Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 27 February 29 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete per clear consenus and WP:SNOW. SmartSE (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Police officers charged criminally in Canada

[edit]
Police officers charged criminally in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a viable subject for a wikipedia article. Has serious issues with trying to push a point of view. List would in any case be unmaintainable given how low police have existed in canada and the size of the force ©Geni 23:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG KEEP - I am the original author of the article. The article includes the word "charged" for a reason. Many police officers in Canada have been getting away with law breaking with the Crown and Courts not applying the law correctly and playing with the evidence and bogus investigations. This list is certainly relevant. In addition, DO NOT DELETE THE ARTICLE WHEN IT IS UNDER AFD! The article is not in violation of any Wikipedia policy. Any police officer "charged" is public knowledge and whether the decision is "guilty" or "innocent" or whatever again the information is public information. See the citations showing the information in newspaper articles on the Internet freely available to anyone. Thank you. JunoBeach (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I third it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure about BLP 1E/do no harm. Police officers are public officials, and not private citizens; they are additionally public officials with a very high visibility who work in situations where they are much more likely to need to use lethal force than other officials, and more likely to encounter situation with the possibility of bribery; consequently the public interest and notability of crimes involving them in their public activities. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should mention that I am aware of this discussion because i declined what I considered an absurd A7 speedy on the article, and one of the eds. subsequently asked me to protect it during this discussion so all the material would be visible; I have not done that, because of course all prior versions are visible in the article history DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not a proper article because people are edit warring on the page. It needs to be restored and locked by admin then a debate about the article can start.I have tried to fix the article so it can be debated though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines but people keep removing the info pointlessly. Theworm777 (talk) 03:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People keep 'removing the info' because it is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy. The deletion of such violations isn't 'edit warring' it is required under such policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is utter nonsense. A named individual is not a 'legal person', but a person. Please take your Wikilawyering elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes that is why the names were removed. That article is about police not the individuals. As it was changed to by me. I think it should be deleted or merged myself but people are not doing the things the right wikipedia way. Theworm777 (talk) 03:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The links to article naming the individuals concerned weren't removed by you. They related to individuals, not to 'the police' in general. The article violates policy, and the 'Wikipedia way' with violations of BLP policy is to delete them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really dont know I am not a Lawyer. But I think you are wrong and they can be used the way they were used. Under WP:BLPGROUP, BLP does not apply as police are "legal persons" is how I think about about it. Even individual police are "legal persons" I think and they could be named by law. Or WP:BLPGROUP would not allow it is what I am thinking. But I dont want to fight over this with you. We need to see what others and the admin think. We can agree to disagree. Theworm777 (talk) 03:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to be a lawyer, you just have to read the article Legal personality. By your reasoning, lawyers and judges should exempt from BLP. There's no sane reason to exclude them on the basis of their profession. Legal personhood refers to corporations and other organizations that are "persons" in law only, but which have no sentience, brain, mind, soul, whatever of their own. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many times does this have to be explained to you? It's still referring to those individuals. By your reasoning, if I refer to "an editor who argued BLPGROUP excludes cops" but never name your name, nothing I say can be construed as a personal attack. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baron nashor

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

Non-notable video game character MacAddct1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 22:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion (A7). Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:50, 29 February 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) 01:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The clear consensus is to delete. If a redirect is made, it should be made after deleting this advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LED Headliner

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

This article appears to be based on a non-notable product. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the users own response demonstrates the original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with Deletion, explanation-------------------------

Dear IRWolfie,

This Wikipedia Article about a new technology was presented the 7th dec. 2010 and there were many critics coming up, which I tried to respond by enclosing primary and seccondary literature, like patents which you can check. This article is not about a product at all, it is about a new technology. If you need some proof that this technology is existing, please be invited to come to RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FAIR, 23.-27.4.2012 in Hannover. I will get you the ticket and show it to you. If you need to see some 3D-curved, ready to bond in car, OEM Trim materials with headliner LED films, please be invited to come to SUN-TEC Swiss United Technologies in Switzerland. I will even ask OEMs to talk to you, if you need.

I do admit, that presenting this technology in early market stage on Wikipedia had following advantage: The technology was presented Just In Time, and any change of the know how could be integrated rapidly and this integration knowledge could be traced by date. Consequently, after more than 15 month of work on this Wikipedia Article, this new critic as <<Non-Notable product>> is good for big companies. The deletion of this article will kill the official technology knowledge that was presented since 7th december 2010 to Wikipedia.

My question is:

a) What is the definition of non-notable product for a technology page? b) Why was it not defined earlier? c) What do I have to add to prove it is notable?

Kind regards,DS

Copy of answer of IRWolfie on his own talking page----------
Patents are primary, an article requires significant coverage by independent secondary sources for notability. IRWolfie- 18:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Copy of next question from Dshavit to IRWolfie on his own talking page------------
I know. The technology was presented on 2 world conferences of glass technology in Finnland and the proceedings were mentioned as secondary literature. And it was printed in 2 other papers also listed in this article.

10.^ Download article: D. Shavit, Transparent Electronic Interlayers, Proceedings of GPD Conference, June 2009, pp. 177–180 11.^ Download article: D. Shavit; Developments of LEDs and SMD Electronics on transparent conductive polyesterfilms, Vacuum International 1/2007, Page 34-36 12.^ D. Shavit: Elektronische Komponenten in Glaslaminaten: Entwicklung, Stand und Ausblick, Glas, Architektur & Technik, 1/2007 13.^ D. Shavit: LED- and SMD embedded Polyester Interlayer Film for Lighting, Sensoric and functional Glass, Poster Session at GPD Glass Performance Days, June 2007, Page 28

Which of these conferences proceedings or articles do you define as non notable and why? Best regards, Dshavit

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshavit (talk • contribs)

  • I hope you'll leave me a note if/when you move those articles toward deletion. I've removed primary and COI material as much as possible, but these other articles are all of the same calibre. JFHJr (㊟) 23:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the articles are similar in style, is a group AfD an appropriate action? --Falcadore (talk) 03:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's also created: Transparent heating film which again references himself exclusively. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry; I was wondering why the AfD was taking several weeks. I've started to use twinkle now so it shouldn't be an issue again. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:ESSAY, WP:OR. WP:ADVERT. Poorly written with respect to Wikipedias standards. Particularly poor article lead as it does not summarise the contents sufficiently well that a casual reader can gain an easy understanding of the topic. Is written more like a magazine article than an encyclopedic entry. Not appropriate content for Wikipedia in its current form and it's hard to blieve it could be easily salvageable. Suggest the primary author read Wikipedia's guidelines prior to making any more submissions, including a re-write of any topic relating to those mentioned above.
The deletion of this article will kill the official technology knowledge that was presented since 7th december 2010 to Wikipedia It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to be any industries official source for anything, indeed it runs opposite to Wikipedia's purpose to be the primary source of any information. If there are no other sources of this information anywhere the subject fails notability. --Falcadore (talk) 03:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An advertisement is not encyclopedic. The article needs a substantial rewrite and as one other commented may be beyond redemption in its current form. Also the technology is not particularly notable unless you are the manufacturer. As Stepho suggests, a brief comment in another article about automotive interior lighting or headliners would surfice. NealeFamily (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- WP:ADVERT. The article itself says that the product was developed by a single group, the Stella Consortium. The amount of detail for the development and construction is clearly reflecting a single manufacturer - it is very specific and not at all generic. In short, it's an advert. It only deserves a small paragraph in the headliner article and in whichever article covers automotive interior lighting.  Stepho  talk  04:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complete rewrite or delete - no good in its current state as per the comments made above. Warren (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - the closely related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ledglass is about an article by the same contributor with the same basic problems as this article. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also this closely related [[1]] afd as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I suggest a merger of LED-embedded glass, LED Film and LED Headliner. Biscuittin (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote, you need to provide reasoning as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessi Buckeye

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

A "well-known Ohio State Buckeyes fan and contortionist". Mostly full of fluff. She was a winner of a 1999 Florida gymnastics meet at Level 4 (that is the 9-10 year old age bracket). She was a high school diver and acrobat. Graduated from Ohio State. Has been a model. Nothing here is notable and no reliable refs to be found that says anything notable. Bgwhite (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Bgwhite (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Fisher

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

Disputed prod. Not an article, just a CV. Scant evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That last article you linked doesn't even have one source to back up anything on its page, and is ripe for deletion as well as blatant advertising. This isn't about any one country. Every company all over the world would probably just love to have their own WP page, but WP:WAX is not an argument to pursue as a reason for yours. Actual notability is what's important, and this is not a site to build your status as a company through Google hits. Doc talk 07:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do believe that someone who owns a law firm together with a Supreme Court judge is something noticeable. There are not many, if at all, cases like this in Israel. Also, per your comment, please note that this is not my company and I gain no personal benefit from this being listed on WP. Malevs (talk) 07:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - blatant resume spam. ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite a little. I agree that being the senior partner in a firm this notable is notable. The accusations of spamming one's own firm appear unjustified. I decry the attitude expressed that we should generally not include law firms; together with the "counterexample" given in that comment, I consider that to look a little like prejudice against a profession. The argument that there are more notable law firms yet is not evidence that this one is not notable . I recognize the difficult of distinguishing notability in this field, but I consider the partnership with Eliyahu Winograd and the position at the ICC adequate criteria here. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ DGG - I said we don't advertise law firms here, just like we don't advertise every other company in every other profession that exists simply because it exists/existed at one time. It has to be notable first, not later. Let's look at two very famous criminal defense lawyers in America, F. Lee Bailey and Alan Dershowitz. Both highly notable attorneys... but are their law firms notable enough for their own articles? Apparently not. Are any of the partners in those law firms notable enough to have their own page simply because they were a partner with those famous lawyers? Apparently not, again. As TJRC says below: notability is not inherited. If every law firm in the world had their own page - this would be a law firm wiki. Doc talk 05:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of notability. The arguments in favor of notability boil down to (1) Eliyahu Winograd is notable; (2) Eliyahu Winograd is a partner in Gideon Fisher & Co; therefore Gideon Fisher & Co is notable; (3) Gideon Fisher is a partner in Gideon Fisher & Co., therefore Gideon Fisher is notable. This is WP:NOTINHERITED2. TJRC (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by surface area

[edit]
List of cities by surface area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list does not provide any useful information, and there is no way to modify it to be useful without original research.

Currently, this is a ranking of administrative areas that use the word "city" in their name. My objections are:

  1. Administrative areas from various jurisdictions and at various levels in the administrative hierarchy are inherently not comparable.
  2. The criterion that the name contains the word "city" is completely arbitrary, as many cities do not identify themselves as such, while many non-cities do. This results in the list being populated by large rural areas that most people would not consider cities.
  3. The list also fails as a ranking of administrative areas, since those that do not happen to call themselves a "city" are excluded. Furthermore, if it were to serve this purpose, the name of the article should be changed.

Some old discussion suggested changing the criteria to better match what people consider cities, but concluded that it would not be possible to do so without creating substantial ambiguity and requiring original research. Thus, the list is forced to use self-identification as the inclusion criterion, which completely fails to capture the intent of the list. Imagine having a list of states in the United States that only contained 46 entries, because Kentucky, Massachussetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia self-identify as commonwealths rather than states.

Note that this is a different reason to the previous nomination for deletion, as the article has changed substantially since then (from a badly-sourced list of cities to a well-sourced list of non-cities). A couple of people on the discussion page have voiced concurring opinions. - Pirsq (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I understand how the present situation came about, but its absurdity demonstrates the difficulty of turning this into anything remotely encyclopedic. The article shows that different countries have different local administrative arrangements, that even English speaking countries use the term 'city' in radically different ways, and that there are in consequence some very large administrative units which are termed cities and yet not urban, have low population densities, and cover a large area. Which is quite interesting in its way but better covered elsewhere and has more to do with the vagaries of legislative arrangements than anything else. The only way it could have any sense as a comparative list is within a country where the same legal definition of a city applied uniformly. --AJHingston (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due problem of standardising definitions and OR. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There may be a way to create a category of cities by area (if it doesn't already exist) but this isn't the way to do it. Not related, but it would be a nightmare to verify, qualify, debate (do 'burbs count? Burroughs?, etc.), plus a lack of standardization, so the article never could be accurate. Also "surface area" is an odd way to call it, as 220'x220' = 1 acre, but if it is hilly, it will have more surface area, etc. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete this article. The primary concern is not that there are no sources, but that the sources do not support notability due to various reasons including being primary (forumsprng), 1E (about his death), or trivial mentions. Reading this discussion, it appears to me that the keep argument is fairly stronger supported by numbers based on WP:GNG in saying that any substantial coverage by independent sources counts toward notability. To be frank, it's actually quite impossible to determine the real consensus of this discussion (which appears to lean keep) because of the badgering attitudes of two participants; one on either side. AFD is meant to be a discussion and badgering every opinion until you get your way is disruptive and unhelpful. It makes it impossible for a closing sysop to determine the general consensus rather than the insistent demand of one or two editors. No prejudice to an immediate renomination with less WP:BATTLEGROUND. v/r - TP 01:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Shavershian

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

Shavershian is only known for the actions of his brother, his death, and an alleged Internet following. This definitely falls under the umbra of WP:1E. The level of coverage he received was transitory. —Ryulong (竜龙) 21:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep ~ Among the above, Shavershian has published a book; appeared in a series (National Road Trip) ~ and has Independent reliable sources/coverage to corroborate notability. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 22:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone can publish a book. That show apparently has never made it to air, YouTube or otherwise, and nothing else indicates that Shavershian is in any way notable on his own. The only reason this article appears to have been created was because of the press surrounding his death. In fact, more than half all of the reliable sources in the article regard his death, or passing mentions of him having died. "Zyzz" is not worthy of an article on Wikipedia, particularly one that is just basically an obituary.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to many of the sources in the article ~ he's also an Internet personality. If we went by the twisted version of BLPE1 (one being used for this) half the notable BLPs here would be gone. Plus sources have been coming out since his the individual died in August. That says a lot. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 00:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • So because he was on the Internet makes him special? He is only notable and ever mentioned in the press for having died suddenly. And the only "sources" that come since his death are random articles that you or someone else has found where they mention "This guy was a bodybuilder who suddenly died". He has had no lasting impact outside of BodyBuilding.com and the /fit/ board on 4chan.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe if you read the sources, you would know that many of his videos have gone viral. Also millions of people die all the time...where is their coverage? -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 00:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The word "viral" appears nowhere in the article. "Internet" and "YouTube" only appear once, each, as well. The entire article pulls random facts from every mention of his death or questions posed to him on his formspring account. This does not convey notability at all. He is only notable for having died which is not enough for Wikipedia.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • A suggestion would be to take a good long read of the sources. That's all -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 00:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • There is nothing concerning him that proves he is notable. He has never entered any bodybuilding competitions as far as I can tell, and therefore has won no awards. His "cult following" is limited to a very small group of individuals. Every single news article that is being used as a source on the page says he died, and uses his death in relation to anabolic steroid abuse in Australia. He published one 66 page fitness book that has received no reviews. He allegedly appears in one web series that has not yet started its run anywhere. He put his name on some fitness supplement line, which I don't think really says much of anything. Everything out there about this man just says "he is dead" and Wikipedia does not need to report on the death of some guy who made a splash for a month and a half in the Australian press.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 05:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on. I thought the Rescue Squadron was eliminated.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 06:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Google News shows Blacktown Sun, two Daily Telegraph mentions, news.com.au... Haven't checked Newsbank yet, but if there is that on a Google News search, convinced there should be enough to pass WP:GNG when a more in depth search is done. --05:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and per WP:NOTNEWS: I'm not seeing any evidence that Mr Shavershian was notable, and the media coverage concerning him is gutter press type stuff of no lasting significance. The use of forum posts by the subject of the article to reference minor details about him (such as his UAI score) violates all sorts of policies, and borders on the creepy. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough for major news sources to cover his death. [2] [3] [4] [5] Other things about him include [6] "The death of Zyzz, a 22-year-old amateur bodybuilder and showman from Carlingford with a cult online following, was only narrowly out-searched by the death of Apple founder Steve Jobs." And he did get coverage BEFORE his death. [7] All the news sources say he had quite a cult following which means he meets the second item of WP:NMODEL "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Dream Focus 16:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just look at the references already used in the article. The guy has significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and the coverage is for more than just his death. Meets the general notability guideline with ease, and probably a bunch of SNGs to boot. Jenks24 (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of the references in the article are posthumous mentions. It seems that he is only notable for having died and this alleged cult following, or being a bodybuilder linked to anabolic steroid abuse who died.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just glancing at the refs, here's one from before his death (in the Sydney Morning Herald): [8]. Jenks24 (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe that is the only one that is before his death, and even then he is barely the focus of the article. It's about steroid abuse in the bodybuilding world.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Right, and that's why the only two images in that news article are of Aziz Shavershian, rather than his brother? In fact, that was an issue to Shavershian, he went further in denying alligations made against him ~ which he wrote a letter to the editor denying alligations made against him. That article is just as much about Aziz as it is with his brother. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 04:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pretty much per NickD. While there is plenty of news coverage, little of it suggests that the subject is suitable for coverage in an encyclopedia. Per WP:NOTNEWS being "famous for being famous" doesn't cut it, sorry. You need to do more than appear in the social pages now and again. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTABILITY states A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. WP:ENTERTAINER criteria has been met. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. As I said, all the news sources say he had quite a cult following. If reliable sources say that requirement has been met, than it has. Dream Focus 11:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is he really an "entertainer"? And if so, is being on YouTube and being mentioned by the local newspaper all one needs to be worthy of a Wikipedia article now?—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:ENTERTAINER defines itself as relating to "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:" He was a model and a television personality(defined as a celebrity). So yes this counts. Dream Focus 20:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • He was never on TV as far as I can tell. And does his Facebook or YouTube page (I'm not sure what he has exactly) really make him a model?—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I updated the wording since television personality redirects to celebrity, which he was. And the news articles are reliable sources, so when they call him a model, then he is. Dream Focus 22:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • But he didn't do anything other than die and have a drug peddling brother. How does this convey notability?—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • He had a cult following. Doesn't matter what else the articles about him said, they mentioned he had a cult following, thus he passes that requirement. We have guidelines to prevent from having the exact same arguments in every AFD. Dream Focus 00:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Ahh, #2 of WP:ENTERTAINER ? That is one of the more ill-defined and poorly-conceived lines of any of the sub-notability guides. I've rarely seen it invoked successfully, and if that is all this guy is falling back on then doubts about this article only increase. Tarc (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Sub? Its not a sub, as in under anything. It stands fine on its own in accordance to the rules. And consensus has long been established and sustained for that to be in that guideline. Insulting the rule doesn't make it any less valid here. Dream Focus 16:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Oh, don't go getting your panties bunched up. Yes, "sub", as in a specialized/specific notability guideline for entertainers, apart from the general notability guidelines. As for "insulting", no; the proper terminology would be "dismissive of". These are guidelines after all, and just as the weak-assed "multiple nominations" line of WP:PORNBIO has been set aside numerous times, so can this. The fact that a lot of anonymous people on the internet like something or someone is not a compelling argument to support article retention. Tarc (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Iconic figure, importance in bodybuilding clearly evidenced by numerous reliable sources including this episode Australia's leading national radio current affairs show Background Briefing centring on Zyzz [9]. His RIP site on Facebook has 160,000 followers, hardly an "alleged cult following". 27.32.251.238 (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The usual WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E for puffed-up popinjays that get a little media chatter for trivial things. The article read like one long, fawning youtube comment. Tarc (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quoting the GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." It does not matter what he is being covered for, but that he is being covered. See WP:1E- unless we are going to have an article titled "Death of Aziz Shavershian", the article about him should be created instead. As for the content concerns, remember that AFD is not cleanup. A412 (Talk • C) 03:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, quoting from WP:PSTS, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Thus, responses he provides on his Formspring can be used as a primary source about him. The article is simply repeating what his replies were. A412 (Talk • C) 03:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The main issue is, are the apparently numerous articles concerning his death significant coverage such that Shavershian deserves an encyclopedic article? It seems that this article is just one big obituary because Shavershian does not appear to have any impact. He is simply someone who existed and did things on the Internet. If I may make an analogy, the living Natalie Tran is another Sydney native who is also fairly popular on the Internet, but she has actually won awards for what she has done and has appeared on television, which Shavershian has not in either regard (he was an extra in one TV show and the web series he is apparently in has not seen release).—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your analogy with Natalie Tran would work - if she had similar circumstances - which she most definately does not. She is more than three years older than Shavershian. She has been in the spotlight for 3 years more than Shavershian. She makes vlogs ~ he did not. He was a bodybuilder ~ she is not. Only similarities I see, are the following: They lived in the same area. They are both internet personalities. They are both notable. ~ On a side note, the opening of this Ten News segment says it all. How many non-notable people (as you assert) have this done? not many at all. None. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 05:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I bring up the analogy because Tran has done things of note. Shavershian has done nothing but died. His death is all that has ever been reported about him, aside from the fact that his brother was arrested for possession of steroids shortly before he died and his existence used as an excuse by the Australian media to provide warnings for steroid abuse. There is a whole lot of nothing out there about him, and single lines in the Australian press (within the articles that describe the circumstances of his death) that say "he is famous on the Internet" are not enough to show that he is notable. I cannot tell why the Australian news picked up on his story at all, because there does not seem to be anything that says "Aziz Shavershian is a popular amateur bodybuilder with a following on Facebook (or whatever other sites there are)". Everything about him for some reason treats him in the past tense, and everything is just a repeat of other information, which shows there is nothing of note about him that shows he has had any sort of lasting impact except to serve as a segue to say that anabolic steroids are bad for five months in Sydney's news media.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The problem here, is, however, that he has been significantly covered by news media (not just routine news) over several months. Thus, he or his death in some way fulfill the WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply because this coverage is significant, and covered by many sources over a period beyond the immediate time following his death. A412 (Talk • C) 06:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Is it really significant coverage if every news piece regurgitates the same information, and then mentions something about steroid abuse, with the only new information being autopsy results?—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Definately not the same information, if the article has more than 20 different reliable references, sourcing different content each time. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 06:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'll go through the news articles in order. He died and someone made a comment on his Facebook. Opinion piece that says he died, vague mention of Internet following. He died, fans on social media. He exists, steroid abuse in Australia. He died, autopsy results. Passing mention in article about steroid abuse. Entry in a list of news events of 2011. Analogy in article on muscle dysmorphia. Arrest of Said Shavershian. Mention of his death alongside arrest of his brother. Autopsy results. ???? I don't think Now Public is even a reliable source. SimplyShredded is not a reliable source. ABC.net.au is a single paragraph. Passing mention. Passing mention. Passing mention. A link to a video.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well, now we know that if anyone on Wikipedia needs someone to give a very-brief explanation of a notable article's reliable sources, you'll be first to know. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 11:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It is most definitely significant coverage, even if each piece regurgitates the same thing. A multitude of secondary sources have covered him. A412 (Talk • C) 15:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • But the fact the same stuff is mentioned each time by the same newspaper, does it really show he's notable? And half of the news articles come from the Sydney Morning Herald. Yes, it's the oldest newspaper in Australia, but it's just the local paper for his hometown. There is no reason to have an article on someone who only got mentioned because his brother was arrested and then the Sydney news media decided to unnecessarily keep his death in their pages.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                          • The job of Wikipedia is not to critique the news. If he has been covered for that long, he is notable because of it. A412 (Talk • C) 06:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                            • But that's what WP:NOTNEWSPAPER was made to prevent. He's done nothing notable and the multitude of news articles don't prove anything about him. He is only the main topic of the reliable sources when they discuss the events of his death, and dying does not make one notable. The article is a glorified obituary because he has had no lasting impact.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • What did Jesus do in his lifetime? Had friends, not much else. Wikipedia does not choose its topics based on some criteria for personal merits, but on what reliable sources say on the topic. Thus this discussion on Shavershian's achievements is totally pointless. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow. Did you really just make that comparison? I don't even think I can even begin to make any sense of it. You have just compared a religious figure with some nobody who has been deified by a small niche of the amateur internet bodybuilding community. But if it's necessary, Jesus was recorded as having done things before his death. All we have for Aziz Shavershian is that his brother got caught with steroids and he himself died, in 20 different news articles no less. What has happened with Shavershian is exactly what happened with Corey Delaney 4 years ago. He's someone who was not notable at all, but was unnecessarily focused on in the Aussie news media.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are articles for numerous other "internet personalities" that didn't have nearly the size of following or cultural impact. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magibon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.77.246 (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC) — 70.62.77.246 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • keep - had a large fanbase (over 145,000) and inspired many people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.105.45 (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC) — 203.97.105.45 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep' One of the news sources linked to above indicates that the subject's death was comparable with that of Steve Jobs: "The death of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs was the fifth most searched for, the Australian body builder Aziz Shavershian, known as "Zyzz", the sixth". The nomination's reference to WP:1E is obviously illogical because there is no event here which is distinct from the subject. There's no cogent reason to delete here. Warden (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because everything about him is about the fact that he died. A single death due to a congenital heart defect should not make this man in any way notable, particularly when all coverage of him comes from his city's local paper, and some passing mentions in other Australian news media.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh so articles within the Daily Telegraph, The West Australian, Ninemsn - a broadcast on Network Ten news --is all just a bowel of goldfish, right? No, it's clearly notability outside of the country's largest city, and most prominent newspaper. IF there were few sources ~ a delete is appropriate IMO. That's far from the case. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 04:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • So a lot of sources that say jack squat mean we have to have an article on this man? Wikipedia is not the place for obituaries of people who have had no impact on society other than creating a bunch of musclehead fanboys who "mire" him.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Frankly, I see your argument as completely flawed. We do not decide whether to create articles based on merit, but rather than notability. If he is famous for "creating a bunch of musclehead fanboys" and this is covered extensively, but is a completely unimportant person otherwise, he is notable. A412 (Talk • C) 05:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not important what the sources say or why they said it. It only matters that this person received significant coverage in many sources repeatedly over a long period of time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat random question. Since a good chunk of those references are formspring, I have to ask... is formspring really a valid source for anything? From what I understand, folks just ask questions there, and the users answer however they want; there's even less cause to be serious on that than on the average blog. — Isarra (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, since most of the other sources appear to be posthumous, would that not mean that if anything the notable thing would be the guy's death, not the guy? Perhaps this article should be merged into a new article on that. — Isarra (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the note of Formspring, the article is not based on the Formspring posts, and there is no issues authenticity wise with the sources used ~ therefore abiding by WP:ABOUTSELF. With respects to a merge, there is still content of the subject, although "little", prior to his death - and as had been said, the subjects death appeared to be a "normal" death that occurs all the time ~ and his death wouldn't detail his bodybuilding; persona; internet personality status ~ etc. That's just my take on it. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 00:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • So if his bodybuilding, persona, etc are important, why was there so little on them before he died? — Isarra (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why they published a lot of the content after death isn't the issue. Let's bar the fact for now that he has had a long period of coverage - there have been people in this world that have had their talents and their notability discovered after their death. I can tell you right now that some if not all of those people would have articles as well. But, that's not the case at all, since Shavershian was co-centre issue in an article published prior death. Something else to consider would be the status of an Internet Personality: how do they get discovered? People and press. That is what Shavershian has gotten,  and what he still may get, considering the fact sources have come out post-death too. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 05:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Six months isn't "a long period of coverage". Being a "co-centre issue" does not beget notability on Wikipedia. His brother got arrested, and The Sydney Morning Herald decided to mention him too in something about steroid abuse. This does not beget notability, either. Shavershian was a flash in the pan, unless you go to BodyBuilding.com or 4chan. The page on Wikipedia about him is in no way any sort of article. It is just an obituary. And Wikipedia is not a place for memorials.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • An obituary? because the article mentions that the subject died - it's automatically an orbituary? No. Just because there is a death section in the article - it's an orbituary, right? No. I'd love to see what you think of this. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 06:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • The article as it stands is not a biography. It's a vigorously sourced obituary. Michael Jackson, who actually did something other than die, is not a good analogy. "Zyzz" did nothing. He was a bodybuilder who did not win any contests. He was a model who did not represent any product, other than one that he started before he died. He was an extra on a TV show and allegedly appears in a web series that is in production hell. The fact that the Australian press decided to make a field day out of his untimely death for a month, brought it up again 2 months later, and then decided to show that for some reason he was googled a lot, should not be a reason why Wikipedia has an article on him.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If the subject had no notability or coverage, whatsover, you'd see me co-deleting. However, you don't see me suppoting a delete because the article has both. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 06:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't get why you think his coverage begets notablity.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Maybe it's time the Wikipedia community re-writes the WP:NOTABILITY policy - that way we all know that coverage for a long period of time (among other things) = notability.-- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 10:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • So you acknowledge the fact that "Zyzz" does not currently meet our (current) guidelines for inclusion?—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                          • No, I'm clearly implying that you are misubnderstanding notability ~ I'm suggesting it is re-written, so everyone understands it, not few. Oh and what you say, is a suggestion - not even close to the facts. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 05:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Actually, I understand it quite well. I am just aware that this one dead guy does not meet the requirements, even if you believe otherwise.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Coverage and notability are inherently related. If he has coverage, it is obviously because he has notability. We do not define notability subjectively- we take coverage and interpret it as notability. Nowhere in a notability guideline is the opinion of an article's subjective notability according to an editor mentioned. You are using circular reasoning- because he is not notable, no amount of coverage will make him notable, and thus he is not notable. A412 (Talk • C) 06:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Coverage does not mean it is necessary to have the article. "Zyzz" is not notable because the coverage he received was transitory. The only time he was ever the central subject of an article is when the Sydney Morning Herald unnecessarily published content on the fact that he died. Anything else out there is a passing mention of him having died or being used as an illustration on steroid abuse. This does not make him notable for our guidelines on the matter.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • "The Sydney Morning Herald unnecessarily published content on the fact that he died."- This is a subjective opinion promoted by you. No editor is entitled to the ability to attribute a certain news story as unnecessary or necessary. Based on your logic, why do we have any Wikipedia articles? They all have coverage, however that does not been it is necessary to have an article on them. A412 (Talk • C) 06:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • The subjects of other Wikipedia articles have had an impact. Adding "u jelly" and "u mirin" to the Internet lexicon is not an impact.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • Again, subjective impact. Who are you to say that "adding "u jelly" and "u mirin" to the Internet lexicon" is not an impact? A412 (Talk • C) 06:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • Well what objective impact has he had? Being the sixth most googled term by the nation of Australia? Having a drug abusing brother? Being used as a warning to the Australian bodybuilding scene to not use steroids even though he died of a heart defect?—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • Let's see, what has he done? He has been covered in independent sources over a period of multiple months, created an internet cult following, had videos go viral, et cetera. I'm starting to believe you really have no motive for deletion. "Because he is not strictly notable (in Ryulong's opinion), this article should be deleted." is approximately your stance. You have admitted that he fulfills notability (by admitting that he has had coverage), and quoting from the WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.", and thus fulfills the notability criterion for inclusion. Whether the article is written as an obituary or not, however, is a problem for cleanup. AFD is not cleanup. A412 (Talk • C) 15:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                            • He's had coverage but it is by no means "significant". The cult status on the Internet has already been pointed out as such a minimal, subjective, and useless sub-guideline of the WP:BIO criteria. If he had viral videos, why was nothing mentioned before his death? If he did things, why was that not brought up before his death? All the news media and Internet have been doing is deifying a nobody.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My take on it is that Formspring is as reliable as any other primary source published by the subject. If he wants to publish falsehoods, he can do that in a blog or book too. They can be used per WP:PSTS. A412 (Talk • C) 00:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - Clearly meets wikipedia notiability. This is a clear case of people hating internet superstarts trying to push there own agenda like the Corey incident which made world news coverage but was removed by a admin. Clearly meets notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As AFD is not a vote, I would like to implore the closing administrator to take a look at the nature of the reliable sources being used to support notability. This article discusses an individual who has only been discussed in regards to his untimely death. The only news piece used in the article that discusses him prior to his death is only marginally about him. In fact, a bulk of the articles discuss him in some sort of entry on steroid abuse. This article, which I've recently removed from the page, was being used as a source to say that Shavershian is linked to skyrocketing steroid abuse in Australia, which the news article itself does not even claim.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Before deciding the result of this AFD, I suggest carefully reading the notability guideline, particularly the general notability guideline. While editors have tried to argue that having an internet following and "no objective impact" are criteria for deletion, this was not attributed to any policy or guideline. Note that many of the policies and guidelines cited by deletionists in this debate are not even completely relevant or correct to apply here, shown by MelbourneStar and myself.A412 (Talk • C) 05:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: administrators read over the arguments that are presented throughout the Afd, so it is not necessary to leave them a special note summarizing the discussion at the bottom of the page. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Particularly when one is made to mock another editor. This is still a discussion, and my note was another coment in that discussion that could not be prefixed by a "keep" or "delete" !vote indicator. I will refactor that in this edit.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ~ I'll remind Ryulong, yet again, that the use of Formspring and other questionable sources such as Facebook and Twitter (latter aren't included in article) is covered under WP:ABOUTSELF. Therefore I'll be reinstating relevant content with Formspring as a source. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 06:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Oh come on, I've seen a pilot episode of a TV show with him as a star. In fact, it's mentioned in the article. -iopq (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zyzz is/was the inspiration for many people to start on the path to a healthier lifestyle. He may have used steroids to get there but considering his starting position as a 50 kilo world of warcraft addict his dedication to weightlifting is remarkable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.181.172.96 (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — 132.181.172.96 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep -- well-sourced article. I find the blatant deletionism tiring. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not deletionism. This is a repeat of the Corey Delaney debacle from 2008. He was a nobody whose story got picked up by major news outlets, despite not being notable at all. He's not like Antoine Dodson whose made a career out of his 15 minutes of fame. Shavershian did nothing and only has a small legion of fanboys trying to keep his 1 month appearance in the news alive.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting: Where do you get "small legion of fanboys" from "cult following"? And, last time I checked, it's been more than half a year, not a single "month". Also, on fans, 170,000~ on Facebook + the title of "most inspirational" on the world's largest oline bodybuilding community, Bodybuilding.com, does not equal up to a "small following", sorry there. To save us all the time and energy, let me guess your concerns: is it something along the lines of Facebook and Bodybuilding.com are not-notable? 170,000 people isn't many? the source I provided is unreliable? -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 23:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not every Internet personality is notable. This is particularly true for those who are only known to the general public for having a drug abusing brother and an untimely death. And the provided sources may be reliable, but they do not mean anything. There were just as many sources covering whatever the fuck Corey Delaney did in 2008, but we don't have an article on him for just the same reasons there should not be one on "Zyzz".—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Leave Corey analogy out of this... he belongs in 2008. It's 3 years from then, times have changed, and they have totally different circumstances. Upon what you have stated, Shavershian has a following; months of coverage; appeared in a series; published a book; has a protein line. Oh, and is notable. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 00:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I mean this in the best possible way, but will you two please knock it off and just let other people comment? Granted, I understand that this is supposed to be a discussion, but responding to everything you disagree with is getting a little ridiculous, especially when you've already made your points. — Isarra (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I know Isarra, but Melbournestar, anyone can publish a book or make their own protein line, and the "series" you keep referring to has never seen the light of day. If it's a reality show, not everyone who appears on one of those things gets a page on Wikipedia, either. There's nothing special about "Zyzz" other than the undue attention the Australian media gave him in August, and again in December.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I understand what you mean Isarra, however Ryulong opened this door, when nominating the article for deletion. Nominating via AfD requires there being a discussion, and I'm sure Ryulong understands that - and since there has been a nomination, he wants a discussion - he will get one. Ryulong you are highlighting the fact that he has got coverage - yet you are also contradicting your statements where you say it's a one month thing. The book; series; protein line - accompanied - with months of coverage and reliable sources and a "cult following" as noted by sources - make him notable. Ryulong, if you'd like to discuss further, my talk page is free. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 02:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The coverage he received does not make him notable. He's a nobody who got mentioned on a slow news day when his brother was arrested, and that turned into a media circus when he died a month later. Having however many facebook friends, writing a self-published book that's never been reviewed, being on a web series that has never been broadcast and is probably not notable itself, and a protein powder line doesn't confer notability.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • A slow news day? come on, let's not critique Australian news - if you are not familiar with it. I can tell you right now, everyday, isn't a slow day with news. It is News. And what you state above about Shavershian, does not confer to your opinion, of notability - that's all. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 03:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frustrated keep due to WP:BLUDGEON by nominator. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little Five Points Halloween Festival

[edit]
Little Five Points Halloween Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article is not notable. There are Hallowe'en parades in small towns in many countries. Article created by banned user and previously tagged with {{unreliable sources}}. — O'Dea (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To be honest, I hate deleting articles like this simply because they are cultural events, and to me that is what makes Wikipedia so unique, useful and entertaining. The problem is, all I can find is references from the Atlanta Journal (pay), which are reliable, but they are just listings of events, not significant coverage. It is a smallish event, 35,000 people, so I guess no major paper has taken the time to cover it. Normally, I would rather live with less than stellar sources and let it grow (it isn't like it is advertising, or a resume bio) but if the user is banned, that is enough to speedy delete. Maybe someone can talk USA Today or another major rag to cover it and someone can recreate it. This held in Atlanta (4.7 million people), so I wouldn't call it the typical small town event, but if the local media won't cover it better than they have, then it isn't notable as an event for our purposes. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They may be of local interest, but they just don't fit into a general encyclopedia. Regional or local wikis are the way to go for this sort of material. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mamadou Kone

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

BLPPROD that is now (barely, poorly) referenced. This player has never appeared in a fully-professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL; also fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 19:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Bmusician 15:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian letter writing guides

[edit]
Victorian letter writing guides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article purports to be about Victorian Letter Writing Guides however it functions almost entirely as both a how-to guide (in violation of the WP:NOT policy) and a description of a particular historical style of letter writing already covered in the Love Letter page. No letter writing guides are mentioned by name in the body of the article and it therefore functions as a description of common writing practices, not an encyclopedic entry on "letter writing guides". At the very least this article should be re-written as a historical article on Victorian Letter Writing Etiquette or Merged as such into Love Letter. The main content and perspective of this article is disposable though as 1. it is not about its eponymous subject, 2. its named subject is not particularly notable (a general Google search of "victorian letter writing guides" brings up only 8500 hits, many of them mirrors of the wiki text) and 3. the spirit of the article is already articulated in the previously mentioned Love Letter page. Pakiderm (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Disagree that article is written like a guide. It exclusively uses past tense to refer to advice having been given by the guides which are the subject of the article. Furthermore, even if it were written like a guide, the article should be rewritten rather than deleted, as there are plenty of sources for the subject matter. Pirsq (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless a suitable merger target can be found. I agree that the subject was very notable and plenty of sources exist. But it does require a great deal of work. Most obviously, most correspondence was not in the form of love letters or matters of the heart. Style and form were of great importance in all correspondence, whether in the conduct of business affairs, ordinary social intercourse, or anything else, and hence the market for guides and other instruction. A decision needs to be made whether this article should be about the guides themselves, or the etiquette of letter writing as demonstrated in these guides. And then there are questions as to whether these varied with place and time (the Victorian period was a long one) and so forth. --AJHingston (talk) 00:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination is proposing a variety of possibilities such as rewriting or merger and so, per WP:BEFORE, a deletion discussion is premature. See Posting It: The Victorian Revolution in Letter Writing for an example of a source which contains detailed content about letter writing manuals. Warden (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per included references and presumed common name for this type of article. Topic appears to meet WP:GNG. Suggestion to merge to Love Letter not valid, as those have been and always will be written - whereas this article is of a historical nature. Nom now blocked due to username, although name could obviously be a good-faith coincidence. -- Trevj (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus appears unequivocal. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Morgan Romero

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

Contested prod. Filmmaker/self-published author of questionable notability. Google news search on "Seth Morgan Romero" shows zero results. Standard search shows a lot of simple directory mentions (due to minor roles in legitimate productions) and social media links - no significant coverage of the subject found in independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs are not an indication of notability - especially when that photo comes from the subject's Google+ account, which is not a reliable source. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand where your personal vendetta against this individual comes from. This particular individual is now signed with WME agency, is directing a feature film (which is being released early 2013) and has done a lot to help individual filmmakers. The least he deserves is this page on Wikipedia. I've seen individual pages with less credibility. Could you please explain why this page NEEDS to be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malvinworks (talk • contribs) — Malvinworks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
There is no personal vendetta - just a standard AfD based on an apparent lack of notability shown in the article. Of the five references you've currently provided in the article, three are from unreliable sources: Romero's personal Facebook and Tumblr pages, and his IMDB profile. Of the Amazon refs, one links to an out-of-print self-published pamphlet (not much of a case for notability there), and the other I added a failed verification tag to, as it has no mention of Romero. No one "deserves" a Wikipedia page - as to other pages, I'd suggest you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If this person truly is as notable as you believe, surely you can provide links to significant coverage from independent reliable sources that back that up? MikeWazowski (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Facebook link is not Seth Morgan Romero's own Facebook (he does not have a Facebook or has it listed under another name). The Facebook Link is of 'The Other Night', the official fan page for the film. If you want an independent source that credits Seth Morgan (one that's not IMDB), I have a link from an independent film blog 'CGI Films', which talks about Seth Morgan's upcoming project reliable, independent source. --User:OmniWorldMan (talk)— OmniWorldMan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The Out Of Print book is no "pamphlet". Only 150 copies were produced and they're very rare. I don't understand why you've being rude. I just want help to making this article thrive, but you're not helping, you're just attempting to delete it. I'm asking for help, which you're not giving me. --Malvinworks (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Malvinworks, I'm trying to correct the page "Seth Morgan Romero", so that it will not be flagged for deletion.-- OmniWorldMan (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)— OmniWorldMan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
MikeWazowski, I've corrected some sources and cleaned up a bit. This article should not be a problem anymore. Actually, you cited one of the references, stating it wasn't correct. In given reference #5, it does state the chart number, release date and that the album did, in fact, receive a 4 1/2 star voting average. This page shouldn't be anymore of an issue. I think you could take the deletion notice down when you please. --OmniWorldMan (talk) 04:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)— OmniWorldMan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Your cleanup consisted of posting a copyvio from another website. So no, I believe I will let the AfD run its proper course. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I always have to fix things. Don't worry User:MikeWazowski, I'll clean the page up and rid it of the issues previous users have gotten it into.--MaxMagnum1991 (talk) 05:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)— MaxMagnum1991 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to let OmniWorldMan know, facebook is generally not usable as a source. What this means is that at the very absolute most it is usable as a primary source if you can guarantee that it is by Romero and even then you can only use it when the material it's referencing is backed up by multiple independent and reliable sources. In other words, you should have so many independent and reliable sources that using any sort of primary source is unnecessary. Also, primary sources never show notability. It could be a picture of Romero eating dinner with President Obama and Queen Elizabeth, but it still wouldn't show notability because primary sources cannot be used as reliable sources showing notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
I understand your argument, but Romero's page is still enough for a Wiki page. The Google Trends for his book have upped to nearing 400 in volume index after his book went Out of Print (though that information was omitted from the Wikipedia Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxMagnum1991 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC) — MaxMagnum1991 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The only thing you should be careful about is that Google Trends probably falls under the guidelines for WP:GOOGLEHITS in that it doesn't matter how many hits you get back in a Google search- Google results do not show notability. Specific links that are considered independent and reliable sources does, and that's ultimately what an AfD comes down to. I also want to note that when I searched under Romero's name and the book's name at Google Trends, I did not get any results back at all. You might be able to find enough sources to show that his self-published book is notable, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he himself has notability outside of the book. Writing a book, working behind a camera, and doing a few roles does not automatically give notability. Rather than saying "he/she/it has google hits under this search or another", you need to be finding reliable sources that pass WP:RS and show notability. A large amount of google hits only means that searching for reliable sources might be easier, not that they're guaranteed to have enough notability to pass the very strict guidelines here on Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Comment. I also want to stress that it's possible, but unlikely for Romero's self-published book to have enough sources to show notability. (ArtWay was founded by Romero and his book on Amazon is published through CreateSpace, usually a dead giveaway that books are self-published.) I am going to try my hardest to look for sources, but please be aware that publishing, filming, and acting is not an automatic notability guarantee. I also have to ask, are either you or OmniWorldMan related in any fashion to Romero? I ask because if so, you should read over WP:COI. There's nothing against the rules about editing and creating an article about yourself, someone you work for, or someone you know, but you should be careful because it's so easy to overestimate someone's notability because you're personally invested in this person and might see notability where there isn't any.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Comment: I have found information that suggests that Malvinworks is either Romero or directly represents him by way of a link that redirected to an IMDB post where the new screen name is "sethmorganworks" and the profile is Romero's. [10] [11] I want to stress again that if you are a friend, relative, agent, employee, Romero himself, or have a personal stake in Romero's success, PLEASE make sure to be honest about it. Again, you can edit an article about Romero but you should be up front about your relationship with him because it might be a conflict of interest. I'm not trying to be the bad guy, but you've got to understand that it doesn't exactly look good when you have many accounts suddenly sign up only to edit or defend this article. Please look over WP:COI.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete. I've looked pretty hard, going under a number of different variations on Romero's name. There's just no reliable sources out there and none of the sources on the article are considered to be reliable sources that show notability. I want to stress that I'm not doing this because I suspect that the contributors to the article are Romero and his friends or because I have any sort of vendetta against anyone. I don't actually enjoy voting "delete" on articles and would much rather have things kept on Wikipedia than deleted. It's just that in order to be kept articles MUST have reliable sources that pass WP:RS and there must be enough of them to show that Romero passes WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:BIO, which he doesn't, despite his accomplishments. While I wish him well and hope that he does get this notability in the future (thus getting to laugh on E! about how his wiki entry was deleted back in 2012), he doesn't have it now and saying that he might achieve notability with his next film is just WP:CRYSTAL and we can't keep articles because someone might become notable one day.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not malvinworks, but a source close and reliable to him. I'm an assistant at Constance Productions. We're working on maintaining Wiki articles not only on Seth Morgan, but other sources pertaining the company. We've had many notable pages created.--OmniWorldMan (talk) 09:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:: Also, there's nothing for us to "gain" for the creation of the Seth Morgan Romero. We're simply creating the page as a collective of information. I'm not sure whether or not Mr.Romero cares for these "pages" like the one here in Wiki or IMDb, because his real connections are in the industry, where it matters, but when a person searches his name, his book, his album or any of his films, the simple Wikipedia page would tell a person so much about it. I don't see anything wrong with that.--OmniWorldMan (talk) 10:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Due to your involved nature with the company and Romero, I highly highly HIGHLY suggest that you look into getting someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film to help you with creating articles. One of the things about adding pages for your company and the people you represent is that it can be seen as being an advertisement or promotional attempt. Even if this wasn't the intent, this is how it is interpreted 99.9% of the time, especially when you have people and items that do not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipedia is a source of information, but the information has to pass the notability guidelines. It's discouraged for someone to edit an article that they're closely related to, but when it comes down to a representative for a company editing articles it is even more highly discouraged. I'm trying to stress this because most of the time a person editing something they're closely related to is viewed in a highly negative light, which is why it's so discouraged. You could have the best intentions in the world and do the most neutral and unbiased edits in the world, but it is always going to be viewed in a potentially negative light. I'm not trying to completely discourage you from adding to articles or requesting that articles be created, just warning you that it would probably be better if you went through one of the experienced users at the movie wikiproject. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Also, please do not remove the COI tag from the article. It doesn't mean anything automatically bad, just that one or many of the major editors to the article are personally involved with the subject.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete - I spent some time this morning trying as hard as I could to find any reliable sources for this article whatsoever, and there really were none that would establish notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Without reliable sources to establish notability, there is no reason to not delete this article. -Aaron Booth (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan J. Baldelli

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

None of the references lead anywhere, and a web search finds nothing but the WP article and derivatives of it. Smells like a hoax Chris the speller yack 18:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as a hoax No such player in the databases, and the page claims this individual played in MLB. We'd know him if he did. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You might - I wouldn't. I do know that someone's advertising a book by this title for $101.72 or CDN$ 74.38 if you get it from Amazon Canada. And it consists of Wikipedia pages... I think I'm in the wrong business. This started off as a comment. I've now been through nine pages of ghits, and found nothing except mirrors or rehashes. It looks like we've got a Lieutenant Kije here. This article has been up for FOUR YEARS almost to the day, and been edited by all sorts of people. My congratulations to the person who spotted this. Peridon (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I spotted it, and I should have marked it for speedy deletion, but was astonished how long it survived and how many editors had "improved" it, so I thought I would tread lightly. It was only in trying to categorize by what state he was born in that it started to smell fishy. It was an interesting case. Chris the speller yack 01:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted under CSD A7. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlyn Khater

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

autobiography with only the subjects website as a reference nothing on Google news, no evidence of awards and no evidence of notability Theroadislong (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. after several relistings, there does not appear to be consensus. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Huynh

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

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, none found via Google Web or Google News using various versions of his name, including Wong Cheung-fat. The article was prodded, but of the sources added with the removal of the prod template only one was a reliable secondary source, and that one only mentioned Huynh in passing. Huon (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 01:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow for further discussion of Schmidt's newly presented argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Google Search results presented by MichaelQSchmidt are worthless. One is a press release, another three (of twelve) aren't about this Francois Huynh at all, and the majority of the Vietnamese sources (not all of which are independent) is yellow press coverage along the lines of "Huynh goes shopping with his girlfriend" or "Huynh photographed with mysterious girl". If we were to rewrite this article per WP:WEIGHT, it would be something along the lines of "Francois Huynh is a man who had an older girlfriend named Karen. After he broke up with her, he was photographed with another woman." His "multiple significant roles" have not been the subject of any coverage, as far as I can tell. Winning Mr. Hong Kong 2007 might make Huynh notable, but I doubt that's a notable competition in the first place. It's the Hong Kong section of Mister World which was deleted for a lack of notability. Huon (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That paparazzi follow him around and gossip about him must certainly be annoying for him... but one must wonder why they have chosen to do so. Just as with the article on his brother that the nominator failed to get deleted, and like it or not, of note to the millions in Hong Kong is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. I'll do what I can to translate some sources later today, as even the articles about he and his girlfriend out shopping, offer required verifibility of other aspects of the article. And as for the Mister World article being weakly deleted after a meager discussion by 4 editors... and it was NOT unanimous... that article may well be back once the topic gets more attention from Wikipedia editors interested in CHinese topics, as it DOES have sourcability and arguable notability. And yes, Mr. Hong Kong itself needs work, but we do well to not judge something viewed by literally millions of Chinese as automatically non-notable, and perhaps spennd more thime searching for sources and encouraging that hardcopy sources be brought forward. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you please explain why the international Mister World pageant (whose article got deleted) should be a "Chinese topic"? Regarding Huynh, I believe his affair was of interest because his girlfriend's former friend is an extremely wealthy businessman who tried to reclaim gifts worth millions of $HK when she left him for Huynh - but notability is not inherited. Even if Huynh were shown to be notable, per WP:WEIGHT we should cover "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint", and unless you want to claim that WP:WEIGHT (like WP:BURDEN?) does not hold for Chinese topics, his love affairs should get a much more prominent coverage in the article than his acting career which isn't supported by any references whatsoever. Basically we would have to rewrite the article entirely. Huon (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Repository Infrastructure Vision for European Research

[edit]
Digital Repository Infrastructure Vision for European Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kinkreet (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. No independent sources at all. As usual, some of the participants in the project have produced some publications. That may help make them notable, but not this project. Any useful knowledge generated through the project can easily be included in the articles on these subjects. Just another article about just another European Union-funded research project (why don't we ever see articles on NIH- or NSF-funded projects?) suffering from the same problems that these articles have in general (see my notes on this subject). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another Euro-project projecting to provide flexible, scalable, integrated something. This particular project aims to deal with the Repository "Landscape" so it might better be termed, not D.R.I.V.E.R. but rather D.R.I.V.E.L. EEng (talk) 06:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability, and without that all I am seeing here is the scoping document for a project. Wikipedia is not a project documentation repository (or "respository" as their site's front page has it); as others have noted, it only appears to be the EU - doling out the largesse to its client institutions - that seems to need this free hosting "solution". It hardly seems worth doing a redirect: maybe just a couple of sentences in Sixth_Framework_Programme#Framework_Programme_6 along with all the other projects that have come and gone with minimal impact? AllyD (talk) 20:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Kutschke

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

Article is about a footballer who has yet to make a professional first team appearance, thus failing the WP:NFOOTBALL guidelines. Jared Preston (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Resources, Ltd.

[edit]
Liberty Resources, Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

submitted via AFC, and declined, created anyway. Fails notability, no gnews hits. Prodded, declined by creator. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. None of the arguments for deletion are compelling, especially in light of our policies and guidelines on lists. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of news presenters

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

This article is inaccurate, incomplete and not very useful to users. Much of the information is included within individual broadcasters or countries pages. To try and list every person who currently does or ever has read the news in one place is just not possible. There are many thousands of people across the world who fall into the category of this page, and very few are included. It is impossible to make this article accurate, therefore I feel it should be deleted, with relevant information included on individual country/broadcaster pages. Uvghifds (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainably broad. 74.207.78.189 (talk) 05:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reading an AfD further down in the day's log I am reminded that other very broad lists exist in acceptable states, and the page is not actually in any kind of disrepair, the majority of links are blue. I believe lists are by default assumed to be lists of only those entries which satisfy notability guidelines to warrant their own articles. 74.207.78.189 (talk) 05:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination's claims of impossibility are irrelevant because it is our policy that our articles may be less than perfect. Warden (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appropriate list; a list of anything at all compiled on the basis of their notability as shown by Wikipedia articles is obvious possible, as possible as the articles themselves. That there are other notable people who ought to be included is to be solved in the usual way, by making articles about them. Obviously such lists will always be incomplete, for there will always be new people in a profession whose notability has not yet been recognized with Wikipedia articles, but that's true for almost anything. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 un arguable spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GenerationYnot!

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

nominated for speedy by multiple editors, blatant spam and advertizing. looks to be a sock/meatpuppet army deleting maintenance tags Gaijin42 (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I super duper care, because this page is so blatant, but technically, once a CSD is removed, we are not supposed to renominate. (I also failed at this on this article, but it was before I noticed the mini war going on) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, it's clearly the creator that removed the tag, so I don't feel like I've broken any rules replacing it. Hairhorn (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GSAR

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

Doesn't appear to be a widely used term. Not mentioned by reliable sources. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intentia

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

Lack of notability and historical significance as should be established in inline citations to reliable sources covering the subject in depth (per WP:NCORP). Survived previous AfD in 2005 because it was "publicly listed company", though still has no references. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Putting that up for A7 was ridiculously wrong, the article has been around for many years, a regular prod is always better in such a case unless you are the world's foremost expert on the subject.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by RHaworth as A7. (WP:NAC) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mangatrai jewellers

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

Claims of notability cannot be verified, either from the single reference provided or from any web search. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Bristol City F.C.. Rlendog (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bounce around the ground

[edit]
Bounce around the ground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopaedic, only search results seem to be connected with this page. Mainly original research. References don't seem to support a stand-alone article. Google books results show 3 results, one not connected with this "phenomenon", one based on Wikipedia itself and one which may or may not establish notability. Cloudz679 14:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Willowburn FC

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

Non-professional football club of unclear notability. League they play for does not have its own article. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 13:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi, Yonobarn, and welcome. To clarify, the problem here is that Wikipedia has certain policies concerning what subjects are "notable" enough to warrant their own article, which is called the General Notability Guideline or WP:GNG for short. Over the history of Wikipedia, some subject areas have been given more specific guidelines for notability, including various sports. The one for association football (the sport also known as soccer) is found at WP:NFOOTBALL. The critical point for it is that, in general, only teams in fully professional leagues are notable enough for inclusion, unless they have some other sort of notability (being the first team in that sport in the country might do it, for an example). We other editors can't evaluate easily whether Willowburn FC is in a fully professional league without knowing anything about the league, so information on Football Toowoomba might help. If it's an amateur or semi-professional league, however, we might still need to delete the team page. If you have a lot of reliable-source references, though, the league page might be able to stand on its own, and include a section on the teams with a short blurb paragraph about each one. Still, we need more information. - Jorgath (talk) 03:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Siege of Homs. Although there are not many comments here, it seems there would be agreement on this compromise close, which I too think reasonable DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homs 27 February 2012 killings

[edit]
Homs 27 February 2012 killings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper Bihco (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the reasonning. If it happens in Norway, it is worthy of a long page, but if it happens in Syria, this is different story?--Warbattle (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Should be merged into a more general discussion of the recent assault on Homs, e.g. 2011–2012 Syrian uprising. We can't have a separate page for every day people die in Syria, since events are ongoing and deaths are frequent, and sadly this killing doesn't seem to be particularly exceptional. This isn't about racism or anti-Arab bias, it's simply a question of grouping closely-related events that can best be explained as part of a single article; there isn't a page on Auschwitz 27 February 1942 killings either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I agree with Colapeninsula -- the general conflict within Syrian and between Syria and its neighbors is surely notable, but each individual incident is not. That's the way a newspaper is written, not an encyclopedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer if the page stayed as a standalone, with more expanded content. But if the page is to be merged with another one, it should not be with the general page about the full conflict in Syria. This page has already so many categories, finding a more specific page would be better and more accurate. --Warbattle (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this particular day in some way unique or special regarding the events in syria or homs? If not, it should be merged I could see a page for events just in homs rather than the overall syria article, if there are other events which have recieved coverage that could be used to expand it, however, if this is the only event in homs that has recieved individual coverage, then it would need to go into a more broad article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found this page which is probably a better candidate for a merge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Homs . This is a general page about the events in Homs. The killings are notable because I believe that it is the first time that so many civilians have been killed in directed gunfire instead of being hit during a fight between the army and the rebellion. --Warbattle (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom, to Siege of Homs per Warbattle. I agree that the day in question is not independently notable (how is it different from the day before and the day after?), but I support Warbattle's rationale that the overall conflict page is long enough to need spinoffs. The Siege of Homs page is a good compromise. - Jorgath (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm not sure why this wasn't snow closed earlier DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bastard Shagged my wife

[edit]
The Bastard Shagged my wife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Note:Moved to The Bastard Shagged My Wife.
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The Follies Of Luvland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable book, no refs, no reviews from RS, fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, created by same COI account. PRODs removed (to no-one's surprise) by page author, sans explanation. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

The Follies Of Luvland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

with identical rationale.

  • Delete. Fails notability criteria. There are references to it online, of course, but they fall under "trivial" according to the first criterion in WP:NBOOK. Someone should have a gentle talk with the creator of this slew of articles about books by this author. -Anagogist (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the articles and the author of the books are the same person. Don't think a gentle talk's going to help here... Yunshui 雲‍水 12:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, no-one here has advocated a speedy deletion. What's your point? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, you mean Jimfbleak's deletion of Follies.... Since it was hosted as web content, I'm thinking A7 was an appropriate rationale. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bmusician 15:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of freeware

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

Unmaintainable list duplicating the functionality of category:freeware. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notice all the blue links? It meets all requirements for a list article. The rule is you don't destroy a list because a category exist, no reason why both can't exist. And believing the list is "unmaintainable" is not a valid reason to delete. Dream Focus 13:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree that being a duplicate of category is not a valid deletion rationale on its own, the scope of this list is by far too broad (see WP:SALAT) to be at least marginally useful and making maintainability a fairly valid concern: this list omits more entries then it contains and quite a few are red links. It can't be kept up to date without the enormous work which nobody conducted since the previous AfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Incomplete isn't a reason to delete it either. Most links are blue, with very few red ones. Anything not listed you can add yourself if you want them there. And its scope is not broad. It only list freeware which has its own Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 14:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that for quite a long time nobody did it and there is no indication that anyone would. I would consider my work on maintaining such a broad list a waste of time, just as you do. This list will always be outdated and incomplete enough to be regarded as useless at least, though the word "misleading" is a way more appropriate here, as the reader would generally consider it to be a complete list of freeware-related articles on Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Duplication, as already stated above by both Dream Focus and Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (the nominator), is not a reason for deletion per WP:CLN. Although the list certainly needs work and hasn't been receiving attention, I don't see how the list is unmaintainable. One issue in particular which will affect the number of visitors and therefore potential maintainers is the almost complete lack of incoming links. According to the toolbox there is a single incoming link from List of free and open source software packages and a redirect which is not linked from anywhere else. Like virtually all lists and articles it needs improvement, the best way to kick start that is to just get on with it and link to the list in question as much as possible. I'd volunteer for that but I already have a handful of lists under my wing which need updating. Someoneanother 17:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - could add templates/notes/whatever that it's incomplete and should only include applications with a WP page. But it's possibly of use to someone, and could be maintained. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So the doubt in the maintainability of this article prevails. So, the person who is going to update it to link all of the freeware articles on Wikipedia, daily check for new freeware items added and removed and etc for at least a year, please, step out. Or at least link the user page of the person who is going to do it. This article need daily attention, so unless such person exists, it is unmaintainable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that list of requirements is grounded in the reality of WP as a work in progress maintained by volunteers. Once a list is up and running it doesn't require constant updating and isn't likely to receive it, that doesn't mean that upkeep is impossible or that the list is without function. The vast majority of open-ended lists like this will never be complete and will never be up-to-date. Someoneanother 18:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does the borg thing go? This is a list. This is a valid list. This list will never be complete, but do help to complete this list. Something like that. I initiated this list, and although I do not feel as the most significant contributor to the list, I do feel somewhat compelled to point out how valid the topic is. I think it is just a list, essential to cataloguing of certain notable subjects, including some of my own, unaffiliatory, favorites and I'd like that sort, the really handy and successful ones, available to people as they have been to me with their stories and if not here, where we list everything about everything, where? In mind is defrag software for instance, process explorer etc., and if the freeware on this list has since become obsolete by open source wares, I'd like to know that fact too as evolutionary history, rather than just delete as though never important, but it's not just the usefulness of the software that is important here. Commercial interests prove themselves unreliable in so many instances, if not now then at some time, and comparable open source is often more attractive, but certain topics remain of solid importance for the pure relevant historical information of it and freeware is the forerunner of open source if nothing else. My gain in accessing this list is personal only, but I can't think off the top of my head that this list is a particularly bad idea, and could never for the life of me understand how nobody had created it before, or how it wasn't filled up by a hundred freeware boffins long before now. This is the stuff of the dream no matter how embroilled in the nightmare. I for one find the games lists, freeware and open source, indispensible for some entertainment. I will become violently defensive if anyone beats up the freeware games list. Anyway, Before open source there was freeware. If we do not stand on the shoulders of giants, we are probably stuck in the mud. What exactly is wrong with it? Do you not find the subject of interest? Do you find it to be choked by non essentials? There's no way a list of freeware is irrelevant in and of itself. I don't know about favouring a category. Apparently that is an unnacceptable argument according to the previous deletion discussion? It wasn't pursued. ~ R.T.G 01:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid list, as the others have said. It is policy that duplication between a list and category isacceptable; I think recent practice is that it is strongly encouraged in most cases. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previously deleted article, was previously speedy deleted, and still lacks indication of notability. See article's talk page for other editors' concerns. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Tipping

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

Vanity page, or so it appears. Subject is not notable. Gregmc12 (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Colapeninsula. Additionally, looking at the references provided in the article, most of them are not about the person himself. Most are about shows that he's worked on, with his name only being mentioned in the credits. That's really not enough to establish any sort of independent notability. Rorshacma (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by DGG as G11. (WP:NAC). Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Narongrit Waraporn

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

Subject does not appear to pass Wikipedia's notability criteria. Paul_012 (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a (rather poor) CV and shows nothing to suggest notability. Emeraude (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consenenss that it does not meet the standard of WP:PROF DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kriengkrai Porkaew

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

Subject does not appear to pass Wikipedia's notability criteria. Paul_012 (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a (rather poor) CV and shows nothing to suggest notability. Emeraude (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus that it does not meet the standard for academics DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bunthit Watanapa

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

Subject does not appear to pass Wikipedia's notability criteria. Paul_012 (talk) 09:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Very clear consensus. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Junior logo variations

[edit]
Disney Junior logo variations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A completely unreferenced and unnotable list of trivia. The article was already deleted once by PROD for being WP:Original Research, however the original page creator promptly just recreated the page. It was tagged again for PROD, however the PROD tag was removed without explanation. I would suggest that it be merged to Disney Junior, except the entire article is just a list of random trivia with no notability, and thus there is nothing here worth actually keeping in the merge. Rorshacma (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal immigrants in Malaysia

[edit]
Illegal immigrants in Malaysia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original Research/Synthesis. I think this entry at the talk page sums the issue nicely:

Only 2 of the 16 sources cited actually support the text. The others are dead links, broken citations, biased source (crusading politician), or simply contain nothing relevant to the citing text. In addition, of the 11 sections, 3 contain no citations at all while 4 contain only faulty citations. Yet this article is long and detailed. That strongly suggests the possibility of original research. If better sources are not produced, then this article should be removed. --Zahzuhzaz (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's high time to do so. This is a relatively touchy subject IMO and should be re-created as a balanced and well-sourced article Lenticel (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Lenticel (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- this is purely a content issue; no reason has been given to delete this article. Acceptable content reasons for deletion might be if the article contains potentially libelous material (e.g. violations of BLP policy) which needs to be purged, or if the article content is totally irrelevant/nonsensical (in which case PROD or speedy would suffice). The issue is a topical one in Malaysia and clearly encyclopedic (nobody's even attempted to rebut that presumption here). As a content issue, my suggestion is to strip the entire thing down to a stub and start from scratch. The sources listed in the bibliography are generally acceptable per WP:RS (they consist generally of journalistic reports), and if folks are so concerned about inadequate sourcing, any mainstream Malaysian newspaper/news website can provide plenty, e.g. [28] [29] [30] Johnleemk | Talk 00:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is our policy to improve such articles, not to delete them. Warden (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think everyone here's on the page of having a well balanced article but differing in where to "start from scratch". My position is that this article is better off as a redlink so that knowledgeable Malaysian editors would be able to rebuild this article without the OR version influencing their work. If someone can make a decent stub article out of the mess it is in then I'm willing to withdraw (I think the best sources would be from Malaysia itself but I don't know their language). The problem is not that the sources is unreliable but how it is used incorrectly to promote a certain viewpoint. --Lenticel (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well good luck with that. Only one ref is salvageable. And it verifies only one sentence of the article which reads more like an essay. I for one think WP:TNT is quite appropriate here. The topic is notable, no one disputes that. But seriously, unless anyone can actually show that any part of the article can be kept, this AfD is more than justified. Unless you're all okay with an article that has exactly one sentence saying "Some non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have placed the number of illegal immigrants in the state of Sabah alone in the realm of two million, comprising two-thirds of the state's population."?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jordan Grand Prix. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EJ-10

[edit]
EJ-10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable historical product. Received minor attention due to a safety recall, but not enough for notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Dog Energy Drink

[edit]
Dark Dog Energy Drink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B.S.L +2 High School,Sec-12

[edit]
B.S.L +2 High School,Sec-12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article about a secondary school, no evidence of notability. Proposed deletion removed by creator without an explanation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Secondary schools are almost invariably regarded on Wikipedia as notable. This is a poorly written article and, as the nominator states, it lacks references. That is a good reason to tag the article as unreferenced and to attempt to tidy it up, not to delete it. Emeraude (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there are no references confirming that it even actually exists. And even if that is proved, per WP:ITEXISTS it does not establish notability without coverage (online or offline). --lTopGunl (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hate to do this but the statement of Emeraude that secondary schools are almost invariably notable on Wikipedia is wrong. Specifically I suggest that you read the specific Wikipedia policy Here. Specifically it states that notability guideline for schools is WP:ORG and I could not find any reliable secondary source apart from Facebook. There is further confusion that this school is at multiple loccations in Jamshedpur (some places it states its sector 3, somewhere else it states Sector 12) So what is the exact location of this school? Wikishagnik (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply A School is not a place so simply a loccation on a map is not enough. School's still get judged by WP:ORG, facebook pages can't be used as a reference. At best this article would simply be a perception of a person about the school. This can't be sufficient grounds for an article Wikishagnik (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, secondary schools are almost always kept at AfD (95%+ since 2003 in over 1000 AfDs). The only exceptions have been schools that cannot be verified (which this one may fall into), or very small schools.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually, we do indeed have a convention for considering all secondary schools as notable; almost none have been deleted except where actual existence can not be verified. In this case, it can be verified there is a school at the location, and though it does sound unlikely, the name does seem reasonable on the basis of the sponsorship. But this is really OR at this point. Perhaps the author should first see to it that the school gets an official website at least. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rhen Escaño

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

A Filipino teen actress. She played in the 4th season of Lipgloss. Can't find a thing in reliable sources except she joined the cast and was a "student by day, a bar dancer by night." She played in Tween Hearts. She is listed as "extended cast". She is not listed anywhere on the show's website or the network's website. Unable to find any reliable references with only social network sites reefs are available. Fails WP:NACTOR. The creating editor has added articles to about everybody who has been in Tween Hearts. Unless some refs turn up, there will be more to follow. Bgwhite (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you're talking about the article and not the subject, yes? Best to be clear about these things. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Tompkins

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

Tomkins only apparent notability is that she married Daniel D. Tompkins, a US vice-president. It doesn't appear that she was involved in any political or social issues and the only apparent notability is her marriage. As notability is not inherited, this page should be deleted. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further, note that she was First lady of New York 1807-1817. Dru of Id (talk) 09:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with her husband. I can't find any evidence of independent achievements, and Tomkins himself doesn't seem to be the subject of works that would offer detail on his wife (e.g. no major biographies of him). There's a very small amount of info in her article that's not in Daniel D. Tompkins (e.g. her mother). --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a 334 page biography of Daniel published in 1968. Only snips can be viewed online.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that at least four editors in the merge discussion started in 2009 were against the merge as well.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protane

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

Generic version of Pantene. No sources, no links, no notability. Louiedog (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable generic store brand, rumors or no. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of a specific notability guideline, I assume we would refer to WP:GNG.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – sgeureka t•c 17:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sajda Tere Pyaar Mein

[edit]
Sajda Tere Pyaar Mein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article about a soap opera that provides no evidence of notability. The only mentions in reliable sources I can find are thin passing references such as [31]. This article has already been deleted after a Prod (as not notable) and a speedy deletion (as recreated by a banned user). I don't believe this new TV show (launch Feb 14, 2012) is yet notable enough to support an article. Sparthorse (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except the references, being self-published, are not reliable sources. Cloudz679 05:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
List of most popular sports by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure WP:SYNTH - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Student Society (AAU)

[edit]
The Student Society (AAU) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous Prod with rationale "Lack of evidence in reliable 3rd party sources that this organisation is notable." Prod was removed by article creator without comment. This was after adding a reference to the Danish Wikipedia page - but Wikipedia is not a Reliable Source. So bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the Prod. AllyD (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C. H. M. College

[edit]
C. H. M. College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A long article, but completely unreferenced. Quite a lot of peacock language makes the whole thing read like a prospectus / marketing piece. Suggest the very small amount of relevant information than can be recovered is merged into University of Mumbai Biker Biker (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No quorum, making this a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buri Baat Hai

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

Zero RS coverage on gbooks and gnews. Was PRODed, but PROD was removed by Night of the Big Wind. Epeefleche (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Clear consensus. We do not delete articles because they're difficult to keep neutral--we instead work hard to make sure they do keep neutral. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False Memory Syndrome Foundation

[edit]
False Memory Syndrome Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After reading the talk page over, it seems to me that there are too many problems with this page. If this is not chosen to be deleted, I think that somebody needs to take the initiative to completely re-write the article. It seems that User:Pamfreyd is indeed Pamela Freyd, and wrote the original article herself. She was warned on her talk page and also in this article's talk page (as she is the FMSF's Executive Director, a glaring NPOV issue)

Because the subject is controversial, I believe that using the current article as the basis for future improvement could be an extremely slow process, as the article's talk page clearly shows that editors are having a difficult time even agreeing on whether or not this is a legitimate organization; just as many debate whether or not sources cited are good sources.

NPOV issues have been raised multiple times, and I believe that if this organization is notable enough to merit a wikipedia article, then somebody who is NOT involved with the organization will create a new article and ensure that it is NPOV from the beginning. I think that this will lead to a much better quality of article, with more neutrality and better sources.

I will be very very pleased to read the debate on this, please chip in with your thoughts!! /-\urelius ♠ |)ecimus What'sup, dog? 03:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is the matter at issue here, not the current state of the article. And on that sole issue, the Google Books search immediately turns up lines such as "One of the fascinating stories of the 1990s was the emergence of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation" ("Human Behavior in the Social Environment"), "The False Memory Syndrome Foundation has had a substantial impact on the field" ("The link between childhood trauma and mental illness"), "the False Memory Syndrome Foundation which attracted international attention" ("New feminist stories of child sexual abuse") etc. So the organisation is clearly notable; which leaves the question of the article's improvement to normal editing. AllyD (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of notability. Not a perfect article, but FMSF would have been mentioned in most significant articles and books written – both pro and con – since the early days of the recovered/repressed/false memory controversy. MatthewTStone (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No member or board member of the FMSF has ever published an article in a referred journal in their OWN academic field documenting the existence of FMS.

Sturunner (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Organization is clearly notable. The claim made by Sturunner above is not only irrelevant to whether the article should stay but outright nonsense. The nominator suggests the article needs a total rewrite since the original author was someone in the group, but I can vouge for the fact that it has been edited and looked over many times since then by editors of various beliefs, and if I, for one, had determined any COI problems I would have deleted or rewritten them. Nominator doesn't really prove anything is wrong with it, just wants it deleted on the claim it must have something wrong with it. DreamGuy (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No argument has been presented that would justify deletion, even if found to be based on fact. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Park Centre

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

Non-notable mall, with only run-of-the-mill rs coverage on gnews. Was PRODed, but PROD was removed by Night of the Big Wind. Epeefleche (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stoq

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

No indication of WP:notability. No independent WP:reliable sources. Google searches reveal nothing. Appears to have been created by one of the developers. noq (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The references prove the local notability (in San Paolo, Brazil, which is the scope of publisher's activities), which is just not enough for keeping it. Note: noq, what did you mean by "Appears to have been created by one of the developers"? Each software is created by one of its developers... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the article appears to have been created by the software developer. noq (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not seeing much coverage of the open source source software. The link above listed 1220 hits but at first glance most of them are not related to the software. The top hits appear to be some abbreviation for a theology related subject. noq (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Advice

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC as they have only released an EP and have only acted as a supporting artist on an "east coast" tour, no national tours to date. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Rlendog (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aged care channel

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

I found no significant coverage for this channel. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eno Eruotor

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

Nothing indicates actual notability per our guidelines. I searched for her and found one little reference that I've added to the article. The other two references in the article establish that she has/had a job and so she presumably exists--but existence does not equal notability. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the time her name is mentioned on forums and social networking sites people are criticising how poor she is in her role. She has only been there for a limited amount of time and is set to lose her role in the next few months as part of BBC cutbacks. 89.248.29.41 (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per criterion 1. Nominator indicated a desire to withdraw with this edit. (Non-admin closure) StAnselm (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Armstrong

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

This page isn't an article. It's two lines of text, two references and a link to the man's website. It looks like more of a subversive ad. I suggest that the page be deleted. Alternately, this page should only be kept if it is re-written to provide a neutral article explaining who he is and what his positions are. Saying he was a teacher who travels with his wife isn't notable at all. Jsderwin (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I agree that the article is in sorry shape, but the subject is clearly notable. In fact, I found two articles published specifically about him just this month. I added some information about his beliefs to the article, so at least it's longer than two lines. Rklawton (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The consensus below is that this secondary educational institution is notable, even though fairly small and privately run. Discussion about moving the article to a disambiguated name can take continue on the Talk page as there is no consensus here on that issue. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Hill School

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

Contested proposed deletion. PROD reasoning was " No indication this private school is sufficiently notable for an article." Reason for removal was a vague statement that it might be notable or redirected, without any actual evidence of notability or indication of where it would be redirected to... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking for any sort of big fight on a broader issue, just this one article on this particualr private school. I know we consider public secondary schools as being the magical realm of "automatic notability" but if that standard has been extended to private schools this is the first I'm hearing of it. Maxpreps stated goal is " to cover every team, every game and every player" so an entry there is not an indication of notability. T.he NRHP listing makes a case that that specific building may be notable. The book and the review of it are not about the school, and as we all know notability is not inherited, so it's good that you indicated that you added those just for fun and they are not really relevant. Since the sources you highlighted in your post are actually not useful for establishing notability, I wonder if you would care to indicate what, among the extremely trivial routine coverage I'm seeing in those search results, indicates that this particualr school is notable. Number of Google hits is also not a good metric unless you actually confirm that the results constitute non-trivial coverage and are not false positives. The first two pages of rsults are summer camp guides, honor roll listings, brief entries in "local schools" columns in th local papers, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my research at User:Milowent/History of High School AfDs, private secondary schools are almost always kept at AfD as well. Very small schools (much smaller than this) are an occasional exception. See Edison's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonzaga High School for a better explanation.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are essentially arguments that we should keep this because we kept some similar articles. What about the subject of this article? Nobody has as yet brought even one source that indicates notability to the table. There is no policy on this, so WP:N should be the standard, as with all other articles for which there is no specific guidance available. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem? I've already added some sources to the article if you hadn't noticed. There are many more if someone has access to paid databases.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the de facto rule in these AfDs saves precious editor resources. Experience shows that high schools are almost always kept at AfD because they are indeed notable, the precedent of 100s of AfD since 2003 is a clear consensus.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually for some reason I hadn't noticed those changes, my watchlist must be getting too big. Ok, let's see what we've got there:
  • ref#1 is an abstract of an article about the historic buildings on campus which are an NRHP site. Again, that means those buildings may be independently notable.
  • Ref#2 more of the same
  • Ref#3 an obituary in the local paper for a former headmaster, not useful for establishing notability
  • Ref #4 a picture of one of the historic buildings
  • Ref #5 an article in a local paper about the school's anniversary in 1984, again mostly about the historic buildings
  • Ref #6 looks to be a directory listing
  • Ref #7 again, local coverage focussed almost entirely on the historic buildings
Ref #8 routine coverage from the local paper of a new headmaster and opening of a new school year
WP:REFBOMB and WP:PUFF would seem to apply, although you've made a very compelling case that those NRHP buildings need an article of their own. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • when one adds references to an article, its meant to provide citation, not every one is meant to show notability in an AfD, I already know this will be kept. The Warwick Beacon apparently ran a six piece series on the school (including Hopelands) but its hard to figure out the exact dates and components of each piece in their online version.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you are confusing me. I am well aware that WP:V is the other reason one adds sources to an article, but if you llok above I said that no references had been brought to the table that establish notability. You replied that you had added sources. I went throught them and found them all weak or useless for establishing notability, and now you are saying you were not in fact trying to establish notability, making me wonder why you pointed out these sources in direct response to my statement that notability had not been established by sourcing.... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying I'm not trying to flood the article. I do think some of these sources help show notability. I've been through a zillion AfDs where the nominator gets put in the unenviable position of feeling they have to defend against every reference to justify their nomination. Let's allow some other editors to review the AfD and comment and we'll see what the community thinks overall.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I agree that this isn't just a conversation between the two of us, but I also don't want to be one of those lazy nominators who just throw up a nom and leave it at that. I'm always prepared to admit it if I am proven wrong, but the sources we've got so far don't have any merit as far as notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - long consensus is that we keep verifiable high schools but, in addition, institutions located in registered historic buildings have also been kept. There are sources from which the page can be expanded and it is capable of meeting WP:ORG. I see no good reason or benefit to the Project in deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Curtin

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

Person not notable? The article is basically written by User:Dangermouse122002 as other users only have assisted with layout, categorisation and similar things. I'm wondering if it might be a non-notable person who wrote an article about himself. There is only one source, a two-page article, which is referenced over and over again. User:Dangermouse122002 has only worked on this article and has also uploaded the three images used in it. Special:WhatLinksHere/Keith Curtin only contains articles related to this deletion discussion, lists of new articles and lists of all living people, but nothing in article space. Stefan2 (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotional plug for a publicist (and not a very good plug at that). Take out the last two paragraphs about his mother, the routine jobs he has been employed to do (as have countless millions of others), the "succes" of those he has worked for, and we are left with..... a book that hasn't been published (or even finished!). Absolutely non-notable. Emeraude (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. We will sometimes apply the standards for notability flexibly in India and other countries where documentation is hard to come by, but it seems clear that this company does not meet the standards at this time, and the purpose of the article was admittedly promotional. I urge the contributor not to take this as an example of geographic bias, but rather as instruction in the need to make sure there are adequate references for notability before writing an article. I hope thye'll continue to contribute. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avant Garde Digital

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

Contested prod. Indian web development company. Article made a claim to notability based on being the largest "pure technology company by revenue" in Shimla. This claim was originally backed by a reference to a travel guide, which did not mention that company at all. The company's website uses Lorem Ipsum text. There are no reliable third-party sources indicating notability. GabrielF (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir/madame: Iam a local writer in the area trying to improve the visibility as shimla is a small town. I just contacted the company in shimla and they have mentioned that the new website is being launched, and therefore there is placeholder text. Also usually the newspapers mentioned are not available online. Notability among local area is an important and healthy element. It is proposed that the article not be deleted. I have also found out that one of the companies employees added the extra text which has been now removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realanirudh373 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - We don't do placeholders. If there is no supporting text or stuff on the net, no sources, and nothing notable about it available to use, it goes, period. Put it back when the company are up and running, until then, no.  BarkingFish  15:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately the Hill Port coverage is essentially a passing quotation from the firm's director in the context of a piece on small to medium sized enterprises. The firm is described as "a Shimla based digital services company with a production office in Chandigarh and a sales office in Toronto, Canada". That falls short of the needs of WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comment is truncated Can you please add the full comment? What falls short of the need of? The company has a corporate office in Shimla. Thats what it said, they have employees there. Hill Post is the only english online newspaper that serves Shimla. As I mentioned rest of the papers are not in English... would you like Hindi Scans? You can get an interpreter to interpret them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.66.227 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That" is referring to the preceding quotation; WP:CORPDEPTH is a reference to Wikipedia's notability criteria. So "That <statement> falls short of the needs of <the Wikipedia notability criteria for companies at> WP:CORPDEPTH." The source language is not the matter at issue here; it is whether there are sources which meet the "depth of coverage" specification in that policy. AllyD (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly becoming a case of geographic imbalance This is now becoming clearly a case of geographic imbalance. Just because honorable members are not local to this area, does not mean that this is not a valid article. Quoting wikipedia, "The same is true about subjects only of interest to those in a single city, town, or region. People who live outside the area who have never visited there or done any research on the area will obviously be unlikely to have ever heard of them. But Wikipedia is not limited to subjects that everyone in the world knows or will have a good chance of knowing. Being a global encyclopedia, Wikipedia can cover a wide range of topics, many of them pertaining to the culture of a single country, language, or an ethnic group living in one part of the world. The people living in a single city or town and everything they have built around them are likewise a culture and society of their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.66.227 (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true IF the subject meets the criteria for notability, namely coverage in secondary sources. Such coverage does not appear to exist beyond a brief mention. GabrielF (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK number-one singles of 2012

[edit]
List of UK number-one singles of 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is redundant to information already listed in two places in Wikipedia. There is no need to supply this information a third time when it is already summarized and listed at List of 2010s UK Singles Chart number ones#2012 and 2012 in British music#Number-one singles. This is an example of a WP:CFORK. A redirect is an alternative here but my attempt at that was reverted. The only reasoning I could get from the page's creator is that if US music charts are going to have redundant lists, so should the UK. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since is a discussion on the 2012 list, all sources have been merged to the list of number-one singles in 2012 in British music. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit MaityTalkContribs 11:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Bearian thought it was not speediable. But someone had tagged it as db-no context. I would also suggest test page and WP:SNOW. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is a flow of energy?

[edit]
What is a flow of energy? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

origional research illogicalpie(take a slice) 00:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_February_28&oldid=1142635344"