats! You are the AR SME for WP, so I 'm surprised this isn't in one of your boxes. But it won't matter -- I've added the Ergo stuff to Traditions and student activities at MIT, so I'm happy to Support your afd nomination.--S. Rich (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Not Notable.Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sonneta

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

There are no reliable, independent sources for this product. All sources in the article, and all sources I could find online, are either (co-)written by the creators (mainly Fernandes), or from interested parties (the University that did the original research, and the company that commercializes the product). The Prod was removed because of the Bahn reference, but that reference is co-written by Fernandes and van Lieshout, so is not an independent source at all[48]. This lack of independent sources means that so far, this product isn't notable. Fram (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Looking at the bigger picture, it is useful to compare the Sonneta article with articles describing similar systems. Computerized Speech Lab uses highly-biased language and reads like an advertisement; and Praat, while sticking to the facts, has no references. Perhaps it would make sense to merge all these articles into a single comparative one using the three (and more) products as examples. BNVOTFQW (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 02:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines for a product. Morefoolhim 21:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. Bruddersohn (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (WP:Non-admin closure) Bruddersohn (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Manaus Aerotáxi crash

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With only a handful of casualties I'd agree, but here 24 people died, which is hardly an insignificant number. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article does meet WP:GNG (significant coverage by independent sources) and WP:NTEMP. Just my opinion. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG, and 24 deaths in a single accident is a notable toll. The aircraft does not fit my personal thoughts of a "light aircraft", but that isn't really relevant. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ads myanmar

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 14:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author just deleted a whole lot of content as a clean up, not notable. Dengero (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO at best. §FreeRangeFrog 02:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the deletion rationale. Morefoolhim (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Not Notable.Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peyyeti

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced and no evidence this surname meets the notability guidelines. --Bruddersohn (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

ProYouth

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I'm seeing in Google, this seems to be an attempt at self promotion. Lofty goals perhaps, but fails WP:ORG all the same. §FreeRangeFrog 02:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as G11 - Honestly, there is very little useful content but I searched Google News anyway using "Europe" and "eating disorder" but found nothing relevant except for this which is obviously another organisation. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antiguo Autómata Mexicano

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

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

I don't understand your complaint. Pitchfork Media is a very well-known and respected US music website and a reliable source for proving notability. Are you saying that non-Mexican sources can't be used to prove the notability of Mexican artists, because that is totally false. And what is this Wikipedia-Mexico? Do you mean Spanish Wikipedia? Whether or not someone has a page on another language's Wikipedia has no relevance to their notability on English Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I don't follow all of the nom's logic either (per Colapeninsula), but I can see some online in-depth coverage. The reviews included in the article already, from Pitchfork Media and URB (magazine), kinda show that WP:MUSICBIO is met, but some further examples of coverage would of course help to establish notability. Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 10:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough to establish notability there (Pitchfork media? Really?) and I'm seeing substantial coverage in google.mx as well, although I'm not entirely sure which of those are WP:RS. §FreeRangeFrog 02:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - please note the very first thing this user did was nominate this page for AfD. Read from that what you will. The article needs improving and expanding, but certainly not deletion. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "SL IT startup 24/7 Techies raises Rs. 80 million in funding". The Sunday Times.

[2] "The first Sri Lankan company to be featured in Tech Crunch". ft.lk November 12, 2012.

[1]

[2]