Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 December	25 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. I almost relisted this as the idea of redirection has been mentioned but not thoroughly discussed, but it seems clear consensus favors keeping this in some form, so the deletion discussion is pretty much over. Discussion of whether to redirect can and should continue on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Crow

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Eliminated from The X Factor. She is a POTENTIAL Disney artist. But IF and UNTIL that happens, doesn't seem that this girl rates an article. Safiel (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are confirmed reports Rachel Crow will have a career with Disney / Nickleodeon productions very soon. Almost all American Idol contestants have pages while they are competing. I think The X Factor carries equal weight to American Idol, so contestants in X Factor should all have, in principle, pages of their own. werldwayd (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found other sources, such as this one, which seem to confer notability (she's the subject, and it discusses her career after her now-concluded stint on reality TV). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Basalisk. Gage (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as it was once upon a time. She is only notable within The X Factor (USA), and the same rules should apply as with contestants from the UK version - only those who go on to gain notability for a second thing should have an article, such as releasing a single or album, or becoming an actor or something else. The list entry is good enough for the time being. –anemone projectors– 15:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep - per disney, per source from Basalisk.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and AnemoneP. Per WP:1E, references so not support notability or sufficient coverage per WP:BAND or WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISAF Youth Sailing World Championships

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

Youth games are normally considered non-notable. Fails wp:GNG. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have to disagree with your assertion about youth competitions in general. Plus, a google search throws up plenty of secondary sources. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure about your interpretation of GNG, since I've found a host of sources including [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Youth World Champions are all over wikipedia and the internet. They are the feeding ground for the Olympics with notable Olympic Medalist having competed in the event. Belcher, Page, Ainslie, etc. I admit the article needs work but it was a starting point. Not sure were your interpretation comes from. (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dead links do not qualify an article for deletion. Notability established with significant coverage in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Panacea Biotec

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

delete The artile main reference does not work Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dead links are an issue for cleanup, not deletion. A Google News search shows abundant RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dead links are not rationale for deletion, but both references in the article work anyway - I guess they were fixed since the nomination. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If people will notice the reference "New vaccines to lift sales at Panacea Biotec". International Herald Tribune. 18 August 2005. Retrieved 2009-03-05.... does not take us anywhere. also the second link is form 'AccessMyLibrary advertising network' so not trusted. If people can add references form relevent sources then we can think about this article.Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2011 (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) 23:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy KeepDead links are not a reason for deletion. Buggie111 (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no requirement for sources to be freely available online, so the references in the article are perfectly valid. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added several current references to the article. It is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in India. As noted by several people above, reference problems are not a reason for deletion, as long as the subject itself is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MuZemike 02:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windswept House: A Vatican Novel

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

Non-notable crank roman a clef by a marginal novelist, with no critical attention. Orange Mike | Talk 23:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Critical attention can be found here [9]. Minimally, merge and redirect to the author. Pburka (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Orangemike, and redirect to Malachi Martin. Unfortunately this piece and its "key" posted on traditio serves as a lightning rod for kooks who think it is a true story and inject it as source material into BLP's mentioned in the "Key".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malachi Martin. I wasn't able to find anything that shows that this book has been reviewed by reliable sources, the key point being "reliable". There's a lot of coverage in a specific set of websites but they aren't generally considered to be notable or reliable enough to be a reliable source. Redirecting to the author should be a good compromise on this since most of what I did find focused on the author just as much if not more than the book.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Changing vote to keep per sources found.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep. The main motive for it submission for removal is purely based on POV. Comments like "kooks" and "marginal novelist" do nothing to give the impression that a balanced thought has been mustard to bolster a "delete" argument. An advisor to THREE popes surely has to the credentials to have a page on Wikipedia, especially when the book is reported to contain 80% fact. Forbes Magazine: "No spiritual journey is complete with a Vatican page-turner by Malachi Martin" Reviews. Whilst you may need agree with his text, I am sure that you agree that this is not the motive for a deletion --Anthony of the Desert (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NYT [10] Chicago Tribune [11] (paywall, but reprinted in the Spartanburg Herald Journal [12]) Publishers Weekly [13] Kirkus Reviews [14] 86.44.31.213 (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The NYT article is repeated by two editors. The Forbes quote is unsupported by Anthony, although it may indeed be verifiable. Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews review almost every book that's published. Anthony, Martin does have his own article. This is the book we're talking about, not the author. Despite your statement, Anthony, about "motive", you just recently tried to restore the offensive and policy non-compliant material about who each character equates to in real life (according to the author and whatever sources support the "key"). Unfortunately, the notability guideline for having a book article at Wikipedia is very low. The only criterion this particular book could fit into is the reviews, and it's a close call. I would exclude Kirkus and PW for the reason stated above, and we are left with the Times and the Spartunburg papers (can't address the Forbes reference because I haven't seen the review, if indeed it's a review). I don't think the coverage is pervasive enough or of significant depth to include the book. I remind everyone that it is only a guideline and can be overridden by consensus: "meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the book" and "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be more accurate to say that Publishers Weekly reviews a small fraction of published books. According to our own article they review approximately 7000 books per year, while the United States alone publishes nearly 300 000 titles per year. Pburka (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I was speaking mostly anecdotally and I should have checked my "facts". However, after reading the Book reviews section of our article on PW, it is probably not the best source to establish notability for a book. For example, the reviews are anonymous and short (as is the one for this book) - hardly in-depth. The reviewers are paid a small fee to produce a review. One reviewer said her reviews were altered for mysterious reasons. I would give a PW review little weight.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I did try to restore the "offensive" material as I felt that as it was referenced, the reader could make their own conclussions as to its validity and authenticity. As it turned out to be "non-compliant material", I didn't pursue the issue. The issue here is yet another example of despotic "Guardians of the Wikipedia realm" who try to take a sythe to any page that they do not care for, based solely on POV. Maybe they should follow a more democratic road and discuss issues and try to amend them via the 'talkpage' rather going straight for deletion. --Anthony of the Desert (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without addressing your sillier points, I would just say that sometimes the spirit and/or the letter of WP:BLPREMOVE requires removal first and discussion after. By the way, has anyone ever taken traditio.com to WP:RSN?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It probably needs to go there, the site is little more than a glorified blog, hosted by a person claiming to be a priest and posting anonymosly as "Father Moderator". I suppose it could be reliable when discussing antisemitism among sedevacantists or things of that nature.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There are thousands of articles about books (less of interest or value) than this one, so the point of deleting this can only by subjective. He was an important author in catholicism at the end of the XXth century. This book is his last and most important one. It deals with the infiltration of the roman catholic church by outside ennemies in order to destroy it, an is based on facts. The article should be expanded, not deleted.--Stijn Calle (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment, this discussion is about this book, not thousands of other articles. Martin was an important author to maybe a few fringe groups, but not Catholicism as a whole; this book is not even particularly well-written for him and it is a novel, Stijn, you need to remember that when it comes to BLP. Persinally, Martin's earlier works were better before he reinvented himself as the "Conspiracy Secret Agent Attacked by Satan disguised as a Pitbull sent by a 45thDegree Mason" Priest.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The policy Mike is talking about is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. While there are enough sources to make me change my vote from redirect, saying that things should be kept because worse articles exist or because it's important (WP:ITSIMPORTANT) aren't good arguments for it to be kept. Odds are that this will be kept, but I want you to understand that you need to back up your opinion with things along the lines of WP:NBOOK. Things aren't decided on a vote, but on the strengths of the arguments given. I've seen pages deleted with just one "delete" opinion and pages kept on that same premise, so believe me when I say that the amount of opinions in either direction does not sway the admins.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denbigh Community Primary School

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

Primary schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable school. Buggie111 (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primary schools are not inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in UK). This article fails to state why this school in particular is notable. As far as I can tell, "Good" is the second of four Ofsted inspection ratings. That would suggest that in the opinion of Ofsted, this school is nothing other than average. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Run of the mill primary school with no claim to fame. Google search turned up nothing establishing notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether a school is average or famous is irrelevant because our notability guideline is not concerned with these things. All that matters are independent reliable sources and this topic has them, e.g. this detailed report of 14 pages. Warden (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. A routine government report, as as that linked above, does not establish "significant coverage": It demonstrates only existence, not notability. Neutrality^talk 23:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it lacks the level of significant coverage I'd want to come close to meeting the GNG. A redirect in this case would be potentially very confusing for users looking for a school in Denbigh. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Howdon#Education where the school is mentioned, per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hillbourne School and Nursery

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

Schools prior to secondary school are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary schools are not inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in UK). This article fails to state why this school in particular is notable. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Run of the mill primary school with no claim to fame. Google search turned up nothing establishing notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether a school is average or famous is irrelevant because our notability guideline is not concerned with these things. All that matters are independent reliable sources and this topic has them, e.g. this detailed report of 15 pages. Warden (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. A routine government report, as as that linked above, does not establish "significant coverage": It demonstrates only existence, not notability. Neutrality^talk 23:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article makes no case for notability and seems to fail to meet the level of sourcing I'd be looking for for it to meet the GNG een if such notability were claimed. Unless that can be accomplished then I'd tend towards delete at this stage. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Poole where it is already listed, per standard procedure. (Already listed for merging since March 2008). Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Schwarz Stein. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Garden

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

Non-notable single release. Emeraude (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Schwarz Stein - the song itself is not notable and we have an article on the artist. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Schwarz Stein - the song doesn't have much content and isn't that notable. All that could be merged into the artist article. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page by the same band as an equally non-notable single]:

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ching Shin Elementary and Junior High School and Kindergarten

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

Junior high schools and below are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Run of the mill primary school with no claim to fame. Google search turned up nothing establishing notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. Neutrality^talk 23:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wenshan District#Education per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Franciscan Foreign Kindergarten

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

Kindergartens are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Run of the mill kindergarten with no claim to fame. Google search turned up nothing establishing notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. Neutrality^talk 23:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill kindergarten, not even a primary school that could be uncontroversially redirected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hill House Kindergarten

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

Kindergartens are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Run of the mill kindergarten school with no claim to fame. Google search turned up nothing establishing notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. Neutrality^talk 23:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not widely-covered by reliable sources; no indication of notability. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill kindergarten, not even a primary school that could be uncontroversially redirected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etonkids Huizhi Kindergarten

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

Kindergartens are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Run of the mill kindergarten school with no claim to fame. Google search turned up nothing establishing notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. Neutrality^talk 23:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill kindergarten, not even a primary school that could be uncontroversially redirected.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Academy Kindergarten

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

Kindergartens are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools. Also does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG.Edison (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill kindergarten, not even a primary school that could be uncontroversially redirected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Minneman

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

Prolix biography of an obscure engineer, padded beyond recognition by addition of vast swaths of material on projects in which he played some behind-the-scenes role. Seems to lack any solid assertions of notability and be violative of WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. Orange Mike | Talk 22:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are perhaps two key questions. One is notability, the second regarding the availability of the verifiable links to corroborate the information supporting notability. This man at age 35 was one of two people who proposed the Minuteman-II missile program to the US defense department, he ran the program that resulted in the 747 that carried and facilitated flight and landing tests for the space shuttle; made the proposal for Boeing that led to one of the first major PRT system in the US at Morgantown WV, and served as the head of systems engineering to design and execute it. If we assume that additional data can be identified to further corroborate these statements, is this series of contributions to aerospace and transportation substantive enough to achieve notability? Note that so many of these 20, 30, 40 and 50+ year-old documents have not been in a readily accessible form, but are now being released and brought online.

Miklminn (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We also have the problem that he worked for Boeing. Which has been...lax (yeah, we'll go with that) when it comes to preserving company history. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few references to establish the notability of this person Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional discussion with Boeing historical personnel indicate that additional historical documents are forthcoming in stages over the next 8 weeks. Miklminn (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO requires the availability of published works on this person produced by an independent reliable source to establish their notability. Boeing historical documents aren't useful in this regards. Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly written as a tribute article by single-purpose account (likely family member), failing WP:MEMORIAL. As for his notability, his accomplishments seem no different than any other engineer who worked on those projects. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources (as that term is used here) to substantiate notability. Agree that this smacks of a WP:MEMORIAL. ukexpat (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- clarification - this nomination is by no means meant as disparaging the work done by Minneman and his colleagues. I will quote the chorus of the filksong "Everyman":

For I’m the man who took up tools and laid out the designs

Of starships, I’m the one who built their sleek and burnished lines.

I’m everyman who ever fashioned cold refinéd steel

Into the dreams of spaceflight, I’m the one who made them real.

- I honor their contributions in every appropriate way. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as the nomination was withdrawn with no dissenting voices. TerriersFan (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misr American College

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

Middle schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. Unfortunately, as the article says quite clearly, this is also a high school. Keep. Emeraude (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah -- so it does. I stand corrected. It is not in the lead, but there it is, 2 paras prior to "MAC achieves through its dynamic, internationally experienced personnel... a blend of highly qualified foreign nationals and Egyptians, provide stellar education for students", and 2 before "The only downside to the school's system is the fact that the school itself is quite suffocating, for it barely holds more than two grades in the courtyard. The school is so small that the student body is too big to fit in the courtyard during break time, let alone do any extra curricular activities due to lack of space." It has other problems, but the aforementioned one is not one of them.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm not sure what your point is. That it's a lousy article? Agreed. Needs improving. But are you withdrawing your nomination? Emeraude (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I am withdrawing it--as I said, it had other problems, but the aforementioned is not one of them.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a K-12 school according to its website here. High schools are usually kept per editor consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a high school. No reason why it doesn't meet WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a G12 high school.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, a WP:SNOW for Christmas. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stars of Warner Brothers, the early talkie days

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

An unreferenced article which does not specify clear inclusion criteria, so is inherently impossible to define. The list of people included is arbitrary original research. Prod was removed without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for having too specific a set of criteria per WP:SALAT. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Minds

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

Elementary/middle schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG, and per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools, elementary and kindergarten schools are typically merged. redirected, or deleted. No obvious target for merger or redirect. Edison (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - withdrawn by nominator. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Berwick Grammar School

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

grammar schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator is clearly ignorant of what constitutes a grammar school in different parts of the worls or what Wikipdeia's tradition is with school articles. Our normal procedure is to delete/redirect articles on primary schools, but this is clearly an article about a school which provides secondary education. Keep. Emeraude (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw -- as, though this is not at all indicated in the article itself, this grammar school contains not only a middle school (note: my understanding all schools that are only as high as the middle school level are treated as indicated above), but also a senior school.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alphington Grammar School (2nd nomination)

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

The result was redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools#K-8 schools. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenia B. Thomas K-8 Center

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

K-8 schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools#K-8 schools. I'm not finding non-trivial RS coverage for this school. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools#K-8 schools per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools#K-8 schools. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Lawrence Jr. K-8 Center

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

K-8 schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools#K-8 schools. The school has some RS coverage but not enough to establish notability. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gene93k. - Dwayne wuz here! ♫ 15:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools#K-8 schools per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Baltimore City public schools#Middle schools. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calverton Elementary/Middle School (Baltimore, Maryland)

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

Elementary/middle schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The best redirect target appears to be List of Baltimore City public schools#Middle schools. The school gets some RS coverage. I'm undecided whether it is substantial. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. No significant coverage. Neutrality^talk 23:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Baltimore City public schools#Middle schools per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Work out the details on what is and is not a secondary or high school, then have this discussion if necessary. There seems to be significant confusion on that point. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albatross Grammar School

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

Appears to be a non-notable grammar school, and per wp standards a redirect (after delete of this content) in order. Epeefleche (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a K-10 school. Secondary and high schools are usually kept per editor consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gene. I had understood that while we usually keep high schools per editor consensus, that is not the case with middle schools/junior high schools and other schools that are junior to high schools. Can you perhaps point me to the consensus that middle schools/junior high schools are kept, that you refer to? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a high school. No reason why it doesn't meet WP:GNG.TerriersFan (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This school does not appear to include grades 11 and 12.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 10th grade (age 16) is the cusp for a high school since that is the level when a school leaving certificate is awarded. TerriersFan (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to change my position if I can see where there is the consensus that schools up to grade 10 are treated the same as those that are higher level. If I can find or be shown that the unreferenced claim in the article that it does in fact go up to grade 10 can be sourced to an RS -- I see that two editors now have indicated that that is the case, but I can't find rs support for it myself in the article or on google, though it is likely my search is not as capable as that of others. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TeririersFan. In most countries, the legal school leaving age is around 16, or a rough equivalent of US grade 10. This would include collèges in the French education system, for example, where junior high and senior high (lycée) are completely separate institutions, and secondary or comprehensive schools in the UK where sixth form colleges are also often separate. In developing countries, grades 11/12 are often only available to students within reach of large schools in big cities. What we don't generally include in these criteria are 'middle' schools where students are required to continue to the third tier before they are allowed to leave. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not educate beyond grade 10, so is more of a middle school, than a high school, thus failing to gain the blanket assumption of notability typically granted high schools. No sources have been presented to show it satisfies WP:N or WP:ORG, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT not a directory of every organization, business, or school which has ever existed. It is unreasonable to claim that if in some country people leave school after 10th grade) or 8th grade, or 5th grade) that that education pattern automatically makes their highest level of schooling notable for all such schools. Each such lesser school should be held strictly to satisfaction of WP:ORG, the applicable notability standard. Sources to satisfy it can usually be found with moderate effort for high schools, which get coverage in newspapers over a wider area. Edison (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What country's Ministry of Education classifies its school-leaver-age secondary schools as 'more of a middle school'? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep doesn't make sense to hold not united states schools to u.s. standards. Bouket (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:GNG. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMA 1: The Reckoning

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

Non-notable mixed martial arts event. No significant coverage or lasting historical significance. Primary results reporting. References are not from independent sources. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "non-notable mma event" - content covers the first EVER mixed martial arts event in Ontario, Canada, just weeks prior to the giant event in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Also, Josh Burkman, Jordan Mein and Chris Horodecki are notable fighters in the MMA world. "lasting historical significance" - see previous point. "references are not from independent sources" - apologies, did not know that was necessary, - http://www.mmamania.com/2011/4/3/2088193/mma-the-reckoning-results-from-the-casino-rama-in-ontario, http://topmmanews.com/2011/04/02/mma-the-reckoning-quick-results/, http://www.sportsnet.ca/mma/2011/04/02/the_reckoning_fight_card/ , and so on. Will update the document accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stynn (talk • contribs)
Delete Of the three sources provided by the article creator only one has more than simple match results. Being the first event in a particular province is not necessarily notable, IMO, but could help if there were other aspects that might make the event notable. Having notable fighters on the card does not make the event notable as per WP:NOTINHERITED. I can find no significant coverage of the event therefore it fails WP:GNG and the article fails WP:ROUTINE. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's sources are either not independent or routine sports coverage. I agree with TreyGeek's comments. Jakejr (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The scale of the event does not appear notable (national or international), and the article itself appears to be routine news coverage. Janggeom (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is historically significant for Ontario (population of over 13 million), and MMA fans, since the UFC has called Toronto the "Fight capital of the world" (http://www.mmafighting.com/2011/10/12/dana-white-calls-toronto-the-ufcs-fight-capital-of-the-world/). Since the fight to get MMA in Ontario was a long one, compared to Vancouver, Montreal, and other major venues in Canada, this event is nationally significant, just as the first MMA event in New York state will be, once MMA is sanctioned there. What is the purpose of deleting this information? If someone wants to find out what the first ever MMA event is in Ontario, why make that harder for them by removing it from Wikipedia? Would we also be removing the fight itself from Burkman's page? Deleting fights, and re-writing history is hardly what Wikipedia is about. The results (verified by several different sources) clearly confirm the event took place, which is the most important part of the article - the date, place, and fighters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stynn (talk • contribs) 19:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though I still think keeping this page separate is the most user-friendly and accessible means of data organization for this historic information (as it allows people to see exactly who faught on the event, and how they won, etc), if the information police deem it unworthy for its own page, someone should update this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_Martial_Arts_in_Ontario) to include a significant amount of information from this event. Otherwise, the "Mixed Martial Arts in Ontario" article implies that the event in Toronto was the first, which is historically inaccurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stynn (talk • contribs)

Further Debate Regarding WP:GNG - after a small update to the article, to simplify this debate, can we mutually establish where criteria is not being met here?

"Significant coverage" - topic is covered in many articles, ranging from several general sports updates, to a detailed breakdown of the challenges and changes of putting on an MMA show in Ontario compared to other places. I, personally, am not sure what else should be added to the basic article to fulfill this criteria. As such, I think we are still debating whether this has been met satisfactorily, correct?

"Reliable" - Several major and independent articles provided, ranging from mainstream (TSN and Sportsnet) to independent MMA sites. Not sure if this was a point of debate.

"Sources" - was once a point. Are we still hoping to collect a greater variety of articles on this event to meet this criteria?

"Independent of the subject" - Creator of article made an error here in using a promoter (and host venue) of the event as sources. Should be removed. Other sources are independent of the subject itself (though they focus on Canadian sports).

"Presumed" - I don't believe there is any controversy regarding this point, but correct me if I am wrong. Stynn (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stynn, when debating an article for deletion, you should only type your vote to keep or delete once. AfDs involve more than counting votes, but limiting each person to one vote makes it easier to follow who is participating in the debate. You should also sign your posts by typing three tildes (~) at the end. I have removed duplicate votes and added your signature where it was still missing. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being the first event in Ontario makes this interesting, but not inherently notable. This event featured only a handful of notable fighters and the page, as it currently exists, primarily reports match results, which are just routine sports information. Information about this event could certainly be added to Mixed Martial Arts in Ontario; the event itself, though, does not warrant its own page. Otherwise, we would have a page for the "first" sporting event of every kind in every country, state, and province. There does not appear to be significant independent coverage that establishes the notability of this event - just a handful of reports that the event happened and the results. There are a few articles I found in the London Free Press, but little information outside of Ontario to establish more than local significance. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Osubuckeyeguy I was using the "keep" thing more to signify "what" i was arguing, moreso than as a vote itself. Didn't realize it was a signifier of a vote.

RE: "Otherwise, we would have a page for the "first" sporting event of every kind in every country, state, and province." - Why is that a problem? I would think people living in a state would be interested in the information about the whens, wheres, whys and whos regarding their first MMA event. Especially somewhere like Ontario and New York, where citizens have been trying to get MMA sanctioned for years. But generally speaking, even in smaller places, isn't that what an encyclopedia is for? Mass-information? The only reason I made this page in the first place was because multiple sources (wikipedia included) were claiming UFC 129 was the first MMA event in Ontario, which was simply incorrect. There was no major, central resource for finding information about this event. And as an MMA researcher, radio host, and columnist, I find wikipedia is an excellent starting point for this type of miscellaneous information, and excluding significant firsts seems somewhat counter-productive to maintaining and cataloguing historical firsts. Regardless of who is or was on it, I would find it valuable to have a page with detailed information on the first MMA event in Brazil, California, New York, etc, and I am sure many others would too. These are key changes for the growth of MMA, and since MMA is still developing, it's basically a history that we are writing now, on Wikipedia. This is why I think it's important to catalogue it correctly, and not just give it a semi-mention on some partially unrelated page. Stynn (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Littleton Pre-School

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

Preschool. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No notability stated and what little material there is could be recreated in a few mins if necessary. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 International Khiladi. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 21:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Khilaadi

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

Existing article. There is already an article on this subject. Torreslfchero (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with International Khiladi. There seems to be material missing from the older article. However, it seems both articles are at least partial copy+pastes of IMDB . Pit-yacker (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge, clearly the same. Just go ahead and merge the articles. AfD is the wrong process for this. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Edward Richardson Community Primary School

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact the school is possibly built on an ancient landfill site might lend notability if this fact can be substantiated as notable by a reliable source (beyond a class 2 project from 14 years ago). If the article is kept, a good deal of the rest is noise and needs stripping down. Wikipedia isn't free web-space and some of the material is better at home on an official website. Some of it probably doesn't even belong on the schools website never mind here. For example, does anyone need to know there are 7 car parking spaces for staff? Pit-yacker (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its notable by virtue of its coverage in independent reliable sources such as this. Warden (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. A routine government report, as as that linked above, does not establish "significant coverage": It demonstrates only existence, not notability. Neutrality^talk 23:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless any notability of the school can be shown. Some of the content is clearly very close to being promotional, leaving the possible archeology as the notability - which, it strikes me, isn't about the school at all and so would be better dealt with in Tetford. Show that it's notable rather than that it exists and I'll think about it again. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tetford#Education per standard procedure and where it is already mentioned in depth. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rishab's Number

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

The creator contested the prod with "This number is entirely my work and no one has come up with it before me so there is no way of having a third party source. This number is useful for chemistry students who want to save time. I have given all sources from where i got the equations. [emphasis added]". Non notable. →Σ τ c. 21:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Original Research. Also non-notable. If this number hasn't been invented before (under another name) then there should be publications about it in Journals, etc. So why aren't there any? If it has been invented before, then this "rediscovery" by a school-boy is non-notable. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is closely related to the einstein. BTW, the numeric value should be 0.119627 (using J and mol instead of KJ and nmol). --Lambiam 19:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously, but... I'm on an iPad so can't do this myself, but can somenone give a gentle explanation on author's talk about OR etc.? I'm disdainful of OR egotism by adults, but need we crush the spirit out of this youngster utterly and completely? EEng (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eppstein has given a link to a guideline that is clear enough. There is also WP:NOR. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. I assume that the author was simply unaware of our policies. We aren't a publisher of original thought (WP:NOR) or for things made up one day (WP:MADEUP). Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleves School, Weybridge

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Primary schools are not inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in UK). This article fails to state why this school in particular is notable. As far as I can tell, "Outstanding" is one of four Ofsted grades for schools - approx 10 - 20% of schools fall into this grade. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a matter of sources not status. It is our policy that " there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover" and so the number 17,000 has no significance here. Warden (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is certainly notable per the WP:GNG, being documented in detail in independent, reliable sources such as this. Warden (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Indeed, the 17,000 number is irrelevant IF all 17,000 subjects are notable for some reason in their own right. The consensus in the past has been that primary schools are not inherently notable. That means that for the article to stay, there must a claim made as to why this school is notable. This article makes no claim as to why this primary school is, in terms of notability, any different to any one of the 17,000 other primary schools in the UK (alone - never mind the rest of the world).

Your reliable source is from Ofsted. Ofsted, is a statutory authority charged with inspecting standards at every school in England from nursery upwards. There will be one of these documents for every single establishment. The conclusion of your argument is thus that, every single school in England is automatically notable because Ofsted inspects it. In reality, the inspection report you reference does little more than a) confirm this school exists b) in this particular case, tells us its performance - as assessed at its last 3-yearly inspection - is above average.

If you can find a reason that this school is truly notable, I'll strike my delete. For example, does the school have any historical significance? Is the school building even listed? - Although there are almost 400,000 Grade II listed buildings, I would consider this a different matter as listing is an expert recognition of a building's significance compared to other buildings. Compare that with an Ofsted inspection report which is a statutory document produced by virtue of the mere existence of a school. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all such English schools are notable because they will all have such detailed reports created by an independent, reliable authority. You seem to misunderstand the meaning of notability. Per the relevant guideline, this does not require fame or importance. What the word notability means here is just that the topic has been noticed — that some independent, professional authors have taken the trouble to write about the topic. The reason for this is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this word means that we cover the full circle of knowledge. We are not the Guinness Book of Records, only looking for superlatives. We are not Ripley's Believe It or Not! looking only for novelties and the bizarre. We aim to be to the "sum of the world's knowledge" and that means all noted topics not just an arbitrary fraction. Warden (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your test for notability is that "some independent, professional authors have taken the trouble to write about the topic." But that's not the test here at WP, because routine, matter-of-course coverage which every entity of a certain type gets no matter what, doesn't count. I suggest you modify your test to read: "some independent, professional authors -- who are not required to write about the particular topic as a matter of course -- have chosen to take the trouble to write about the topic, in preference to the many other topics they might have chosen but did not." EEng (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are quite mistaken. If all entities of a certain type tend to have detailed sources then we will cover them all, not just a selected few. We therefore cover all elected politicians, all professional athletes, all human settlements, all chemicals, all species, all mathematical theorems, all battles, all universities, &c. As we certainly cover some schools, we should therefore cover all schools for which sources can be found. Like this one. Warden (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, do you just make things up hoping people will believe them? You've been here plenty long enough to know that's not true. Give it up. You're making yourself look silly, you're wasting others' time, and you're not doing this school any favors by prolonging the discussion of just how unremarkable it really is. EEng (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC) P.S. "All mathematical theorems" -- really? Wow -- that's a lot of articles! Why, I hardly know how to begin enumerating them![reply]

Actually you are incorrect. For example, I have seen quite a number of articles for elected local councillors being deleted as non-notable. Politicians with articles are generally viewed as being notable because they have regular and non-trivial coverage in multiple sources, not because they have a birth certificate and appear in the census. I dare say the same applies to all the other topics you identify. For example, a mathematical theorem (or theory of any kind) becomes notable because it is mentioned in peer reviewed publications. Believe me, there is an absolute wasteland of discarded and/or discredited research in the literature that does not have or deserve an article. There is even more that didn't get as far as publication. Pit-yacker (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A typical planning application generates many many more pages of reports. In this case a planning officer has "noticed" a planning application and has written a detailed report about the application and why (or why not) the development should be allowed to proceed. Generally speaking, these are also publicly available. By your logic these should be taken as meeting WP:GNG for the subject of the application. That means that we should have articles for every supermarket built in at least the last 30 years (Even better we can have an article on my local branch of ASDA opening 24hrs - because that required another application (and series of reports) to remove the original condition limiting it hours to 7am-9pm . Pit-yacker (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure to whose logic you're referring. My intent was to exclude routine reports and so on as significant coverage, trying to explain that in terms of Warden's idea. Looks like I left too many loopholes. EEng (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to Warden Pit-yacker (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. A routine government report, as as that linked above, does not establish "significant coverage": It demonstrates only existence, not notability. Neutrality^talk 23:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your links are to essays, not policies. We prefer policy-based argument here as essays just represent personal opinions, not a general consensus. Warden (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no claim being made to notability. Yes, it exists, so it's a building. But there's nothing which would be sufficient to pass the GNG that I see at present. Show something beyond an Ofsted report - something that actually makes it notable - and I'll think about it some more. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Fails GNG. Fmph (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability cannot be established with a report which is automatically generated by the mere existence of the institution. Anyone familiar with the English education system understands what Oftsed reports are. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Weybridge#Education where it is already mentioned, per standard procedure. Primary schools have no inherent notability and an Osfsted report merely confirms their existence through 3-yearly routine inspections with : 'This school has classrooms, pupils, and teachers, and it should strive to do better at...' However, non notable schools are generally neither kept nor deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kudpung's suggestion is fine by me. Precedent is a useful guide Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chennestone Primary School

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Primary schools are not inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in UK). This article fails to state why this school in particular is notable.Pit-yacker (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is notable per the WP:GNG because it is covered in detail in independent, reliable sources such as this. Warden (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. A routine government report, as as that linked above, does not establish "significant coverage": It demonstrates only existence, not notability. Neutrality^talk 23:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it lacks the level of coverage I'd look for to meet the GNG. At present it doesn't even claim notability beyond existence. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Fails GNG. Fmph (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sunbury-on-Thames#Education where it is already mentioned, per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forest View Primary School

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Primary schools are not inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in UK). This article fails to state why this school in particular is notable.Pit-yacker (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per our guideline as it is covered in detail in independent, reliable sources such as this. Warden (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. A routine government report, as as that linked above, does not establish "significant coverage": It demonstrates only existence, not notability. Neutrality^talk 23:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there's no substantial claim to notability and it lacks the level of significant coverage that I'm looking for in this type of article. Show that and I'll look again at my point of view. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cinderford#Education in Cinderford where it is already mentioned, per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlton Kings Junior School

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

Junior school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Primary schools are not inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in UK). This article fails to state why this school in particular is notable.Pit-yacker (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As above. Run-of-the-mill; no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Neutrality^talk 23:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep: The topic is notable per our official notability guideline (WP:GNG) as it is covered in detail in independent reliable sources like [www.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/files/957387/urn/115736.pdf]. TDW ✉ 01:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleves School, Weybridge. These sources are statutory inspection reports. Every single school in England has one of these as a product of three yearly government inspections of schools. Thus if notability of this school is determined by the existence of the above inspection report, the conclusion of this is that every single other school in England must also be automatically be notable. The existence of publicly available documentation generated at various levels of government related to a subject automatically granting notability is plain absurd. Virtually every major building project in the UK generates many more pages of planning documentation. Most of this is now publicly available online. Does that mean we have sufficient notability to start articles for every branch of Tesco built in the last 30 years?

The government sector accounts for nearly half the UK economy. If we eliminated the government activity on such grounds that it is mundane then this would leave a correspondingly large hole in our coverage of the country. But we are an encyclopedia and so are expected to cover everything; not just pop records and footballers. Warden (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say government reports are mundane. There is nothing wrong with using a routine government report as a reference, in an article where notability is already established. However,I can't see that a routine (generated by virtue of the subjects mere existence) government report can be used to establish such notability. As I have said, the logical conclusion of your position is that virtually every supermarket built in the UK is also notable by virtue of the fact that the planning process generated a number of hefty planning reports. Pit-yacker (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A planning document isn't such a good source because, by its nature, it will predate construction and so won't have much to say about the life and history of the place once it is up and running. Anyway, List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom seems to have lots of red links so there's work to do there too. So many topics, so little time... Warden (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, the content of the report isn't much use here either. It does little more than confirm the existence of the school and perhaps at a stretch tells us that the school's performance is pretty average. Pit-yacker (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The report covers the essential activities and facts about the school - this is its point and purpose. If you're not interested in the school and its performance then this will naturally seem rather dry. But in that case, you should move on to a topic which does interest you; not try to destroy this one because it bores you. Warden (talk)

Keep The school is notable, per the sources identified by TDW. Note that there is some scope for merger with Charlton Kings Infants' School — I have the impression that they were combined previously. Warden (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there's no claim to notability beyond existence being made that would satisfy the GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While an inspection report is fine as a reference it does not establish notability. There are 16,000+ maintained Primary schools in England and Wales. Every one of them has an inspection report. To claim that a such a school is notable because it has been inspected is therefore the same as saying that it's notable because it exists.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest incubation as a last resort (Alternatives to deletion). I am sure that this school is more notable than you think. The school naturally harbors soon-to-be pupils of the high-ranking Balcarras School.TDW ✉ 00:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Charlton Kings#Schools where it is already mentioned, per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlton Kings Infants' School

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Primary schools are not inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in UK). This article fails to state why this school in particular is notable.Pit-yacker (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable per our official notability guideline (WP:GNG) as it is covered in detail in independent reliable sources like this. Warden (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. A routine government report, as as that linked above, does not establish "significant coverage": It demonstrates only existence, not notability. Neutrality^talk 23:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If more reference is made to Warden's file. TDW ✉ 01:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there's not the level of sourcing required to meet the GNG in my opinion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but convert to a REDIRECT to Charlton Kings#Schools per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kuala Lumpur as the article fails the primary notability guideline of having "significant coverage in secondary sources". ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SJKC Jalan Davidson

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to locality per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, which page is the locality? Interesting note at 2009 in Malaysia#June. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Petaling Jaya. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Sri Petaling

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Petaling Jaya, per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ~~delete~~ Redirect. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Changed to 'redirect' per discussion: See talk. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Christopher's International Primary School

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Penang per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ~~delete~~ Redirect. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Result changed per discussion. See talk. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Telok Kurau Primary School

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bedok per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Papar, Malaysia. Hut 8.5 19:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SK Kuala Papar

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable primary school; no demonstrated significant coverage from reliable, independent third-party sources. Neutrality^talk 23:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Papar per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Topcliffe Primary School

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Primary schools are not inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in UK). This article fails to state why this school in particular is notable.Pit-yacker (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable per the WP:GNG being covered in detail in independent, reliable sources such as this. Our editing policy is not to delete such notable topics. Warden (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. A routine government report, as as that linked above, does not establish "significant coverage." Neutrality^talk 23:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article would require significantly more sourcing to claim notability sufficient to meet the GNG. The content that is vaguely notable is already covered at Castle Vale - I'd argue that that's sufficient coverage (it's more about the tower block redevelopment anyway than it is the school) and that an article about the school is simply duplication. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Castle Vale per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryders Green Primary School

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think West Bromwich Albion's notability is contagious enough to infect this school. Even then, unfortunately, it is difficult to assess whether a lot of the claims made are real or odd one-offs with a bit of added peacockery. The referenced pages that are still live suggest 2 former pupils are (or were) members of WBA's under 11 and under 13 squads respectively in 2008. The other suggests that one team member came to the school once in 2007. A bit of quick digging suggests that Ormiston Education Trust is actually some sort of consultancy related to setting up Academies. More digging suggests that the "ECM Charter Mark" has at the very least fallen out of favour since the change of government. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable per the WP:GNG, being the subject of multiple independent and reliable sources such as this. Warden (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect if appropriate). No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. A routine government report, as as that linked above, does not establish "significant coverage": It demonstrates only existence, not notability. Notability is also not inherited from former pupils. Neutrality^talk 00:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see the connections with WBA as anything more than a tenuous link to be honest, which leaves nothing to claim notability at GNG level with. If those links with the football club can be shown to be notable beyond that which can normally be assumed for a football club then I might reconsider. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to West Bromwich#Education per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reaside Junior School

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

Junior school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Primary schools are not inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in UK). This article fails to state why this school in particular is notable. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable per the WP:GNG being covered in detail in independent, reliable sources such as this. Our editing policy is not to delete such notable topics. Warden (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. A routine government report, as as that linked above, does not establish "significant coverage": It demonstrates only existence, not notability. Neutrality^talk 23:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's non-notable and doesn't have the level of sourcing which would make it notable per the GNG imo. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but REDIRECT to its locality at New Frankley per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Troll Hunter. --MuZemike 02:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Troll Hunter (2014 film)

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

Film has not entered production and has not had significant coverage. It is WP:TOOSOON for an article. BOVINEBOY2008 20:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The film hasn't entered production but it is still being made. It's not doing any harm there being an article on it, I keep checking up news for it and whenever I will see something new I will add it in. It can just patiently wait until there is more information. Or if there is a way (is there a way?) that the article won't be able to be seen by the public and the only people who can see it is people who have a registered account? We could just make it dormant (if we can)? --Charlr6 (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way too soon. Work hasn't started on the film yet and it may never get made.--Michig (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Troll Hunter where it is already covered. It is too early to split this off into a separate article. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see this being useful as a redirect. Anyone searching for it will go straight to Troll hunter and we don't know the year when it will be released and neither do our readers.--Michig (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirecting will keep people from going "oh, a redlink" and recreating it. And I've also read that redirects take less server space than deletion does. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as proposed by RJHall. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway we can make it dormant though? Or at least save until a later date and open it up when more information is released?--Charlr6 (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be moved to userspace (e.g. to User:Charlr6/Troll Hunter (2014 film)) for you to continue working on it or it could be incubated to allow wider input, but for the latter we would need to have a reasonable chance of it growing enough to return to mainspace within a few months. --Michig (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind looking after it and adding in more information as it comes. Is everyone happy with that? When everyone is happy I'll copy over the information from the page onto my userspace and create the link that Michig gave. --Charlr6 (talk) 12:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the User:Charlr6/Troll Hunter (2014 film) page. So the main page can be deleted now and until further important information is out I'll just edit the page myself on the page until its worthy to be making a proper page out of. --Charlr6 (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

don't think it makes sense for you to have it in your userspace. if it's a main article then other people would not know where to find it, if they have something to add. not sure what else to do.Bouket (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Albert School

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Primary schools aren't inherently notable (there are almost 17,000 in the UK). Article fails to state why this school in particular is notable. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, per WP:GNG, being covered in detail in independent, reliable sources such as this. It is our editing policy to retain such notable topics. Warden (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. A routine government report, as as that linked above, does not establish "significant coverage": It demonstrates only existence, not notability. Neutrality^talk 23:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being named after a famous personage doesn't make it notable and I really don't see anything else that does. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but REDIRECT to Aston#Education per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abbotsbury Primary School

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Primary Schools aren't considered to be inherently notable. There are around 17,000 primary schools in the UK. Article fails to state why this school is any more notable than any of these. In fact, there is nothing in the article which couldn't be re-created in a couple of mins. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:GNG, notability requires independent, reliable sources and this topic has them, e.g. this substantial report. Our editing policy is to keep such material while it is also our policy not to delete notable material just because some people don't like it. Warden (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. A routine government report, as as that linked above, does not establish "significant coverage": It demonstrates only existence, not notability. Neutrality^talk 23:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's really not notable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete Notability cannot be established by a report which is the automatic result of the institutions existence.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but REDIRECT to Morden per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Rankin Junior School

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with other noms there are almost 17,000 primary schools in the UK. Article fails to state why this one is notable. Although, a large number of playing fields have been sold off over the last 15 or so years, it isn't unusual for a primary school to have a large playing field. So that for example cant be taken as notability. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, per WP:GNG, being covered in detail in independent, reliable sources such as this. It is our editing policy to retain such notable topics. Warden (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. A routine government report, as as that linked above, does not establish "significant coverage": It demonstrates only existence, not notability. Neutrality^talk 23:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's no suspicion that it might be notable, let alone sourcing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but REDIRECT to Newbury, Berkshire#Education per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deletion by Fastily under G8. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unriddle and Unriddle 2

Seems to be just a merged version of two separate articles: Unriddle and Unriddle 2. The second article nominated just lists the casts of each series, again both of which can be found in the individual articles. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom that this seems to be just a duplicate of the two articles, and that this does not appear to be a valid search term. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:NOT#MANUAL. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Model United Nations resolution

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

(PROD rejected) This is a set of instructions for participants in a portion of a Model United Nations meeting, a clear-cut violation of WP:NOT#MANUAL, and has no place here. Orange Mike | Talk 20:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is a reasonable subject for an article; and needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. The author, a new editor, has asked for help with this. This deletion nomination was made after I asked the nominator to provide such assistance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply all I could do was tell the truth, which is that this is inherently not Wikipedia material; there was no bad faith involved. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTHOWTO. I don't see a need for a separate article on a MUN resolution apart from the article Model United Nations. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For those who are trying to help: thank you for your support. I too don't think this is a set of instructions. Wikipedia does not accept: Instruction manuals (of objects etc., this article is about an educational conference), travel guide (obviously not), video game guides (X), internet guides (X), FAQs (X), texbooks (although the article seems as though it has been created to "instruct", in reality it "informs", because it provides information not only about the conference, but also about rules and procedures), case studies (X), scientific journals (X). Also, the article Model United Nations does not provide the necessary information for participants, for instance there is no information about what a resolution really is and how its supposed to be written. It is important to note the article addresses everyone and anyone who is interested, meaning it's not a instruction manual only for participants, anyone can "get informed" about MUN resolution thanks to the article. I think it's a must and it's needed. Once again, please try to help improve the article instead of insisting the article has to be deleted. A lot of effort was put into the article.--AsyaMariaIgmen (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AsyaMariaIgmen is the original author of this article. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — nothing here belongs on Wikipedia. Feel free to recreate if you believe that you can demonstrate the notability of the topic, but to get a reasonable article, you'd have to do a 100% rewrite: the intro isn't sourced and would need completely new writing, and the rest would need to be trashed because Wikipedia isn't a how-to manual. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ....... Although various people are claiming the article is "trash" and should be rewritten 100%, no one is pointing out WHY. "Wikipedia is not a how-to manual" is not a good enough answer, as I've repeatedly wrote (quoting from What "Wikipedia is not" article [15]) that this article is NOT a manual. The article is about the MUN Resolution and informs readers of what a resolution is and how it should be like. The article is not only about "Writing a MUN resolution", it's also about the "Adventure of the MUN Resolution" [[16]] and provides important information for both students who will attend the MUN conferences, and people who just want to know more about MUN. Not having an article about the MUN resolution is like having an article on the Olympics but not on swimming, or figure skating. If you believe the article was written poorly, please say so without insisting the article is "trash". "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a 'how-to' style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes (...)" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal]] Now let's get back to the article: It is not a tutorial, not a walk-through (IT SIMPLY STATES WHAT A MUN RESOLUTION IS AND HOW IT USUALLY LOOKS LIKE/SHOULD LOOK LIKE), not an instruction manual (the article is not about how to USE a resolution, again it only supplies the reader with the necessary information before attending a MUN conference or simply provides EVERYTHING ANYONE would want to know about resolutions). AsyaMariaIgmen (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you're not allowed to !vote twice. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any salient high-level information (like maybe a paragraph or two about the basic structure of a resolution) to Model United Nations, and then redirect to the latter article. Much as I hate supporting deletion of material that someone has put a lot of effort into creating, Wikipedia really is not the place for most of this, in my opinion. As others have mentioned, it reads very much like an instruction manual or user guide, and I think it is a well-established principle that it's not Wikipedia's role to host such things. 86.181.202.9 (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTHOWTO. Any pertinent high-level info can be added to Model United Nations as per 86.181.202.9. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Călin Tiuţ

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

While Mr. Tiuţ is contracted to a fully pro club, he is yet to make any appearances, and as such fails WP:NSPORT. He has received insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 15:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likejacking

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

It would be easier to merge this to Like button, but I've started a merge proposal for that article due to my disagreeing with that article's outcome at it's deletion request. The article is a stub, and there is not always a chance that some editor will come along and bring it to a starting-class article. Flutter shy !xmcuvg2MH 19:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a perfectly valid concisely written article on a notable security exploit to me. I fail to see why some people have the urge to delete anything which can't be expanded to a multi-page piece. "Have they ever seen an actual paper encyclopaedia?", I wonder, most of their entries are even shorter our "stubs". This could be merged into Like button, but only if that would be kept as a separate article, while the nominator intend to also merge that particular article into Facebook. So, keep for now. —Ruud 12:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources provide prima facie evidence of notability. It is a short article, and perhaps should be merged to Like button or Clickjacking rather than kept separate, but I don't see any reason to delete the content outright. Robofish (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A popular term in this crazy tech world. Sources establish notability. Tinton5 (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At best merge into Clickjacking, assuming the references listed in this article will be considered reliable. The definition and most of the sources refer to this exploit as a form of clickjacking; involving Facebook in it is a pretty minor difference. Sources which talk about "likejacking" specifically will presumably only cover how this exploit relates to Facebook; merging into a more general article will enable broader coverage. However, I would not hesitate to delete - most of the sources are blogs, which are normally to be avoided as sources. And this looks suspicious: Special:Contributions/Ballouc. It looks like the term's supposed originator has used Wikipedia to promote it. 87.205.137.250 (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments have been raised against deletion. If better sourcing can be found, a future article may be a possibility, but nothing has been presented to indicate that this is a possibility at this time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Аbkhaz-adyg people

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

Appears to be a synthesis of different ethnic groups of the Caucasus. The only apparent link between the listed groups is that their languages are all part of the Northwest Caucasian group. But, whether the peoples are also linked by culture (customs, folklore etc.), shared history, genetics etc is unclear. The only source doesn't accurately support the text and may not be a reliable source for this topic. Claret Ash 06:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence can be found that anyone (except the article's creator) considers the ensemble of speakers of the various Northwest Caucasian languages a "people". --Lambiam 19:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glenrothes Skate Park

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

I don't think most skate parks, including this one, are notable. Just as the local basketball court isn't notable either. Shadowjams (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Google news/web searches return nothing beyond trivial mentions. No statement as to why it is more important than thousands of other such parks around the world. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 18:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opusten ko Lexaurin

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

Album appears to be non-notable, due to lack of substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged as non-notable for well over 3 years. Also tagged as an orphan. Epeefleche (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – After several searches, I haven't found significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify this topic's inclusion in Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, failing WP:GNG. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Society of Multimedia University

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

This university society does not appear to have the non-trivial RS coverage required for notability. Tagged for over 2 years for notability, and being written like an advertisement. Epeefleche (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signficant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing there to suggest any notability, just WP:INDISCRIMINATE info. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. --MuZemike 02:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Whitney Thompson

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

Unremarkable lawyer/financier. A clean up of the poor sources and dead links would leave very few references. The subject has made a complaint that the presence of templates "makes me look like less of a businessperson". Deletion would be a solution to that problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per significant coverage in reliable sources: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't follow all of your links, but the first few made me wonder if you had read the entire articles. Have you, or are you relying on summaries? Also, the ones I read were passing mentions, not significant coverage. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tagged some of the existing bad citations to help you identify them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Reliable sources added to the article, that address the topic in detail:

"Buyer's approach: Savings will be shared with tenants". Tampa Bay Business Journal. January 21, 2011. Retrieved December 17, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Silva, Cristina (August 12, 2007). "Architectural perceptions clash". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved December 17, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)</ref>
Boey, Valerie (December 25, 2007). "20-somethings come up with $500 million real estate plan". Tampa News, Channel 10. Retrieved December 17, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Are these technically reliable sources? Yes. But they're all painfully local (the SP Times ones are even in the "Neighborhood Times" section), and Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. See WP:LOCAL and WP:BIAS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There isn't a disqualifier in WP:GNG regarding the geographic location of reliable sources. WP:LOCAL is an opinion essay, and not a policy or guideline. This topic appears to pass WP:GNG per coverage in reliable, third-party sources that address the topic in detail. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They have a picture of him and quote him in an article about his business activities. [24] Other coverage seems to confer people think highly of his work, he successful and making tons of money. Dream Focus 21:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They also have a picture of Roger Jacques (plasterer), in the same article. Let me know when that's no longer a red link and I'll reconsider your opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - They consider him and his activities notable enough to coverage. They didn't just call up and get a brief quote, but got his side of the story, and thought it important enough to take a picture and publish it of him. Dream Focus 21:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In Wikipedia terms, a complete non-entity. No notability whatsoever. Forget the "sources" - I've appeared in my local paper several times (and nationally once or twice) and been contacted and interviewed by local radio, but only because I was good at doing my job and they wanted insights form professionals who were.....good at their job. Not outstanding. Just good and available. (But they didn't take my photo. Boo hoo.) So what? There is nothing in the article (or the sources) to suggest anything out of the ordinary. Emeraude (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And call me suspicious, but I'm always dubious when an article has been created by a user who has made just one edit, ever, Emeraude (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – How is the person a "non-entity" in Wikipedia terms? What do you mean specifically about "forget the sources?" The availability of reliable sources is exactly what qualifies topics for inclusion in Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- No, it's notabilty that qualifies topics for inclusion. Reliable sources are the evidence for what we include (whether of people or any other topic) and do not confer notability. I can provide all sorts of reliable sources about myself, from birth certificate to my part in the school nativity play, to my degree results, to my public appointments, to my work being quoted elesewhere, but none of that makes me notable. That has to be earned. Although the sources quoted back up what is said about the subject of this AfD, they do not, IMO, provide any evdence that he satisfies Wikipdia's criteria for notability. Emeraude (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources, which is the criterion for topic notability per WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Added another reliable source to the article:

Meacham, Andrew (April 20, 2007). "KB Home plans to sell 4 Hillsborough parcels". Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved December 29, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Pacing Gold

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

Apparently non-notable horse racing organization. Prod was added early in the article's history, but then removed by the creator with the addition of text but no sources. I have not found multiple third-party reliable sources with significant coverage of this organization, despite searching for such. I also cannot find sources that back up claims made in article. Dana boomer (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:ORG for lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if the company was really "well known around Australia", I'd expect to see more than the usual collection of trivial mentions in a web search. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ArcelorMittal. --MuZemike 02:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArcelorMittal Dhamm Processing Pvt Ltd

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

The article had no references and can be part of Arcelor Mittal main article Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ArcelorMittal. Nothing notable about this. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirection is an editorial decision, anyone who feels it would be appropriate can do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alana Lee

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

WP:NN musician, fails WP:BAND: g-hits are all promotional except for the opinion piece on scaddistric.com and starcasm (which is a complete puff piece). Record label (37 Records) is non-notable, hasn't charted, etc.

The first AFD, earlier this year resulted in the appropriate result: Delete and Redirect. This article should probably have been speedily redeleted as WP:CSD#G4 when it was recreated. (History under Alana_Lee_Hamilton) Toddst1 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did as much searching as I could to see if I could find any useful sources to add for this article, but they don't seem to exist. That's a notability fail for me. >• ibiza042(talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure if the following links could be used as proof of notability, but here there are anyway:

--190.19.89.60 (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until she gets articles in mainstream media, not web sites, and/or charts, she is non notable. Calwatch (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

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

Website does not meet WP:GNG. Tinton5 (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of properly sourced evidence of notability. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG and WP:WEB. I don't see any references in independent sources in the article, and a quick Google search doesn't find any, either. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about http://somervilletoday.com/news/new-jersey/ ? Njdemocrat (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the subject is notable and the content is neutral and notable. This page should be retained as part of Wikipedia because the subject is clearly a real entity that can have a significant impact on society. New media dedicated to the collection and dissemination of objective information -- especially independent and professionally created news in this age of corporate dominated information -- deserves to be recognized. This website was established by former Star Ledger reporters who lost their jobs. It contains valid news about New Jersey and has potential to become a significant part of the state's culture. Njdemocrat (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC) no original research is needed to extract the contentNjdemocrat (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not keep things based on whether they have the potential to become a significant part of the state's culture; we keep things based on whether or not they already are a significant part of the culture — which we determine based on the presence or absence of real, reliable sources about the topic, not based on individual user manifestos. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No claim of notability. Kuguar03 (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

the claim is inherent in the subject.Njdemocrat (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --MuZemike 02:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stripey Zebras

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

I'm having some difficulty understanding why we kept this in 2006 when it was previously debated. This is a band that was never signed, the summit of their fame seems to have been a namecheck in the garage bands section of NME, there are no reliable independent sources and never have been, and they never made it out of their home county of Essex. They played mainly in youth clubs, it seems, and never made it small let alone big. They were active for less than two years: they rose and sank apparently without trace. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ditto to the nom. Tinton5 (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Some good, nay excellent, bands have played in youth clubs, even in Essex, and gone on to greater things. This isn't one of them. Delete.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MuZemike 02:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lafrae Olivia Sci

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

Non-notable musician. Does not meet WP:MUSIC and the sources are not reliable or do not establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gnews search reveals a plentiful of results. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 18:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but none of the sources I have found seem to establish notability. I'll happily change my position if reliable sources which establish notability are presented. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep When I created this page, I had been aware of this musician for over 10 years (which I know doesn't matter as far as notability goes). Looking at WP:MUSIC, point 6 is the easiest to defend (member of two notable groups - Bumblefoot and Burnt Sugar), but she has also gotten coverage under 1 and, I think, 4 (though I haven't been able to locate much). She goes by several permutations of her name which makes finding sources - and what she's up to (for a fan) - sometimes difficult. PermanentVacay (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By Bumblefoot, do you mean this? Because he seems to be an independant artist who has had a few ensembles - he is probably notable, but the individual ensembles are not. As for Burnt Sugar, the article we have on it says the group has a fluid membership and as many as 40 have been in the group. I do not believe that being in such a group would establish notability for the individual. For criteria 1 and 4, could you provide such reliable sources for us? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize this was going to be an ongoing discussion requiring my input - I don't get to sit down at this site that often. Re: Bumblefoot, before Ron Thal took that as his name, it referred to the band - this was about 10 years ago when she was a full time member. I can't find references for this change, as his blog doesn't seem to be around, but if anyone else can find it I'd appreciate that (it should be in his main page too!). I've added a bunch of other references to the article as I have time to find them. Re: "could you provide such reliable sources for us?", I'm a bit confused - I thought wikipedia was a collaborative process. Who is the "us" you refer to, that apparently does not include myself? (I'm not sure I'll be able to respond to this in a timely matter but I will see it eventually. Feel free to also follow up on the talk page here or my talk page. Thanks.) PermanentVacay (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's in Hot Caramel with Sheryl Bailey & Irene Cara. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This would also be eligible under G11 as promotion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MARIONEXXES

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

I cannot find sufficient non-trivial RS coverage of this band to suggest that it is notable. SPA author. Tagged for notability for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2011 (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) 16:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BAND. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MuZemike 02:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Khan (writer)

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

No evidence Khan has been subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works in reliable independent sources, or otherwise meets the criteria for WP:Notability. (The article's sole reference is one "about the author" sentence, which is both trivial and not independent.) Article flagged for notability since November 2007. Propose Delete. DGaw (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:17, 16 December 2011 (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) 16:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources cited are articles written by the subject and thus not independent. It's not a very unique name but I don't think there are any better sources out there. Hut 8.5 18:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diego de la Cruz (soccer player)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article does not provide reliable sources to show that the subject meets WP:NSPORTS. PROD was contested with a claim that the article's only source confirmed he had played in the Mexican Primera Division. This is false. The source confirms only that he has been signed by Cruz Azul, but not that he has played for them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iyad Bwota

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

Contested PROD. Concern was WP:N -- doesn't quite meet WP:NFOOTY as he doesn't appeared to have actually played in a game, from what little I've been able to glean from the couple available sources. [25], [26]. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Estelle Skidmore Doremus

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

Notability not established. Only cites are obituary + a primary source related to a club.

Related AFDs:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Findagrave entry here, second plaque states Charter member National Society DAR; Charter officer 1892 & Regent, NYC DAR (1892-1894) (before the 1896 national establishment); was one of very few daughters still living when these organizations were established, the majority being descendants. This 'club' was chartered by the United States Congress and current chapters in Australia, Europe, & South America. Dru of Id (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTINHERITED that's interesting but she isn't notable by virtue of the notable clubs she belonged to - She must satisfy WP:GNG and/or WP:BIO as an individual. Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep- Extensive revisions have been made and new sources added to demonstrate notability. Placepromo (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep- The subject received a full editorial obit in the New York Times and such an obit has always been considered to be irrefutable evidence of notability. An editorial obit in the New York Times is unlike a local newspaper obit that everyone in the town my get, nor a paid obit. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Harris Underhill where similar justification is used by User:DGG Placepromo (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussions with DGG and other. New York Times obits are not like local city obits and are quite selective. Per previous consensus, it is enough to demonstrate notability if the New York Times bothers to write a non-paid, editorial obit for someone. Likely, other sources exist and are just hard to find, but this alone should suffice. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article appears well referenced and subject seems to be notable. Yworo (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to All Time Low discography. --MuZemike 02:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Circles (All Time Low song)

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

Song fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. To be more precise, it has not received coverage in reliable sources or charted on significant music markets.

I'm also nominating the following articles which also fail WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can you clarify - have you searched for coverage of all of these singles and not found any for any of them?--Michig (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I did that when I nominated them. Only trivial mentions were found, nothing substantial. That means they fail WP:GNG which requires significant coverage of the topic. Also noted previously, none of these songs have charted. [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] Have I addressed your concerns? Till I Go Home (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to Allmusic, two of these did chart - "Dear Maria, Count Me In" reaching #86 in the Pop 100 and "Poppin' Champagne" reaching #1 in the Hot Dance Singles Sales chart.[33] Allmusic is more reliable these days than the Billboard site for chart placings.--Michig (talk) 09:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to All Time Low discography as plausible search terms. I can't find much coverage of these. The verifiable details can be incorporated into the discography article.--Michig (talk) 09:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Fails WP:NSONGS. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Latin kings of Alba Longa. --MuZemike 02:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Alba Longa

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

A naïve article, not separating fact from fiction. I marked this for speedy A10, as an inferior duplicate of Latin kings of Alba Longa, but it was challenged as "The article Alba Longa is about the ancient city of Alba Longa. The Kingdom of Alba Longa had its capital in the city of Alba Longa but spread to take over other cities. Just as the Roman Kingdom included more cities than just Rome, the Kingdom of Alba Longa included more than just Alba Longa.--R-41"

As I read Livy, which is the standard presentation of the legend, [34] there is no indication that in the legendary history its Kings ruled over more than that single city, including its immediately surrounding territory. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sources included in the article that back up claims that it ruled over more cities than just Alba Longa. This source (Livy, Valerie M Warrior (ed). The History of Rome, Books 1-5. Indianapolis, Indiana, USA: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2006. Pp. 8.) states that it ruled over Lavinium, this source (Andrea Carandini, Stephen Sartarelli. Rome: Day One. English edition. Princeton, New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press, 2011. Pp. 33.) states that it ruled over Latium. According to legend the famous last King of Alba Longa, Romulus, arrived (then as King of Alba Longa) to the site where he established a new settlement, Rome, and became king of the Roman Kingdom. Second of all First it is against Wikipedia policy to assume an unwelcoming behaviour to users, that is demonstrated by the user DGG stating that it is a "naïve article, not separating fact from fiction", if there are problems these should be addressed first to the person who added them (in this case me, as I added the material) to seek a solution rather than denouncing it. It is true that legend is involved in Roman history, but historians so far have accepted the existence of figures such as Aeneas and Romulus, though they may question legends surrounding them.--R-41 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a deep breath and relax - No one was saying anything about you personally. As someone unfamiliar with the material, I can't say that DGG's assessment is that far off the mark - but only as it relates to the article itself. Note that you have multiple statements of fact, but these are sourced to a book called "Worlds of Myth", which might imply (correctly or incorrectly) that the fact is mixing in with the fiction (or the myth). Another statement begins with "According to Legend...", and yet is presented as factual. Now, we do have Alba Longa, and I'm not clear on the difference between that article and this one - could you elaborate on why we would need both? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless improved, Delete -- However much the Romans may have believed it as fact, the Aeneid is a work of fiction. This article reads like history, which it is not. It is certainly rescuable, but it cannot be allowed to remnain in its present form. On the whole, as we already have Latin kings of Alba Longa and Alba Longa, I rather doubt we need this article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Latin kings of Alba Longa. (How'd this escape mny attention the first time around?) Frankly, if nothing else, this title makes more sense for the material at Latin Kings. When dealing with traditional history from sources like Livy, you pretty much have to take the sources at face value even if legend and mythology are mixed in; they're infallible by being immune to contradiction. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Alba Longa or Latin kings of Alba Longa. - Cavarrone (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MuZemike 02:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ori Allon

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

This is not the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple, independent third-party sources, a WP:BASIC requirement. Rather, he gets mention in coverage of companies, which may or may not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, but which do not inure to this subject. Even if this subject were to WP:INHERIT some notability from the coverage, it's worth noting that the coverage exists because his companies were acquired by Google and Twitter, mostly indicating notability for the buyers. This subject certainly doesn't inherit anything from Google or Twitter, and his activities otherwise don't seem notable as far as I can tell. JFHJr (㊟) 19:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources might establish notability for the algorithm, not for Allon himself. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has at least two good sources, [35] and [36], easily satisfying WP:GNG and way more than is often accepted. Msnicki (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Techcrunch is SPS, Msnicki [37]. Julpan is SPS. The whole second paragraph requires proof.

Agree with JFHJr, “...companies were acquired by Google and Twitter, mostly indicating notability for the buyers”, not for the non-notable Ori Allon. It fails WP:BASIC. It fails WP:GNG as sources may establish notability for the algorithm, definitely not for the subject himself. Liilllyyy (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Liilllyyy[reply]

Move article to Orion search engine algorithm or similar. The algorithm appears to be notable, its creator, not so much. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per ItsZippy and Liilllyyy. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agrabad Govt. Colony High School

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

Non-notable school. sillybillypiggy^{¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE!} 10:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - verifiable high school (I'll add a source) and a better written article than usual for such schools. Very large school - over 5,000 students. Nominated within 17 minutes of creation with no guidance to the author, which is unacceptable. Bangladeshi schools traditionally have a poor Internet presence and to avoid systemic bias time should be given for local sources to be researched. No reason to suppose that WP:GNG cannot be met. TerriersFan (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The school is notable in Bangladesh. It is one of the largest schools in Chittagong. While I haven't been a student of the school, I grew up within a stone's throw from the school and can attest to its notability. I am a bit curious about the content though ... the content needs to be checked for copyvio. --Ragib (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No evidence of copyvio from a GSearch but that goes to the fundamental problem that most key documents can't be found by this means. TerriersFan (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nom has provided zero rationale as to why they think the article topic is non-notable. As Ragib said, it's a verified high school. --Oakshade (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For all the reasons outlined above. Dahliarose (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as an important high school in a large city. Online sources may not necessariliy be available for a school in a developing country. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casus Luciferi

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

no independent notability shown for this album. lacks coverage in reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This album is notable, but I doubt I will improve it during the next days. So please don’t delete it but redirect to the band article, similar to Rabid Death’s Curse. --217/83 20:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Toilet#Types of toilets after moved to Types of toilets. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Different Toilets

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

All of the information is already included in the Toilet article. Tad Lincoln (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or close or something. Maybe the nomination is supposed to mean that the information in this article is within the scope of Toilet. However, at present, the information is certainly not included there. Both articles are pretty well referenced and a merge would be helpful as was suggested at the articles themselves in November. Different Toilets does not seem a plausible search term but if material is merged attribution should be preserved. I suggest closing down this nomination in some way and hoping editors can cope with the situation without AfD involvement. Thincat (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC
Merge to Toilet. There's no good reason for a separate article. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to merge when I realized that, although it may not be in this format, the majority of this information can indeed be found in the Toilet article. Tad Lincoln (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Much as i liked to read the article, the keep arguments do amount only to ILIKEIT., and no matter how many people say that here, it's not a policy based reason, It's not that often I agree with the nom, but his reasons for deletion are correct policy. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hitchens's critiques of public figures

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

Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. This article essentially is a quote farm that collects a series of quotations from Christopher Hitchens berating various public figures, living and dead.

I looked, and the very long Wikiquote entry seems to have almost all of these already. Any that are missing might be added.

There isn't much analysis, discourse, or reaction concerning these quotations. Most of them just say that Hitchens had something bad to say about a public figure. Longer entries just say that he said so in several places. The only entry that comes close to containing encyclopedia information is the portion on Mother Teresa; since this was forked away from the main biographical article, portions of that could be unforked back.

As a stand alone article, this may also violate the undue weight principle by suggesting that Hitchens was just some kind of troll whose public career consisted of badmouthing people. Of this, I am less sure. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hitchens a troll? Deletion would be absurd. This man's critiques are more important than his own existence. --KenWalker | Talk 07:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. FWIW, I didn't mean to call him a troll, but rather to point out the impression that a page devoted to his invective against specific people created. He wrote strong prose, he admired George Orwell, and he was on the side of plain English, and that's my side. The more serious issue is whether this belongs here or at Wikiquote. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a coatrack for attacks on people, many of whom are still living. It seems contrary to core policy and WP:NOTOPINION. Warden (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTOPINION applies to WP editors and not to the opinions (with very good justification in this case - in my opinion) of the people that we write about. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not a place to publish Hitchens' opinions either. There are many such journalists who earn a living by expressing outrageous opinions — Jeremy Clarkson, Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, P. J. O'Rourke, &c. Their work is exaggerated for effect and is often satirical, tongue-in-cheek, polemical or just plain wrong. It is quite unreliable as factual comment and so should not be presented verbatim in this way. By publishing a collation of such writings as reading material rather than to illustrate the author's bio, we are infringing the author's copyright. This is contrary to the policy WP:IINFO which states "articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents.". Wikipedia is not Reader's Digest. Warden (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Question? How much is too much at Wikiquote? I proposed transwiki-ing and deleting this because I thought the gist of it could be preserved there. Much of it seems to be already. But I have not made a close study of their policies. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hitchens is in a totally different league to the other writers that you mention (don't know a lot about P. J. O'Rourke though). The article could be stripped down and then shoehorned into the Christopher Hitchens article but that would be a retrograde step. It is a notable topic in its own right and it therefore should have its own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Warden, Wikipedia is not a place to publish Hitchens' opinions either you say -- a) has nothing to do with your NOTOPINION claim, and b) yes we can publis his opinion, when acceptable in the encyclopedia. -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up as per the recommendation by the nominator. It is a notable topic that can justify its own article. As already noted Hitchens is far from being a troll and reading the main article confirms this. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- COI statement: I am a strong admirer of Hitchens work. 22:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'll keep an eye on you. ;-) -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep after clean up. It is a charming intro to an opinionated but sharp mind. It reveals perhaps the need for a new Wiki-project "Wiki-memorials". Shrines which may be freely embellished by devotees, each bearing their favorite citations as votive offerings to the eternal spirit enshrined there. Am sure CH would oppose the religious tones of my quite seriously meant comment. The project would eliminate the need for NOR restriction.Idealist707 (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would strenuous oppose any sort of Wiki-memorial. There are other places out there on the web for that sort of thing. We should keep the project side of WP neutral as we do with the articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - ^^ This. No, we should not make Wiki-memorials. The real issue for me is: is this an encyclopedia article? Or is it a collection of quotations, for which we have a separate project? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is without a doubt a notable enough topic for WP. I agree that the quotes should be removed and as a critique it should also include the public figures that Hitchens wrote about in a positive light. There is a lot of material that can be added to the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a specific policy, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, which prohibits such shrines. Warden (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from NPOV, the article is a WP:SOAP and WP:NOTADVOCATE can of worms; from what I see, there was no significant response to the critiques. The article can be summarized in the existing relevant section and all other quotations can be moved to Wikiquote. Brandmeister t 11:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially per nom. As far as I'm aware, we don't do 'list of criticisms of public figures by X' for any other person on Wikipedia. And with good reason: as the nominator notes, this is basically the job for Wikiquote, not Wikipedia. Frankly, the very existence of this page raises issues of undue weight and NPOV: why single out Hitchens' criticisms in this way when we don't do that for anybody else? And, if we are going to do that, why does this article include the specific individuals it does? Hitchens criticised hundreds of people, and this article could be many times longer than it is; hence there's an unresolvable POV issue about who to include, which just supports the view that the article itself is a bad idea. Ultimately, this article is redundant to Christopher Hitchens's political views. A selective summary of his views on certain people could be included in that article, but there's really no need at all for a separate article on the subject. Robofish (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So OK, elsewhere we don't do such an overview. But since Hitchens andserious critiques did, it is an acceptable line of an article. For others, like generals, we do a list of battles &tc. That is NPOV too. -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a crucial piece of any coverage of Hitchens. There might be an argument for merging it into a single article on Hitchens, but if we did choose that, the content here is so significant that it would have to be preserved pretty much unchanged. The editorial structure of the encyclopedia though is clearer with this separate, as now. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a list of opinions by an essayist, not an encyclopedia article. His bio and bibliography should describe what is contained in his published works, but we don't need to republish directly every argument the man ever made. Steven Walling • talk 23:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I will describe below when !voting: his serial arguments with individuals, often personal, can be lined up in the encyclopedia. Agree, his line of arguments should be published elsewhere, not here (OR). -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Christopher Hitchens - not really sensible as a stand-alone article. --Slashme (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The practice by some Wikipedians to scrub the site of viewpoints they disagree with is flat-out disgusting, and all too common. Hitchens' critiques are an important part of the human historical record, and more than worthy of being indexed, whether you agree with them or not. --Phrost (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much encyclopedicity in "Hitchens said/wrote so and so", especially when no factual evaluation of his claims is presented. Hitchens isn't some kind of superpundit who stands above all others, meriting a separate page on his critiques. Brandmeister t 23:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Brandmeister. So if the thread through his arguments with a person is published & discussed elsewhere, that is a good reason such an argument be in the Wikipedia. -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll cheerfully admit that I'm not a fan of Hitchens, although he was a quite quotable writer. I'm not even proposing that the quotations be removed from the project entirely. The only issue for me is whether this is really an encyclopedia article, or something that should be merged to his page at Wikiquote. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the same reason as Steven Walling - are we really expected to create separate articles listing the opinions of every journalist/writer? Look at his brother Peter Hitchens' article - his views have been condensed to a single article without the need for a separate one. Why not the same for the elder Hitchens? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint91 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag to replace any OR with RS. In his career there are multiple threads with persons. These threads are not alway made explicit by himself or in his books & pieces. But when a serious critique/scholar/publisher points out that thread, that is enough RS (not OR) to merit a description here. E.g. (and missing here): his lines with Blair, Edward Said, Blumenthal [38]. -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Long quote farm. Any relevant material may be included in the main biographical article. It would be absurd to have a series of articles on "[Insert political figure, media personality, or public intellectual here]'s critiques of public figures" when that could run into the hundreds or thousands. Best to consolidate all material. Neutrality^talk 08:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I noticed this when first listed and have been keeping an eye on it, so it is time to make a decision. I am a strong fan of Hitchens, but there is no case for this article. Quotes go in Wikiquote. There may be a case for a few quotes to be in the article on him, but how do we decide which quotes? So, there is already a link to Wikiquote. Make sure that all the quotes in this article are there, but that is it. We are wikipedia not wikiquote. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather more than mere "quotes". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I came on this page after reading the article about Hitchens, specifically looking for some informations on his public figures critiques, and was glad to see that a specific article was linked to such topic; I believe to be a very "average" wikipedia user, so it is very likely that what happened to me by chance would happen also to many other readers who are not aware of this deletion prosal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.109.78 (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (perhaps with a line or two merged appropriately to Christopher Hitchens. Ask yourself: "Is this an encyclopedic topic?" Would something like Bill O'Reilly's critiques of public figures or Michael Moore's critiques of public figures be similarly appropriate? If so, where does one draw the line on who's colorful opinions are encyclopedically appropriate and who's are not? This honestly doesn't meet muster on any grounds other than WP:ILIKEIT... Carrite (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my !vote to keep above: the topic is encyclopedic. His line of treating individual persons, throughout his career and publicly, is encyclopedic. All we need is RS not OR about that line. (note: good action to Relist it). -DePiep (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I just gotta say, I hear all this talk about quotes, quotes, quotes. Just notice that if you delete all the quotes, you still have a pretty substantial article by Wikipedia standards. And yeah, there's a lot more to Hitchens than this but this definitely was one of the most noted parts of his work. --Qwerty0 (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MuZemike 02:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mobb Deep (album)

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

Non-existing album. Wikipedia is no crystal bol. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it hasn't been recorded yet it could never happen.--Michig (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or userfy. Yes, they've notified the hip hop media that they are planning a new album, and those media have duly noted it. But if for whatever reason it doesn't happen, I don't see that there is already enough substantial coverage to merit an article. On the other hand, it seems a good bet that it will be released in the next 3-6 months and, if so, a slam dunk that it will be notable, given their track record, hence my vote. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, incubate or userfy (listen to your heart.) Per Michig. Rap records are particularly susceptible to development hell. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jakie James Warren

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

Non-notable person. Peerage and his famous godmother is not enough to make him personally notable, as notability is not inherited. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping you will not delete this page, and I encourage other contributors. This person is a celebrity/public figure. His connections with Prince Harry and the Princesses of York, his businesses in London & Royal Escot, and his association with the property where a hit TV show is filmed all make him worthy of note. Additionally, he is something of a hearthrob with a large fan following. I'm sure many people will look to this page for tidbits about him. Uspolista (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Copied from talkpage article by Night of the Big Wind[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet notability criteria on own merits. I can't find anything on an internet search that indicates the contrary. asnac (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No personal notability, simply known by association with others. Uspolista rather gives the game away: "His connections with...", "his association with ..." "he is something of a hearthrob" do not justify an article made up of "tidbits". Emeraude (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When a sizable portion of a search brings up links to the AfD and not much else, it's safe to say that you probably don't pass notability guidelines. I wasn't able to find anything reliable that mentioned him that wasn't linked back to the AfD or a blog.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was keep due to media sources found which make the article topic meet WP:N and WP:V. Please make use of them in the article ASAP or the article may be nominated for deletion again. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South African National Schools Moot Court Competition

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

Non-notable event. No wide coverage on the internet (for what that is worth relating to South Afrika). Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Only "About 156 results" on Google search, no results elsewhere. Hazard-SJ ㋡ 23:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources covering the event are notable, preeminent and diverse with due regard that the inaugural event was held in 2011. A selection of some of the sources:

South African governmental departments:

Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, Republic of South Africa
Department of Basic Education, Republic of South Africa
Provincial Department of Education, KwaZulu Natal, Republic of South Africa

South African statutory bodies:

Law Society of South Africa

Public universities:

University of the Western Cape
University of Pretoria
University of Cape Town
University of Venda

National Newspapers:

Mail & Gaurdian

Local Newspapers:

The Centurion
Knysna Plett Herald

Online Newspapers:

South Africa the Good News

Legal newspapers:

Legalbrief

Legal journals:

De Rebus

Ngo's:

South African NGO Pulse
Foundation for Human Rights

It should be noted that locally the event is referred to as the National Schools Moot Court Competition (the "South African" part being omitted) and several sources are omitted when searching for "South African National Schools Moot Court Competition". Furthermore the event is officially supported by the South African government and several statutory bodies. Purple Duke (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even without "South Africa" there are less then 10.000 internet hits. But without facebook, linkedin, wikipedia (and clones), youtube, yelp, myspace, twitter, and vimeo is looses 75% of its hits. Sorry, but the competition has to grow a bit more. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the presumption in favour of notability as per Wikipedia:Notability applies to the topic and that said presumption is not derogated from merely because of a lack of hits. Sources "are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English"^[1]. Wide coverage on the internet does therefore not seem to be a requirement. The sources supra and several not annotated reflect a neutral point of view, are credible and provide sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.

This state endorsed moot court competition, judged by Constitutional Court Judges (the highest court in South Africa for constitutional matters in a country where the constitution is the supreme law), is indeed in its infancy but the lesser degree of proliferation of online publications in South Africa should be noted and if the number of hits are indicative of a "non-notable event" (which from my understanding Wikipedia:Notability is not a requirement) then the online presence should be compared to a similar type of event originating from a country with a similar socio-economic environment and internet penetration and not against an arbitrary number of hits. In said circumstances the approximate 2500 hits then seem adequate for now. Purple Duke (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Wikipedia:Notability (events), I would asked for more evidence of notability in the article. And please be aware that sources like Twitter and Facebook are not accepted as reliable sources. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding the topic is not an "event" (Wiktionary:Event) as per Wikipedia:Notability (events), and the general Wikipedia:Notability applies. I refer to my argument supra. No sources like Twitter and Facebook have been consulted or referenced, see the extract of reliable sources supra. The 2500 refers to the 25% of 10.000 internet hits not facebook, linkedin, wikipedia (and clones), youtube, yelp, myspace, twitter, and vimeo as calculated by you supra. Purple Duke (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of the request for deletion is: (my emphasis)

"Non-notable event. No wide coverage on the internet (for what that is worth relating to South [sic] Afrika)."

Wikipedia:Notability states: (my emphasis)

'"Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.'

Please provide the context and meaning of the Wikipedia policy.Purple Duke (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've run my own search. Agree that lack of significant coverage in independent sources means it's not notable. asnac (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be all for keeping this article - there are, after all, similar competitions held in other countries including the UK. A similar example is the National High School Mock Trial Championship in the US, which has an article. However, I'm always dubious when I see something described as "annual" event "established in 2011". However, I would add this comment:. Don't judge this by the number of Google hits - size isn't everything, it's the quality that counts. Emeraude (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the invitation of the 2nd National Schools Moot Court Competition - March and April 2012 on the South African Department of Basic Education website and information regarding the second event from the University of Pretoria. Purple Duke (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson

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

Architectural firm. Article states that "a number of their works are listed in the US National Register of Historic Places" which, I don't think, is enough to indicate notability by itself. I searched and found lots of articles where they are mentioned trivially as the architectural firm attached to a particular project, but no independent coverage of the firm as an individual entity. If this is deleted, the redirect at Hirsch and Watson Helfensteller should go too. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the article documented already within its first 10 minutes of existence before the AFD nom, the firm designed not one or two, but 12 different notable buildings listed on the National Register, each notable enough for its own wikipedia article. With two references already. There should be a strong presumption that the firm will be notable. --do ncr am 16:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy until such time as the article creator can supply some substantive content about this architecture firm. As Doncram states, the NRHP listings establish a presumption that the firm is notable per WP:N, but the current content about trivia like the misspellings of "Helfensteller" is insufficient for an encyclopedia article. --Orlady (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nom-Comment I'm not going to wiki-lawyer this to death, but I anticipated the notability arguments, but on reflection, I don't think I was clear enough in my nomination. Yes, the firm has worked on many famous and historically important projects. But Notability is not Inherited. Those projects and historical sites may (or may not) be notable on their own merits, but the fact that the project or site is notable, does not make the architectural firm that headed the project notable. If anyone can find one non-trivial mention in a reliable source that covers the firm and not a project the firm headed then I'll withdraw this AFD and go away. But "They worked on notable projects, so they are notable" is not a valid argument. I've said my piece and I'll crawl back into my wiki-hole now. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps I should clarify my comment about a "presumption". Because multiple works by this firm are listed on the National Register, I presume that this firm is sufficiently documented in the National Register documents that it will be established as notable at some time in the future when Doncram has obtained and read the National Register materials and writes up what he has learned about the firm. Until such time, its notability is not established and the page does not belong in article space. Due to the likelihood that the firm's notability can be established in the future, I think it's acceptable to allow Doncram to maintain the page in user space. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with userfy - as long as it doesn't get moved back into article space until the firm has independent coverage. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - I have several concerns... 1) - there is the need for Secondary sources. The NRHP itself would be a PRIMARY source for the fact that an architect or firm designed buildings that are listed by the NRHP. We are not supposed to use primary sources to establish notability. What is needed is a secondary source (say an article in an architecture magazine, or a book on architectural history) that notes that the firm designed all these notable buildings. Do we have such a source? 2) - we need to be careful when it comes to claims that "the firm is mentioned in the NRHP documentation."... in many cases the mention is nothing more than a passing reference. The building may be listed for reasons that have nothing to do with the architect. For example, the building may be listed on the NRHP because of its association with a particular famous person (such as being the person's birth place). If this is the case, the fact that a particular architect or firm designed it is really nothing more than trivia... or at best, background information. Again, what is needed are some secondary source that note the connection between the building and the architect, and discuss it in some depth... enough to make it clear that the connection is considered important. All this said... I absolutely agree that there is a strong potential for an article in this specific case. An architectural firm that designed 12 historic buildings should be mentioned in lots and lots of secondary sources that can be used to establish its notability. But... we can not assume that this is the case. The article should stay in user space until some of those likely sources are actually found and added. Blueboar (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Orlady. What we need to do is research architectural history and see if this firm is notable within that context. The NRHP nominations for the properties, if available, can shed some light on whether the properties were nominated for their architecture or historic personages or events associated with them. Certainly the fact that so many of their buildings have been listed suggests there might be some notability there, but we need specifics beyond "X number of buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places". Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see the WP:NOTINHERITED as working in this case. It is clear in the literal cases, that Person X being notable does not make the children of person X notable. Person X was notable for certain things, which usually have nothing to do with their children, parents, siblings, or casual friends. The situation is different with a notable building. It is often (but not invariably) notable because it is architecturally interesting. The architect or firm is the proximate cause of that notability, not merely related in some irrelevant fashion. Would we declare that David is notable, but Michelangelo not? Would we declare that The Starry Night is notable, but argue that Vincent van Gogh is not? I'm not arguing for an automatic, inflexible rule, but a general presumption seems warranted. On the merits, I support Orlady's suggestion to userfy--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with SPhilbrick. Broadly paraphrasing the WP:NOTINHERITED, items associated with notable subjects do not inherit notability simply because of the association. In this case, however, we're talking something different. Most or all of the Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson buildings are on the NRHP for architectural criteria (for those unfamiliar, structures can be listed on the Register for one or more of multiple reasons, "architectural criteria" being one of them). That means that the architectural firm created the very thing that makes these structures notable to begin with. That's a far cry from mere association. Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we need to userfy and not delete outright. I see this as being akin to the "restaurant" example at WP:NOTE... only in reverse. Unless it can be established that the buildings are primarily notable for their architecture, the architects should not inherit notability from the building. If that can be established through reliable sources, then the situation changes. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not finding the restaurant example you mention at WP:NOTE; could you please steer us to it? Thanks. Ammodramus (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My error... I got my notability guidelines mixed up... the example is at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (specifically: Wikipedia:ORG#No inherited notability) Blueboar (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, I'm afraid that I can't agree with Sphilbrick's and Andrew Jameson's argument. The architectural notability of a structure doesn't necessarily translate into notability for the architect. For example, properties might be listed under the "architecture" area of significance because they're surviving examples of a type or style that was once widespread; the architect's contribution might have been mere hackwork, of a sort done by scores of other architects at the time. Second, a passage in WP:SOURCESEARCH states, "Notability requires the presence of in-depth and significant treatment of a subject..." I assume that the editor who created the article wouldn't have done so had he/she not been strongly interested in the subject, and devoted considerable research time to it. The fact that all this research didn't turn up a source attesting to the notability of the firm seems to create a fairly strong presumption of non-notability. Ammodramus (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We may be closer than you think. I agree that the oldest surviving example of an architectural style may be notable, even thought the architect involved may not be, but I think that is an exception, rather than common. I tried to address that with "not ... an automatic, inflexible rule, but a general presumption", assuming that we would start with the presumption that the architect was notable, but could override that with consensus, based upon arguments you suggest. However, I don't see any such arguments presented in this case, so not following the "delete" recommendation. Lack of references will ultimately doom this article, but I have no way of being sure that no such references will ever be found, this suggests userfication in this case, where it seems plausible that such documents may exist somewhere.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, in this particular case, I think the wide use of their standard designs is a suitable criterion to showe their notability. And the NHRP is a secondary source. It is prepared by historians on the basis of primary documents. They're as much secondary work as any other interpretative work by historians. But more generally, what are architects notable for, if not for designing notable buildings? When there's an historic building, for whatever reason, the architects' name will of course be part of the article. People should be able to link from that to a description of their career. Perfectly natural encyclopedic question once you're reading about the building: what did they do before and after? The proper use of NOT INHERITED is that not all the works of a notable architect will be notable, except for the case of famous architects --most notable architects will have done some trivial work among the important projects=. I see I'm a minority opinion , but that is no reason not to give it, because a minority view sometimes gets adopted sooner or later. I continue to maintain the general proposition that criteria for notability should be categorical when such a criterion is applicable, so we do not have to debate the notability of each individual case. If it leads to a few articles on subjects of borderline notability , this harms the encyclopedia less than the time spent in the discussions, time spent quibbling when we ought to be writing about all the truly notable ones we do not yet have. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! --do ncr am 20:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is some general consensus above that the firm is in fact notable, that most agree that documents do exist that would satisfy everyone, although specific documentation has not yet been found to satisfy everyone yet. Then, tag it with "stub" or "expand" or "refimprove". It's likely that a St. Louis area historical society person, or a librarian, or someone out there with the right books and clippings files and access to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's archives will add further to the article, if the article exists. If the article is "userfied", that won't happen. I don't want it; it doesn't belong to me. And, the deletion record, plus bureaucratic enforcement of a no-article status quo, would most likely confound and frustrate the good efforts of any St. Louis area new editor who actually wanted to try to start from scratch. Why not let the person start from a pretty good effort that provides nice links to 12 NRHP-listed works by the firm, plus links to Moolah Temple and the theatre article, and which already provides some good context. It could be better yes, and it eventually will be. --do ncr am 16:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that to me, this argument sounds a lot like: "I'm sure that X is notable, although I can't be bothered to research it myself; but if we put an article out there, sooner or later somebody else will do the work."

First, this seems to be going about things backward. In WP:YFA, we're told to gather sources and establish notability before we ever launch an article. Here, however, the plan seems to be: post an article based on a general presumption of notability, and trust that someone, sometime, will make the effort to demonstrate that the subject actually is notable.

Second, I don't share my fellow editor's optimism about the future improvement of the article. Wikipedia has an abundance of e m b a r r a s s i n g l y m i n i m a l s u b s t u b s about NRHP sites that were created as two-sentence one-reference stubs over a year ago, and that remain two-sentence one-reference stubs to this day. I'm not at all sanguine about the intervention of the hypothetical St. Louis historian, and I think we must proceed on the assumption that the article will go unimproved for a long, long time after its posting. If we allow an article to go up that doesn't satisfy WP:NRVE today, it doesn't seem likely that someone will fix it in the reasonably near future. Ammodramus (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ammodramus, thank you for caring. I hear your concern for the NRHP articles, several thousand of which I agree are pretty crummy. One way that many of them are crummy is that the writer had no clue what was the association of a listed person or firm. Several hundred existing Wikipedia articles probably falsely assert (explicitly, or by infobox "architect=" assertion) that an associated person or firm is an architect, when in fact the named person or firm is a builder or engineer instead. Also many hundred falsely assert that a building was built in a given year, when in fact that was a year of other significance. And there are other problems in the one- or two-sentence NRHP articles. But your taking a stand against this architect article is misplaced. Removal of the article would impoverish 12 NRHP articles and 2 other articles that link here now. If the current architect article is removed, what then for the 14 linking articles? I suppose one could basically copy the entire current architect article into each one of those, to provide some context for the readers of those articles. Or construct a Navbox with information about the other buildings designed by the same architect. It seems best to let there be an architect article which answers the question of who the hell is "Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson" and what else have they done, rather than forcing know-nothing ignorance into each of the 14 articles that are somewhat informed currently by the existing article. I can't promise, of course, that this particular architect article will get better developed by a local historian or librarian coming forward. But, odds are a lot better that we'll get to a decent article a year from now, if we have this one as a pretty good start. At the moment, it fully establishes that the firm is an architectural firm, rather than a building contractor or an engineering firm. And it provides convenient navigation. I think it is all right, more than all right, to leave this in an article, rather than to force duplicative copying of the information into 14 articles, in order to provide appropriate context in each of them separately.

Creating articles for the architects, engineers, and builders associated with many NRHP sites is a way forward to improve the NRHP articles, which is what you want. FWIW, there are now 364 articles in Category:NRHP architects, 48 articles in Category:NRHP builders, 8 articles in Category:NRHP engineers. --do ncr am 00:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram... in a comment above you said "There is some general consensus above that the firm is in fact notable"... I disagree. I think there is a general consensus that the firm is likely to be notable... I would even go so far as to say there is a consensus that it probably is notable. But "probably" does not equate to "is". To move from probably to is, you need reliable secondary sources that discuss the firm (and do so in some depth - a passing mention on the NRHP database, or in a nomination document is not enough). Blueboar (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"To move from probably to is, you need reliable secondary sources that discuss the firm (and do so in some depth - a passing mention on the NRHP database, or in a nomination document is not enough)"—And we've now come full circle back to the statement that I made in the original nom... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 13:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more. Livitup, no offense, but your view would support putting a "stub" tag in the article (already present), calling for further expansion, and does not support removing the article from the wikipedia altogether. --do ncr am 19:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is some non-trivial (but not exactly in-depth) coverage of the firm in the book, Parkview: A St. Louis Urban Oasis 1905-2005 as well as in Missouri's contribution to American architecture. Andrew Jameson (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --do ncr am 20:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough blue links of this firm's projects showing that it could be renamed List of buildings designed by Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson and pass muster as a list. It's far better for the encyclopedia to have this article than that, or worse yet, to blow it all away. Sufficient collective achievement to merit encyclopedic history. Carrite (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, a voice of reason. --do ncr am 19:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not turn it into a category then? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Purplebackpack89, there's a good discussion of how categories and lists are complementary at wp:CLT, including admonishment that some duplication of function is not a valid argument for deletion of one. And, in particular here, if the article were deleted, there would be no location where complete info on the architects is given, though one could navigate by category among the articles, each containing a redlink to the architect. It would beg for creation of a central architect article. --do ncr am 19:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite and others. Clearly a notable architectural firm based on its accomplishments of record. bd2412 T 01:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Please note I have reformatted and rearranged the existing text in the article (no new text was added to the body). Notability has been established by the existence of peer reviews alone: non-notable architectural firms do not get any coverage. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Antandrus. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jion de Jordan

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

This is the rationale I gave for the PROD, which was removed by an anonymous user: "Does not appear in the list of the Bibliografia elettronica dei Trovatori, and so seems most likely to be a hoax." There is not a single Wikipedia-independent reference on the internet to any person with this name, nor is there a single reference to any of the supposed songs he wrote. Srnec (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous user is Cmach7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Using this account, the recent anon 101.160.148.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and his original IP 24.209.139.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he has persistently added imaginary dates to the List of medieval composers and List of Renaissance composers; I blocked him for a week for persistent addition of fantasy dates without sources, and refusal to engage on any talk pages, anywhere. This person has provided no references for anything and I am suspicious of these alleged composers who have neither entries in the New Grove nor any hits on Google -- at all. Googling En Parabasia, which allegedly has survived with words and music, comes up empty which isn't right. Does anyone have any source which at least shows that this person existed? Antandrus (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Like Srnec I have googled a number of the works associated with the subject and it's true that nothing comes up. Looking at the article creator's contribution history, there seem to be some articles about genuine musicians created by him/her, however. asnac (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, but I'll change this in an eyeblink if someone comes up with any evidence this person existed, because any documented troubadour is notable. Cmach, start providing your sources, this is not optional. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Piatt Runkle

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

Non-notable person. Only possible claim to notability is being a founding member of a fraternity. Without satisfying WP:N's requirement of having multiple independent reliable sources, that isn't enough--and slavering fraternity sources don't satisfy that at all.GrapedApe (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see great evidence of notability. Being a founder member of an organisation isn't usually enough and he was one rank below that usually considered automatically notable for military officers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Changed my vote after Dru's discovery below. General officers are notable. Good work. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I thought that being a colonel was notable. Appointment as a brevet colonel implies that he was considered significant: I undderstan dthis to be a measn of accelerated promotion. There are also hints of notability in his ecclesiastical career, but it is so briefly described that it is difficult to tell. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, a general officer is considered notable, a colonel isn't. "Brevet" just means he was acting above his actual substantive rank - the vast majority of colonels (and generals) in the Civil War were since the army expanded so rapidly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep- Findagrave entry here shows rank as Major General, meets WikiProject Military history/Notability guide #3: 'Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; or', and which is already cited in the only reference. Dru of Id (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, meant include this above: shows grave marker (middle photo) Brevet Major General Volunteers 1865. Dru of Id (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- It's my understanding that Brevetted ranks are typically given post-conflict as a reward, not as a real promotion. More like "general in name only." Could be wrong though. Hope for feedback from WP:MILHIST.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The findagrave reference reads as though he may have been brevetted Major General after the war, but that means he previously held the rank of Brigadier General and findagrave says that was during the war. Also, not sure if it matters, but it appears that he was related to General Abram S. Piatt — they were both grandsons of Jacob Piatt. Mojoworker (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the article with actual ranks — he held ranks in both the volunteer and regular armies and had brevet ranks in both. There are several other things notable about this guy. He was court-martialed and cashiered after charges of embezzlement but was reinstated by an executive order of President Rutherford B. Hayes. He also served as Chief Superintendent of the Freedmen's Bureau for Memphis, TN and later as Chief Superintendent of Freedmen's Affairs, State of Kentucky. He later won a case heard by the US Supreme Court: RUNKLE v. US in 1887. Mojoworker (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. (Struck-through; see my Keep below) MILHIST notability suggests that if one of the criterion were met then the article subject would have adequate coverage in reliable sources which is missing here. His post war awards shouldn't be used as a rule of significance. Findagrave isn't a reliable source. From WP:SOLDIER, "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they..." ..and then it goes on to state that having rank would qualify. I would like to see more on the sources end. From a previous version of this article it states he was "Breveted Colonel, Brigadier General and Major General of Volunteers, November 9, 1865, for "meritorious services."" All of that in one day, six months after the war was over. It was purely honorary.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced it was purely honorary. It was after the war, but he was still in the army. In this reference that I added to the article, he is repeatedly referred to as Brigadier General Runkle in period citations. Mojoworker (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - difficult case this, but it appears the rank that would have made him notable was purely honourary and after-the-fact. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would suggest that if someone was brevetted major general, even at the end of the war, for meritorious services, that would suggest a certain amount of notability. It does make him stand out from the crowd (many officers ended the war as colonels and were not brevetted to general officer rank, after all). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure why the editors opining for delete are assessing Runkle's notability solely on his military rank. I've added a fair amount of additional information to the article, so you may want to reassess. As I said, he was also Chief Superintendent of Freedmen's Affairs for the State of Kentucky and was involved with the Supreme Court case Runkle v. United States. Mojoworker (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendation. I would suggest relisting and letting it run for another cycle. The article has been improved mostly by Mojoworker and this is on the right track as he has been adding sources. I'd suggest giving this more time.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. A very notable figure in American history. Well sourced. Thats all. Tinton5 (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for multiple reasons advanced above, plus one that's not much mentioned — the Supreme Court case. Legal scholars publish about figures that play important parts in Supreme Court cases, so being the primary party on one side of a case is a strong indication of notability. Nobody would have heard of Norma McCorvey if she hadn't been in a similar situation. Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would consider his military history to place him as marginal on the notability scale but his involvement in the Supreme Court case lends enough notability to affirm as a Keep.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matru ki Bijlee ka Mandola

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

Film has not begun filming and has not received significant coverage. It is WP:TOOSOON for an article on this film. BOVINEBOY2008 02:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage for this film yet. Come back when it has been shot and published. JIP | Talk 07:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per WP:TOOSOON. Getting close,[39] but we can wait until principle filming is announced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NFF. SL93 (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arugments for retention seem to outweigh the arguments for deletion, and there is a rough consensus for retention. --MuZemike 02:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Esserman

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

Not notable as a chess player Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Featured in major newspapers in 2009, 2010, and 2011 with upset victories over established GMs and one super-GM. Articles written by highly established GM-titled chess writers. puzzician 00:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notability standards for chess players are not firmly established on Wikipedia, and, if any IMs are included at all, Esserman should be kept. His games have been uniquely covered by dozens of international media sources because of their aggression, novelties, rare openings, and tactics. Media attention is the most basic indication of notability, and this article is quite well-sourced. Tfine80 (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable for now. Most IMs have defeated the odd GM at some time or other, but attainment of only the lesser IM title demonstrates that the article's subject has some way to go to being considered a leading or notable chess player. It would therefore be necessary that he excels in some other field or aspect of chess, such as coaching or writing, which is not the case. Neither has there been a standout tournament victory that I could find - and presumably there is no national title, or a title from the world youth or world junior championships. This is the way that we have assessed all other nominee articles for non-GMs playing in the modern era. It should also be noted that there are those editors who even feel that the GM title does not confer enough notability, such is the ease with which the title is gained now, compared with fifty years ago. If I briefly think of other IMs on Wikipedia, I can only recall J Watson (noted writer), Nadanian (noted coach), Dvoretsky (noted writer/coach) etc. Of course if Esserman's play is as 'special' as described above, then he will qualify as a GM in double quick time and may then become an excellent candidate for an article. Brittle heaven (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are these standards written down? There seems to be a massive number of IMs and NMs in Wikipedia, most with no comparable games discussed in international media. This seems suspiciously like intentional targeting. Why focus on Esserman? In addition, IM is a major title; I don't see why Wikipedia cannot have articles on IMs. There is no limit to the number of articles here, so why worry? Tfine80 (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They have been discussed in many AfDs and on the Chess project talk page, but not formally written down. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would propose deferring a decision until standards are established with a degree of consensus. Otherwise, these battles will be arbitrary fights, with people given incentive to target other players for personal reasons. Esserman should certainly be one of the last IMs to be removed because of his general notability within the U.S. chess world and the wide international media coverage of his games. Tfine80 (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of setting standards came up again nearly 2 months ago (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#Chess notability) but nothing happened. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "briefly thinking" of other IMs on Wikipedia, why not do some actual searching (with the aid of a computer? :-) Why this page should be deleted while http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rendle should be left is beyond any logic to me.Puzzician (talk) 04:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzician, do you have any wp:coi with this article? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba, you are the one who started this aggressive attempt to delete a well-sourced article. Shouldn't the suspicion and burden of proof be on you regarding Conflict of Interest? You still haven't explained why it would be appropriate to delete Esserman but not every other IM/FM/WIM/NM/WFM/WGM at the same time. Tfine80 (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, PROD them or put them up for AfD. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to delete them! This is absurd. The point is that for some reason you are targeting this article with an arbitrary policy that is not consented upon or implemented evenly in the Wiki. Tfine80 (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then go back and check my history of !voting in AfDs of minor chess players. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one example of an article -- of several -- where I see an inconsistency in your stance. You have frequently edited the article for Abby Marshall, a young WFM who is not even yet a WIM. How could you possibly align this with your attempt to delete Esserman? Tfine80 (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I have a) added structure and convention to the article b) added important facts c) removed non-neutral language d) cleaned up grammar and e) sourced everything thoroughly f) referenced a policy inconsistency here that has gone unanswered. I value any opinions based on substantive criticisms of the work and its adherence to wp:POLICY. I advocate only for the quality of editing. As far as voting, I think we need more opinions than those of just editors of this article and those whose AfD standard falls outside the de-facto consensus for chess player inclusion.Puzzician (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has no direct bearing on this AfD, but the article under consideration has been edited by these Single-purpose accounts:
- The article was created by user:Tetuphenay, who since 2008 has edited only this article and Murray Turnbull, who has a link to Esserman.
- user:Gregatwan has edited only this article.
- user:NektonCap has edited only this article.
- user:Puzzician has edited only this article.
- user:71.233.149.62 has edited only this article.

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this just establish Esserman's notability? That lots of chess people are motivated to edit this article? Would it be worse if it was clearly just written by one person as a vanity article? By the way, Turnbull is very well known in Cambridge and is a fixture there who has been covered in lots of newspapers. If you lived there, you wouldn't even think of deleting him. Tfine80 (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it makes it very suspicious that there is a conflict of interest. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. SyG (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not notable as a chess player but appears to meet the requirements of General notability guideline, so therefore is a keep. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG per findings such as [40], [41] and [42], among other The New York Times and Boston Globes articles. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Wikipedia:Notability

[1] Wikipedia:Notability

[1]