Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 February 16 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. henrik•talk 18:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unhotel[edit]

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

Appears to be a neologism with no real widespread use. While the article does link to one reference, a search could not find any others. The only time this word is ever referenced that I can find is in reference to one particular company, whose article was recently also just created by the same author of this page. I tried a Proposed Deltion, but it was removed. However, I still feel it is eligible for deletion per WP:Neologism Rorshacma (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism referenced to a list of recent coinages. The underlying idea appears to be redundant to bed and breakfast. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems quite likely that the author, whose only wikipedia contributions are this article and the one about the company, is in a conflict of interest. I can find little other than the Evening Standard reference to suggest this is as yet a common term. Derek Andrews (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete -- Y not? 15:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asset Point[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the article is unintelligible, the references in the article don't help to establish notability, and I see nothing usable on the web. Google News links only a press release, Books and Scholar know nothing about it. Instead WP:B2B seems to be written under the impression of this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: yet another purveyor of unnotable "solutions". . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: global IT Software and Services company that provides a solution for managing physical capacity in facilities, modeling IT Changes and managing processes for IT transformation from the data center to the desktop. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, and especially per Smerdis above. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see how this might meet our notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bmusician 06:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Toon Adventures: Defenders of the Universe[edit]

Tiny Toon Adventures: Defenders of the Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A proposed deletion of this article was contested with a list of sources placed on the article's talk page. While this list has five entries, they all come from IGN except the first one, which is from Gamespot. There are three sources provided on the article already, but the first is a primary source, the second is not reliable, and the third is (again) Gamespot, leaving only two reliable sources for this article. A search for more reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This unreleased video game fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Neelix (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The IGN sources are dated 2001, 2004 and 2008. They're by different authors (2 by 'IGN staff', the other two by different named authors); they also approach the game from 2 angles, pre-release and cancelled. That being the case I don't believe they should count as a single source. On top of that there's another squirt of info from allgame here which verifies plot and gameplay details. There's also a substantial piece here on Computer and Video Games. That's without any magazine sources. That goes way over the notability bar to me. Someoneanother 00:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it, thanks! Someoneanother 00:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I'm the one that contested the PROD and found the sources. Gamespot is reliable for in-house published articles, which this is. That article, in addition to the first and fourth IGN articles, establishes clear notability - it is very significant coverage in reliable, independant sources. Salvidrim! 01:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Gamespot, IGN, CVG, and Allgame are all reliable sources, and all have articles dedicated to the game. Definitely qualifies as significant coverage and satisfies WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 01:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per provided reliable sources, the nom lacks of WP:BEFORE. Cavarrone (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't even think it's a lack of research before the nom, the sources were already found, as the nom points out. :) Salvidrim! 07:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're true, but considering the nominator wasn't satisfied with the actual coverage of the article (that however appears good) a quick search would have show at least the Allgame and CVG sources. Cavarrone (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't found the CVG one, but I believed (and still do) that the Allgame source doesn't establish notability. It seems more of a database entry-type than significant coverage to me. Salvidrim! 08:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, yes yes, I saw it. I just meant I hadn't found it in my original search. :) Salvidrim! 08:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Dragonlance#Fictional history. Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Wars[edit]

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion in a mass group nomination here, but the discussion was muddled with so many varying articles. The closing administrator suggested that the articles should be nominated individually, which is what I am doing now. A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for elements of fiction. Neelix (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albert F. Moore, Sr.[edit]

Albert F. Moore, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an unreferenced bio with no reliable support for any claims of notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article has no sources and fails to show any notability for its subject. There's no indication subject meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per the discussion here and at Talk:Christ Church Shelton and Oxon. The claims of notability are significant and verifiable by reliable sources. A move is also possible. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Church Shelton and Oxon[edit]

Christ Church Shelton and Oxon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable church. No claims to notability in article, and no Internet accessible coverage found. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 20:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 202.124.73.239 (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should check to see if it's a listed building — while the article doesn't say anything about that status (and I can't remember how to find our lists of listed buildings), it's old enough to have that status, and being a listed building is a substantial step toward notability. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNeutral. I have searched the listed buildings database for this church and cannot find it. Appears therefore to be non-notable architecturally and historically. -- Necrothesp (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is heritage listed - here it is -- 202.124.73.239 (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. I have no idea why it didn't come up on my search. I therefore change my opinion to neutral. Not an old church by British standards and only Grade II listed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. If the church was indeed "built to be a place of safety for those affected by flooding in the area" then there will be 150 years worth of offline news coverage. Searching is extremely difficult, however, since Pevsner's The Buildings Of England lists the building as "Christ Church, Oxon," which is also the name of a famous Oxford College ("Oxford" is abbreviated "Oxon"). I'm inclined to give the church the benefit of the doubt based on its age. -- 202.124.75.220 (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Additional sources can be found by phrasing the search correctly (some are now in the article), and there must be masses of offline sources, given the age of the church. -- 202.124.73.55 (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: some !votes appear to have been placed at Talk:Christ Church Shelton and Oxon. -- 202.124.73.239 (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment I'm not familiar with Pevsner, so I'm curious — how comprehensive is his coverage of this specific church? I'm loth to say keep based on the listed status alone (I don't know how much documentation is required for a Grade II listed building), but there's definitely enough information in the "here it is" link to qualify this article for keeping if we can find just one more source with substantial coverage. Nyttend (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Four lines. Qwfp (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Shelton, Shropshire in line with Wikipedia:Places of local interest: "If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality". Qwfp (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A merge to Shelton, Shropshire is a poor idea, since the church is actually in Bicton Heath (it serves Shelton, but isn't in Shelton). The present article covers both the church building and the parish, which is really the relevant locality. -- 202.124.72.69 (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because Grade II listing and the mention in Pevenser indicates that it is a significant buiding. If kept, Rename to Christ Church, Shelton and Oxon - correct puctuation. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: both Grade II listed churches & those noticed by Pevsner have enough notability (Nikolaus Pevsner only included notices of churches of some interest architectually).--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would take issue with this. There are nearly 400,000 Grade II listed buildings in England. Are they really all notable? And Pevsner tended to mention all churches built before the 20th century, despite dismissing many of them (often wrongly, in my opinion) as being of no architectural merit. I'm not saying this church isn't notable, but I don't think being Grade II or being mentioned by Pevsner is enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes, and yes. The principle involved is NOT PAPER. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On the basis of the Heritage listing, which is always fully sufficient for notability (Pevsner ditto) DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure / withdrawn by nom). Trout accepted. To be honest, I found it hard to believe that he wasn't notable, but as Salix noted I was fooled by his being the second named author in his main work. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 14:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Wells (mathematician)[edit]

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

Non-notable retired professor. Granted he is co-author of textbooks, I don't see anything that meets notability guidelines. The article asserts that he made "fundamental contributions to category theory", but I can't find any independent sourcing to back that up. Scholar searches don't show up citations of his books, and my basic searches of papers on category theory don't bring him up either. I'm happy to be proven wrong by someone who knows more about this field than I do, but from a layman's searches, he appears non-notable. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 20:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar lists 705 citations to the textbook. All existing relevant Wikipedia entries point to this textbook, and did so all along: Category theory, Topos theory, Monad (category theory), Sketch (mathematics), Beck's monadicity theorem. The book is a standard reference in courses on category theory taught at universities. It has been foundational for the whole subject. Urs Schreiber 22:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That was 705 citations for Toposes, Triples and Theories. The other book Category Theory for Computing Science gets 1094, although Google Scholar incorrectly attaches those citations to the answers sheet rather than the book. -- 202.124.73.122 (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In my view a pass of WP:Prof 4# The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education. Noted author of well used uni level maths textbooks - both Toposes, Triples and Theories - "a classic text" and Category Theory for Computing Science. Also, although it is not one of our criteria for notability, I think the fact his work is cited by our encyclopedia in several places is indicative of notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep – significant impact in their scholarly discipline, as evidenced by highly cited academic work.  --Lambiam 02:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as the author of influential and highly cited textbooks, and a WP:TROUT to the nominator for wasting our time. Clearly satisfies WP:PROF #1 and #4, based on citations of the books. -- 202.124.73.122 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF, but add ref-s, and rm unformated links to articles and surveys. Sasha (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (looking like a snowball keep) Looking at the citation of Toposes, Triples and Theories Wells is the second author which may account for Livitup problems with finding the google Scholar references.--Salix (talk): 09:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - vast number of cites, passes WP:PROF easily. --He to Hecuba (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) Mark Arsten (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Micromechanical Flying Insect[edit]

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

Deprodded by IP with an "it needs work" comment. I see no non-trivial secondary sources, however. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - evidently notable. Putting the article's title into GoogleScholar gives a host of peer reviewed papers on the subject - [1]. I have insufficient knowledge of this field to improve it myself, but this is a subject which Wikipedia should cover. --He to Hecuba (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. He to Hecuba (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Before nominating something for deletion, you should always do a quick Google news archive search so you don't end up wasting everyone's time. Eugene Register-Guard Jul 28, 2002 Team sets sights high on mechanical insects [2], The Dallas Morning News, The Advocate [3], etc. etc. Just click the link at the top of the AFD, and you can see articles covering this specifically in many different reliable sources, some published years apart. Dream Focus 22:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, trout nominator. This has more RS coverage than pretty much anything I've ever seen at AfD. Kevin (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Plenty of coverage in Google News, Google Scholar, and Google Books. SL93 (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article, while brief, has some excellent reliable source inline citations, and can easily be updated with even more. I improved the grammar. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's about new and promising field. Sure article needs work, in particular illustrations... User:Abune (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have rewritten the article and removed some tangential information. All statements are now sourced. Given the amount of coverage (see references in the article and the links at [4]), a GA could easily be written on this project. Goodvac (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Quasihuman | Talk 18:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanese archipelago[edit]

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 8. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a Taiwanese editor, I have not been taught the concept in my education or during everyday life.
  • There is little direct discussion of the concept in reliable sources, particularly ones dedicated to geography. This is despite the fact it would be quite a major concept were it widely recognised.
  • Google searches in English and in Chinese do not reveal much usage in reliable sources.
  • Assuming that it represents a serious effort at sourcing by those who argue for keeping the article, the sources in the revision at the time of writing are inadequate. See my analysis on the talk page.
  • I dispute the statement that "台灣諸島" means "Taiwanese archipelago" in Chinese. Instead, it loosely refers to "the (various) islands of Taiwan", with the meaning varying with time (Japanese-rule era / modern) and context. As such, references to "台灣諸島" are not evidence that a Taiwanese archipelago exists. wctaiwan (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfied. 10:11, 16 February 2012 Billinghurst (talk | contribs | block) moved Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz to User:Eric01pd2017/Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz [without redirect] ‎ (move to user's subpage) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz. For some reason, CSD G4 was declined. StAnselm (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt. This was first deleted in 2007 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stump, and deleted again in 2010. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I went through website after website and book after book to find absolutely nothing that would establish notability. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As much as I love this piece of music, it's not notable in and of itself.Tyrenon (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I declined G4 because it's for reposts or things close to reposts, not for completely new articles on the same subject. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So... what do we do now? StAnselm (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am informing you that i start new article in my own space, that will add when it is finished. A lot of things changed since 2007... We have tons of sources, this subject have constant 30, 40 views a day, it is a orchestration that is known and it is also social phenomenon. --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, it is awfully interesting. I see total lack of ANY relevant, reliable source on this subject. This composition belongs to the internet underground, unfortunately, it cannot stay on wiki under these conditions... Good delete, again unfortunately. I will not create subpage, just to let you know. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tara taylor[edit]

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

Non notable author, only refs provided are not reliable or primary sources. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: References are to companies or websites owned/operated by the subject of the article. Subject claims notability by being "featured" in HuffPo and "radio and television," but no evidence of such featuring can be found by this humble searcher. Claims of notability in article are not referenced and can't be verified; no additional notability can be found. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 19:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Huffington article does talk about her. I couldn't find any reliable sources other than Huffington's. The search for "Tara Taylor" "Just Say Yes Seminars" came up mostly with her blog articles. Tara Taylor is a common name, so I might have missed something. Bgwhite (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability and reliable sources. The article is advert-like in tone (e.g. use of first name instead of surname) and all the links seem to be promoitional. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Delete as WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think this person passes WP:AUTHOR. Even if someone can find decent sources that demonstrate notability, the article was clearly written as a promo piece and should be nuked. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 00:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Huffington Post reference establishes notability. However the other references do not support notability. The article needs to be edited down to a non-promotional stub. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have edited the text and added another reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One references by the Huffngton Post does not make one notable. It takes multiple sources. The source you added, an interview on blogtalkradio, isn't exactly reliable.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World-Wide Human Geography Data Working Group[edit]

World-Wide Human Geography Data Working Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable yet. Outside of it's own website, I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this organization. I also note that according to its website, this organization has not had its first meeting yet. Singularity42 (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stirling and District Amateur Football Association[edit]

Stirling and District Amateur Football Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable amateur football association. No secondary references to establish notability. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - WP:SNOW close, sockpuppet and master blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 23:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paging Grace[edit]

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

Non-notable, unsigned band. No coverage found in the usual RS-hunt, and fails to meet any of the criteria of WP:BAND Livit⇑Eh?/What? 18:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page. It is the "debut EP" of the band, which was only distributed electronically. Also non-notable. Bundled together because if one goes, the other should too. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 19:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All You're Made Of (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article claims notability by stating awards the band won, but I'm not finding any references to back these claims up. In fact, when I actually searched for the awards in question, the only hits I was getting back were to this article, and to the band's own website. It fails WP:Band as well as WP:RS. Rorshacma (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are plenty of unsigned bands featured on Wikipedia which have achieved only a fraction of the success which Paging Grace has. In terms of a label, Paging Grace is an LLC, as they are an independent artist that sells international with sales reaching thousands. Paging Grace was voted Best Band by the Long Island Press in both 2008 and 2009. Their debut EP, "All You're Made Of" saw over 5,000 in digital copies sold (this does not include sales accumulated via hard copies, sold at shows and through the band's website). The album's single "Leave" impacted radio in January 2008 in the "Hot Adult Contemporary" genre and was statistically well recieved in the Los Angeles, Dallas, and New York markets, therefore making the band a nationally known act. The band was awarded "Hot AC Most Added New Artist" and reached #1 on the "Independent Music Network". The band has chosen to thoroughly establish a name for themselves prior to signing down to a label. Paging Grace is one of the most, if not, the most, established and well-reputed band on Long Island.
Lastly, Paging Grace DOES, in fact, meet the criteria to be listed on Wikipedia. Check WP:BAND #9. Once again, Paging Grace was voted Best Band by the Long Island Press in BOTH 2008 and 2009. The band was awarded "Hot AC Most Added New Artist" and reached #1 on the "Independent Music Network". It simply says the band had to win one or place in a major competition, which in truth, they have won four. Not only did they place in these competitions, but they won all four of them. The band also qualifies for WP:BAND #11 and #12 as they were broadcasted on New York radio under the Hot Adult Contemporary genre. Just recently, on Saturday, February 4th, 2012, the band was broadcasted live on "Classic Rock 103.9 WRCN"'s website for their show at the Vail-Leavitt Musical Hall in Riverhead, New York. Please do not remove this band's page from Wikipedia. A great deal of time and effort has been put in to making it possible and gathering up accurate, pertinent information. Thank you. Guitarrock165 (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)guitarrock165[reply]
As I noted in my above comment, I can find no reliable third party sources that mention the awards claimed. Even searching the Long Island Press' archives, I have yet to find mention of the band. If you can find reliable third party sources, please add them to the article, which will greatly help your cause. Otherwise, its very hard to argue that any of the awards can be considered "major competitions" without the references to back it up. Rorshacma (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm going to put the following link in my URL then. http://www.sonicbids.com/epk/epk.aspx?epk_id=103954&submission_id=&poll_id=&name=preview&skin_id=2 This includes reviews from three 3rd party sources, one of which is AOL city guide. Once again, please do not delete this page as much time and effort has been put into it to make it possible. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarrock165 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing Guitarrock165 has shown is reputable. They would have to chart on Billboard, not some chart published in someone's basement. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The band's statistic do not come from a basement, by any means. Rather, these particular references were toward AOL city guide's reviews and ratings. This source is a statistically reinforced, reputable reference which I have now cited twice on this page. Coming back to the argument about not being signed, Paging Grace is a LLC, as an independent artist that sells international with over thousands of sales. Paging Grace's 2 major EPs are available via iTunes.

Paging Grace's single, "Leave" from their EP, All You're Made Of, was featured in an episode of MTV's the Hills, which aired April 28th, 2008. This complies with the WP:Band #10 as an appearance in a TV series. Here's the requirement: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)

I believe the information I have disclosed (specfically with Paging Grace's music appearing on MTV's "The Hills") is sufficient to prove this page as being a reliable, credible, and most of all, worthy of being a Wikipedia page. Can you please close this discussion so that the band's page remains and I can delete the "subject to deletion" box at the top of its page? Thank you.

Within the editing box of the band page, the coding says the page was ruled to "keep" so I deleted the "subject to deletion" box. When I went back on the page, the box showed up again. Can the administrator please verify the decision and delete the "subject to deletion" box to clean up the page and make it look better? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarrock165 (talk Guitarrock165 (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)• contribs) 21:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep After doing research of my own, Guitarrock165's descriptions on the page are well supported. This band does meet the criteria for inclusion into the Wikipedia community as one of their songs was included in a hit television series (The Hills which aired on MTV) and they have won several awards in New York State. Keyy974 (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems that Keyy974's only contribution to Wikipedia upon the creation of the account was to vote to keep this article, and to create multiple "Keep" votes at that. Not only is voting multiple times not proper wikipedia behavior, but I'd say this would almost warrant a sockpuppetry investigation. I've taken the liberty of removing the multiple duplicated votes, and I hope this behavior isn't repeated.Rorshacma (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guitarrock165 opened... this stuff annoys me. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 15:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser confirms socking... admin action pending. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 21:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Fountain[edit]

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

Non-notable author who self-publishes via Amazon and Smashwords. I searched, and while there are plenty of g-hits, they are all social media or sales pages. Absolutely no coverage in WP:RS found. Fails WP:AUTHOR and the GNG. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 18:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rorshacma (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that she has published e-books through Amazon and other retailers does not indicate, in and of itself, that she is non-notable per WP guidelines. What is most damning here is 1) the utter lack of any WP:RS presented to establish or even hint at notability and 2) the fact that the article is apparently written by a relative, in violation of WP:COI. This is precisely the kind of abuse the coibot is designed to spot, though I don't know that this was what led to the nomination for deletion. Qworty (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VENARC[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no indications of notability. I hope Smerdis of Tlön won't get offended for me using his WP:B2B essay again, but the phrases like "The company has played key roles in working alongside MySQL in order to create an easy to use, easy to manage, enterprise server solution" (translation: "the company set up several MySQL servers") are indeed alarming. Basically I'm not sure whether this company does routine web application development or just web site design. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current text seems to me to qualify for speedy deletion as entirely unambiguous advertising and patent nonsense: The company uses a combination of software development and marketing tools to translate its clients expectations into a product with a competitive edge. And link to WP:B2B all you want; it's what it's for, and I wouldn't have bothered writing it if we didn't have a large problem on our hands with this stuff. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn; article has been rewritten to take a more realistic and properly sourced view of the topic. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friending[edit]

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

This appears not to be a real, properly referenced encyclopedia article, but an original research essay trying to extrapolate a concept from social networking websites into a neologistic analysis of social interaction — which is, for the record, quite separate from the age-old concept of just becoming friends; rather, it seems to be a really bizarre new marketing theory with little discernible correspondence to the real world outside of Facebook, setting forth unattested subconcepts such as "outdoor friending", "indoor friending", "print friending", "mobile friending" and "souvenir friending" (um, er, you want to what now?), and grasping at straws to cite "examples" as diverse as smartphone boot screens, cardboard robots, public art installations, video display technology and — I kid you not — Buddhist prayer wheels (but failing, of course, to explain how the prayer wheels actually do anything that could be characterized as "friending".) As always, Wikipedia is not the place to publish original thought and unreferenced cultural studies essays; we should not have an article about something like this until there's actual social and cultural research published into it as an actual thing. Delete, though I'd also settle for a redirect to friend or social networking service or some plausible existing topic (it was actually a redirect to social networking service until this user came along; the primary reason I'm bringing it to AFD now is that I initially redirected it again, but the user then came back and undid that edit, so I'd prefer to get a consensus rather than getting into an edit war.) Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:OR whether by synthesis or not; basically an uncited WP:ESSAY with a lot of examples from the web, if that's not a contradiction in terms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a contradiction. Just to clarify: he does provide citations for the existence of some individual things that he lists as examples of the concept in action (although not all of them — frex, the cardboard robots and the magazines that pay you to read them are uncited, and the Buddhist prayer wheels are cited to a virtually empty page), but he fails to provide any cited evidence that this concept of "friending" actually has anything to do with any of them. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Another user has revised the article to a more valid and properly sourced version of the topic; accordingly, I am withdrawing this nomination. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Noise (website)[edit]

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

WEBSITE NOT EXISTING. Nor notable per WP:Notability (web) and no third party sources. Saqib Qayyum (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking here about the notability of the subject. If you want it to merge, at least you need sources. --S Q 08:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real indication of notability. Searching for sources only brings up first and second party content, thus failing WP:RS. Rorshacma (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ripple (charitable organisation)[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:Notability (web) Saqib Qayyum (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking here about the notability of the subject. If you want it to merge, at least you need sources. --S Q 08:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— speak 16:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Hunger[edit]

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

WEBSITE NOT EXISTING OR EITHER CLOSED. Nor third party reliable source available and website is closed/not working. Saqib Qayyum (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking here about the notability of the subject. If you want it to merge, at least you need sources. --S Q 08:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— verbalize 16:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Austenasia[edit]

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

Unremarkable micronation. Have tried redirecting to List of micronations (Prior AfD was mistakenly closed as no consensus, when it should have been merge, based on comments from regular contributors), but constantly reverted by accounts with few edits outside this topic. Majority of the references are to primary sources or user-submitted sites - little significant coverage from independent sources. Google news search on "Austenasia" shows no results. Standard search shows mainly unreliable sources, wikis, and primary sources - again, no significant coverage found. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources are notable. Also, I don't find any evidence that any of the sources were self-published. InTheRevolution2 (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how notable the sources are or by whom they were published if they don't establish that Austenasia meets the inclusion criteria. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep  SK#2b disruption (I'll explain), SK#2c, "c making nominations of the same article with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion", and SK#2d, "d nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion".  Regarding point SK#2c, there was not a single delete !vote at the last AfD.  Regarding SK#2b and SK#2d, this forum is for worthless articles, not a place to resolve content disputes.  Regarding SK#2d, there has been a sequence of reverts since the last AfD by editors for and against redirecting the article.  Note that the last AfD was closed to allow discussion to proceed on the talk page, and there is not a single comment on the talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but consider merging all articles of micronations in the UK (or Europe?) into one article. Much as I wish we'd take no notice of these deluded attention-seekers, the fact remains these silly things got attention in the mainstream media. However, these individual articles are an invitation for puffery. I'd rather we didn't use Wikipedia to feed self-importance when we can avoid it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per my redirect !vote less than three months ago, List of micronations already covers the topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the merits, though there are valid arguments for a merge. Unfortunately, the nominator appears to have attempted to edit-war the article into a redirect, which does nothing to prove his point. The nominator also has made no edits on this topic to the talk pages of this article, the proposed merge target, or any other discussion that I can find. I disagree with Unscintillating, in that the AFD forum certainly can be used to discuss the possibility of a merge, but it should not be the first step to that end. As noted at the last AFD, discussion needs to take place at the article's talk page, which it hasn't. That discussion comes first. The nominator also highlights the previous close as incorrect; if that's the case, Deletion review is that way. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't merge. I don't see how this meets the inclusion criteria any more or less than, say, the Empire of Atlantium or the Republic of Molossia.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 17:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I'd be more trigger-happy with those two examples. The only reference either of those articles has is a mention in Lonely Planet - the rest is reprints of their own websites. Writing about barely notable entities on the few things that have been covered in reliable sources is fine, but dedicating 95% of articles to reprints of people's websites is surely not what Wikipedia's for. There are reasonable arguments to keep this article, but that's a classic WP:OTHERSTUFF. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has a greater number and a wider range of reliable sources than other articles on micronations, such as Russian Empire (Suwarrow). It's made it into several international publications, as demonstrated in the citations - clearly notable enough to meet the inclusion criteria. Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough coverage in multiple reliable sources to pass GNG SupernovaExplosion Talk 12:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angels & Stars[edit]

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

non notable just released song. debut single. Features notable rappers, but fails WP:NSONG. possible redirect to Eric Turner Gaijin42 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
your WP:CRYSTAL ball is specifically outlined as a reason to NOT keep this article. Every song by every no name band COULD chart. We make pages about the ones that are ALREADY notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's only because I've seen a lot of articles like this which get deleted, and a week later they are recreated by a different user; sometimes references are lost, proper prose replaced by nonsense. Since this has roughly a week until closing, I will check again for references. With 3 stars of this magnitude on a single track, I suspect it will pass before the AfD closes. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's gradually improving. If you wait a few more days, then it will be a much more notable article, but that does not mean that it should be deleted/redirected. It's already been improved a little and, with reviews about to storm in, it will definitely be improved a lot more. Rhain1999 (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Let's give it another week to see whether it becomes "a much more notable article." Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Along with the above sources (Digital Spy, Rap-Up), I found this, this and this which appear to be reliable sources. While the amount of coverage isn't overwhelming, on the whole, I think there's enough available material to support a stand-alone article.  Gongshow Talk 06:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McMurry[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Mr. McMurry has not yet reached the level of state-wide judge, so does not automatically pass WP:POLITICIAN. There are a number of news sources that mention him, but they are almost all local sources and discuss the cases he has been involved in, rather than McMurry himself. This doesn't look like enough to satisfy the guidelines for "any biography" in WP:BIO. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


RESPONSE TO PETITION

This note is a formal objection to the recent proposal that the article be deleted. According to WP:BIO, the notability guideline for biographies is that multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Kevin McMurry has received coverage from multiple independent sources, including national media outlets such as CNN, CBS and the Oxygen Network, and local newspapers such as the Newnan Times-Herald, who continue to follow McMurry and have been following him since 2008.

The External links page will be updated to include even more articles and credible independent sources, like The Daily Report, which is an established legal publication based in Atlanta, Georgia. Godawgs321 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Right now, this doesn't meet the criteria of WP:Politician. All of the reliable sources are about cases McMurry was involved in, not McMurry himself. The only sources here about McMurry directly are primary (his own press release and website). An article may be more appropriate if he wins elections. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although many of the sources are about cases McMurry was involved in, the coverage looked at its entirety tells the complete story: a well-respected and accomplished assistant district attorney who received recognition for his cases is now a serious candidate for Judge. The articles about his cases give credibility to his candidacy. He has been featured consistently throughout his career and has been featured for stories on CNN, CBS, The Oxygen Network, as well as the papers in the area where he works. In short, you won't find any candidate who hasn't been elected yet with more favorable news coverage from as many independent reliable sources. Most of the articles are about McMurry's cases, but there are some articles about McMurry himself. Godawgs321 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (continued) The purpose of Wikipedia is to disseminate credible information. It would to a disservice to the people interested in the race not to be able to find credible information based on news sources in an online encyclopedia, like Wikipedia. And the truth is, Wikipedia pages usually go to the front of most search queries. If a candidate has the volume of news articles on him and his career successes as Kevin McMurry does, then that should be proof enough of the person's credibility, which is the main focus of the WP:Politician standard. Godawgs321 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Godawgs321 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Godawgs321, and thanks for your comments. You might want to read Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies and our essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to see the kind of things we need to find in this discussion. If you can list the reliable sources here that you mentioned above - the ones that cover McMurry himself rather than just his cases - that will be the most powerful argument, in my opinion. Sources about his cases will be given less weight, and arguments that the article is useful or contains valuable information will be given very little weight by the administrator who closes this deletion discussion. And also, it's customary to only leave one "vote" in bold in deletion discussions (although in reality they are not a vote). Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The cases alone do not show notability. What's needed is some evidence that his career as a whole is notable , based on accounts substantially about him. I do not usually say the accounts must be principally about the subject as long as the subject is covered substantially, but careers like this might be the exception. the articles that are about him are routine for a candidate. I'm willing to accept major party candidates for major national office as notable even if they do not get elected, but this is considerably below that level. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close - Already nominated under a bundled AfD. —SW— talk 16:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Pacific-12 Conference football season[edit]

2013 Pacific-12 Conference football season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The 2012 season won't start for 6+ months yet, and we're already creating articles for the 2013 season? Too early. This article doesn't even have any content, it's just a boilerplate framework with no information and a bunch of redlinks. This article shouldn't exist for at least a year. —SW— speak 13:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, I'll close this AfD and vote on the existing one. —SW— talk 16:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP (non-admin closure). 5 votes to keep, none aside from the nomination to delete. WP:GNG has been met. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 20:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vazquez Sounds[edit]

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

This is a band of some kids who made a youtube video covering an Adele song, they got a couple million views and then they were pretty much forgotten. That's it. In fact, the article was created by some new user that didn't speak English and then never came back to wikipedia.

I think there are many reasons why they shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, and looking at the criteria for musicians, we can see that they clearly should be removed.
- They haven't released any singles or albums (which are like, 3 points in the criteria list)
- They haven't done any tours or even concerts.
- None of the members are independently notable musicians.
- They haven't won any major music awards.
- They haven't won or entered any major music competition.

It's also important to note that they were only mentioned on tv (their only point in the criteria list) for their first video (cause of the gimmick, mostly), their following 2 videos were pretty much ignored. I think that band who did the "worst cover ever" of "The Final Countdown" was even more of an internet phenomenon, and they don't have (nor deserve) a wikipedia page.
We can't have an article for every single video that gets featured on youtube. Cancerbero 8 (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I agree this band does not pass WP:MUSICIANS but surely passes WP:GNG as it received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, as a quick look in Google News archives shows: [6]. As noticed by User:Tbhotch they also surely pass WP:MUSICIANS#1. Cavarrone (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that, then, it should probably just be listed in List_of_Internet_phenomena instead of having its own separate page? I mean, it's not as notable as, say, Friday, which was at least released as a single and covered by a bunch of famous artists Cancerbero 8 (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Personal attack removed) 178.148.226.11 (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep duh extensive coverage in reliable sources. They were on every morning show in Mexico and in the U.S. and god knows where else. This nom should be withdrawn. -- Y not? 03:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So was the "I like turtles" kid. I don't see the point of them having their own article. Look at it, it's TWO lines long. All their "extensive coverage" was because of that one song, that's it, there's nothing else to say about them. If they are going to be on wikipedia, they should probably just be mentioned, as I said, in the List_of_Internet_phenomena, not having a whole article just to say "they made a cover of "Rolling in the Deep" and it had lots of views". Cancerbero 8 (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Created by a non-English-speaker editor" is not a justification for deletion, and can be considered as hate speech. And, are you sure they haven't released a single?. Passes N(M) points 1 and 12, as well as WP:GNG, as they have been mentioned in many reliable sources in both Spanish and English languages. Considering that the arguments "'worst cover ever' of 'The Final Countdown'" and [T]hey don't have (nor deserve) a wikipedia [sic] page.", this is more like an user with a WP:COI/biased problem with the band than a real reason for deletion. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hate speech? Please... English is not my native language either, and I'm from Mexico too. Don't provoke me. It's about quality. I don't have a problem with the band, I have a problem with the article. Please don't accuse me of things like hate speech, bias or try to provoke me again, I already got a personal attack in this page, keep it professional and base your arguments on what I wrote, not on the reason YOU think I wrote them. Wanna talk about bias? Look at the comment below by the unsigned user. Also, iTunes is not the same as a label, a bunch of people release "singles" on iTunes, I doubt that passes the criteria. Cancerbero 8 (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I doubt that [the band/page] passes the criteria". Well, AFDs are not requests for page improvement, and in less than an hour I improved the page simply adding references to text that an IP removed without a reason. You've showed no intention to improve the page, just want it deleted, and it is pretty clear with every single comment you've left in the page. Oh, and, the page still passing the GNG criteria and N(M) points 1 and 12, so I suggest you to withdrawn this nomination because it's snowing. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're not suggesting I deleted that info from that page, just like you suggested earlier I was guilty of hate speech. I can assure you, I haven't touched that page at all apart from making this nomination. If I do something, I do it with this account, I don't hide behind Anonymous IPs or new users like some people in this conversation do. Snowing? Three people consider keeping the article, that doesn't seem like snowing to me. And I know snow, I live in Siberia.Cancerbero 8 (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that you removed the content, if you don't like other people putting words upon your mouth, then don't do the same. Anyway in three days an admin will close this as there are three valid comments, keeping that time this page will be a total waste of time. Good luck. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, there's no comparison between me saying "I hope you're not suggesting..." and you accusing me of HATE SPEECH. Something that you actually never even apologised for. They are completely different leagues. And you want me to treat you well after you saying that? You can't go simply provoking and accusing people of things, not apologizing when you're wrong about those accusations, and then pretending to be the victim. You start a fight and then pretend you didn't do anything wrong? Your tone has been aggressive with me since the beginning. Look at the other commenters and how I tried replying to their arguments in a civil way, whether I agreed with their view on the subject or not. You just keep on provoking me, and you'd better stop doing that. For you this page can be a "waste", for me the Vazquez Sounds article is a waste. Cancerbero 8 (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This nom should be withdrawn! Let's talk facts:

"This is a band of some kids..." [this is a world known by now musical trio of Abelardo, Gustavo and Angela Vázquez] "...who made a youtube video covering an Adele song, they got a couple million views and then they were pretty much forgotten. That's it." [No, that's not it. As of today, they got more than 45 000 000 hits on youtube for their Adele song. It's 46 000 000 hits in three months! And more than 25 000 000 hits on their two other songs.] "In fact, the article was created by some new user that didn't speak English and then never came back to wikipedia." [In fact, who cares, new user or old user. Facts matter!] Truth matters, and the truth is that Vazquez Sounds are just at the beginning of their carieer, the truth is that Angela Vázquez is a supertalented singer and there is a bright future ahead of her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straight simple (talk • contribs) 03:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, a new user. I wonder if you're the one who told me to get a life? Either way, welcome to Wikipedia. Now, whether you think the girl is a supertalented singer or that you predict her future is bright does not doesn't give her a reason to have a page, there's a list with criteria and my point is that this page doesn't fit that criteria. Cancerbero 8 (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you my friend. I'm honored to be welcomed here by you. So, you are from Mexico and live in Siberia? Long way you went there. Where in Siberia are you stationed now? I know the place, I was born there. The world is so small these days, don't you think? Yes, I'm a new user, thanks to you. I got offended by that nom of yours and chimed in. Sorry you don't like it, but facts speak for themselves. Not 2 mln views but 46 000 000 views and going up. And Vazquez Sounds are not forgotten. They are actually becoming more and more popular. Every day. They do deserve this page. Regretfully, you are trying to make your point by making a false statement of material facts (as your lawyer would put it). No, I'm not the one who wished you to "get a life". And I'm sure the one who did, meant wishing no harm to you. We all wish you well. Straight simple (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Contary to what the nomination says follow ups were not ignored. Caulfield, Keith (22 December 2011), "Vazquez Sounds' Cover of Adele's 'Rolling In the Deep' Sparks Billboard Social 50 Debut (Watch)", Billboard.biz states that their next video in ~1 week "scooped up nearly 7 million views" and was "the 17th most-viewed clip of the month" (also says they charted, but don't know how recognised the Billboard Social 50 chart is). "Se ubican de nueva cuenta Los Vázquez Sounds como los más escuchados", Agencia Mexicana de Noticias, NOTIMEX, 22 January 2012 states there "Forget You" cover has nearly 3 million views. The have also released an album, stated in Cano, E. Natalia (24 December 2011), "Evoking Bieber-mania, kid band Vazquez Sounds takes Mexico by storm", Associated Press Newswires Most importantly band has enough coverage for WP:N and it's not just one event due to the coverage of followup videos. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Branson[edit]

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

Individual does not appear to be notable and no verifiable sources are provided. Connolly15 (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BIO for guidelines on notability for individuals on Wikipedia. Perhaps begin by creating articles for the organisations mentioned in the article if they meet notability guidelines and there are verifiable independent sources discussing them available.Connolly15 (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero hits in Gnews and Gbooks (searched '"Greg Branson" +Helios' to limit results). Doesn't look like the Helios Foundation is notable either. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - at best his book might be notable, but he's not. No references in independent publications to indicate notability. His book doesn't appear to pass muster either, as it's simply two references to incredibly fringe publications. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photostand[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:Notability (web). It doesn't differ from other similar application completely. ♪ anonim.one ♪ 12:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage, no indication of notability; created by an SPA as possible promotional article. Dialectric (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dico si Tiganas[edit]

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

Blatant (self-)promotion. The first phrase almost says it all about how this article was designed, and the peacock term in it is referenced with two footnotes, the first of which merely states that it is the biggest architecture firm in the city, and the second one makes no mention of it. It then goes on to list a self-presentation of the company's portfolio, citing local newspapers that refer to it with little detail and commercial websites of its partners. - Andrei (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Although the article is over-promotional at present, there are sources adequate to indicate that this is an architectural practice which has achieved notability. It's a job for copy-editing, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the notability is not an issue here. But an article entirely consisting of personal opinions, promotional content and very little prose cannot be kept that way. The way I see it, it needs a rewrite, not just a copy-edit.- Andrei (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How can you write an article about something, without promoting it? Anyway, as a response to what - Andrei said: The first reference is about the most successful architectural firms in Cluj-Napoca and it states that Dico si Tiganas occupies the first place... clearly as that. The second one, is an architectural magazine, about 500 pages with the biggest and the most known architectural firms in Romania (based on current and past projects), and the reference has Dico si Tiganas in its index... again it's the only reference I could find.(UPDATED: I found another article, and added it as a third reference with the headline: how does the nr.1 architectural firm in Cluj-Napoca, manage during the economic crisis) . Then the company's portfolio is cited in local newspapers, in articles that are about the building... not about the architectural firm, isn't that enough? The other references are not from partners, they are from international companies, that invested in our country, and it was the only place where I could find anything about certain buildings. From what - Andrei said, I should look for an article that has the headline "Dico si Tiganas, one of the biggest architectural firms in Romania"... but as far as my knowledge goes, there isn't a newspaper in our country that should talk about how great a company is. The bottom line is, that the article clearly needs some work done, but deleting it?, I don't think it's the case. The fact of the matter is that this firm has clearly made an impact in this country and I'm just going to emphasize two things: It's the only architectural firm in Romania (as far as I know) that has designed a UEFA elite stadium Cluj Arena from scratch(and has won first prize with it at the OART contest, as stated in the article) and it is currently designing the new Sportshall for the city.Mythy88 (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can definitely write something without promoting it. That is why we have the WP:NPOV policy. Do you think the people who wrote Adolf Hitler were just nazi-sympathizers?
As I said above, the article needs not just copyediting, but a complete rewrite, because it was not meant as an encyclopedic article. There is a difference between "the biggest architectural firm in the city, in terms of sales figure" and "the best architectural firm in the country" (which is a matter of opinion) — we're not allowed to express our opinions. If someone compentent in fact considers it "the best architectural firm in the country" (not your opinion or mine), we need to explicitely cite that person that said that. If you can only find references to the buildings in some commercial sites (it doesn't really matter how big a corporation is, in which country it invested, or whether or not that country is yours), then maybe those informations aren't really encyclopedic. If it is true that it's known for certain buildings, then those buildings need to be mentioned, in readable prose, with the information that pertains to their design.- Andrei (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOODWINS LAW Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "promoting" stated earlier is more about:"there is no such thing as bad publicity". As for the "best architectural firm in the country"... it didn't write that, it said it is one of the best, and I corrected it as being one of the top architectural firms, and it had as a reference a known architectural magazine(book) in Romania. Being the first article on wikipedia, I used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_and_Partners as a baseline. As you can see, the article is about another architectural firm and has less prose then mine has. It's true, there's no comparison regarding the difference in fame and valor between the two firms. If "prose" is the case, then I will change the article so that it has more prose and less lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythy88 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 15 February 2012
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability (as the nominator has said) is not in question. The article is promotional, but that can be fixed without deleting it. It is not a TNT job; there is useful content in the article - the lead, though partially promotional, does present encyclopedic content. Thus, don't delete the article and rewrite the promotional bits. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep and remove any promotional content --Codrin.B (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Notability seems established, argument can continue about the title. Fences&Windows 23:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brusselization[edit]

Advanced search for: 
"Brusselization"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library
Brusselization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Term appears to be made up, having no sources attesting to its existence. Article should be deleted before the existence of this article results in seemingly legitimate use arises from it. Louiedog (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to Bruxellisation. This appears to be a case of well meaning but misleading anglicization. As the fr.wikipedia article demonstrates, the term is bruxellisation (or for some reason BruXellisation) is used in exactly that meaning. I see several references to it in English-language books. Here from 2006. However, the English term appears to be used only for bureaucratizing central control with reference to the European Union: Brusselisation from 2010, Brusselization from 1999, both referring to a 1998 article by David Allen of Loughborough University, "Who Speaks for Europe? The Search for an effective and coherent External Policy". There appear to be ample references for Bruxellisation to meet the notability criterion; I didn't even have to go past English-language uses. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 15. Snotbot  t • c »  12:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references in the article - currently article is cleary WP:OR violation. Per comment above, if it is used to refer to the European Union in a few English articles, that is even more justification for it to be deleted on notability grounds. Just because an article appears on French wiki does not mean it should on English wiki. Connolly15 (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe you misunderstand. The article is wrongly titled - the title it is at refers to something else. I'm quite prepared to reference it up, move it, point the existing title somewhere else, and stick a hatnote at the top, but moving an article while it's at AfD is Not Done. There are plenty of refs establishing the notability of Bruxellisation (and the accuracy of teh article). What's inaccurate is the title. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apologies if I have misunderstood, but when I made this comment originally the article had no references or sources provided. The existing title should definitely be pointed to somewhere else... maybe just European Union given that a quick English book search comes up exclusively with references to the EU (except for the current Wikipedia article of course). Hopefully sooner rather than later. Connolly15 (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I think you are misunderstanding. It would be pointless to add sources now because the article is misnamed. Brusseliz/sation is used with a completely different meaning. It has to be moved to Bruxellisation or the sources will be inapplicable. See my initial keep rationale. There are plenty of sources in English using both terms, but they mean different things. If this just keeps getting relisted I'll invoke IAR and just demonstrate by moving, rewriting, and referencing. But a move would lose the AfD template and be confusing to anyone who may want to participate here. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two pennies for the pot. I'm not familiar enough with this concept to know which spelling is more correct — however, as this discussion seems to be bogging down over WP:UE, I thought it worth adding a bit of clarification nonetheless. The thing is that the policy does not require us to give every topic a title that's worded and spelled in English; rather, it requires us to name pages with whatever can be demonstrated to be the actual name of the topic in actual real world English usage. The standard example I always give is the Canadian political party called the Parti Québécois: even though the words in that name are spelled in French rather than English, the party does not actually have an official English name, and the standard usage in English is the untranslated name "Parti Québécois". With the result being, of course, that any anglicised version of the name would be unattested and unknown in the real world, and hence would run afoul of Wikipedia's proscriptions against original research — so even though the individual words are in French instead of English, the name as a whole is entirely consistent with WP:UE since it's how the party is actually named in actual English usage.

    Accordingly, the same principle has to be applied here: we need to determine which spelling, ss or x, is actually attested in urban studies literature as the actual name of this specific concept, and use that spelling regardless of whether or not it corresponds to the usual English language spelling for the city of Brussels itself. Again, I'm not offering a !vote one way or the other, as I'm unfamiliar with the topic — but on policy grounds, it's a question of which spelling is actually attested in the actual literature. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Or we could pay attention to the article we're supposed to be discussing, which cites a dictionary (State 2004) giving Brusselization, the current title of the article, as the English spelling. It's only the very first source for the article. The second source (Stubbs & Makaš 2011) gives the English Brusselization followed by the French and the Dutch.

      Yes, Connolly15's rationale above is now wrong. No-one, it seems is watching and reading the article, not even the nominator. Almost nothing above is based upon the article at hand, or even the subject at hand, let alone its sources and any potential sources. Raise your hands, anyone in this discussion, who has actually made the effort to look for what sources exist on this subject (as opposed to much of the above which is discussing some ill-defined, slang named, other subject).

      My searches turn up things like doi:10.1016/j.cities.2011.08.007 as the very first result on Scirus. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Aha, the article has been substantially rewritten and sources added. I still think it needs to be moved to Bruxellisation (over the redirect someone created after I posted my initial statement), because the English term is being used in a very different sense in political science and I found several uses of the French term (the x spelling) in English-language sources. I am also not sure where the obviously needed hatnote should point; we don't seem to have any mentions of David Allen or his article. But definitely a keep; the rewrite has demonstrated the notability that my search found, as well as the accuracy of the content. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is a list of people alleged to have appeared in a softcore pornographic magazine. It is unsourced, and in a random sample of the linked articles not one mentioned the appearance in this magazine. The WP:BLP requirement that contested content in biographical articles must be removed if it is not sourced outweighs all other considerations. This applies to all three nominated lists.  Sandstein  11:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of people in Playmen 1968-1969[edit]

List of people in Playmen 1968-1969 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious notability. Few of the people in the list are notable. No sources, no relevance.

List of people in Playmen 1970-1979 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of people in Playmen 1980-1989 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essentially per nom. WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:LSC advise that we shouldn't have lists of people who are non-notable themselves, and most of these names are redlinks. (WP:LSC specifically advises that '"Creation guide" lists—lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles—don't belong in the main namespace.') In this case, no reliable sources are provided for any of these names, and I rather doubt they could be. Robofish (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, addressable problem. About the red links, the 90% of them are notable Italian actresses, they have articles in other-lenguages-Wikipedias and have enough books & news sources and film/tv/stage credits to easily pass WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR and to have an article in English Wikipedia. As said by WP:LSC, "it is reasonable to expect the articles about these persons could be forthcoming in the (short) future", and I'm personally working on that, as from yesterday I created articles about Martine Brochard, Jenny Tamburi, Ines Pellegrini, Lory Del Santo, Anna Maria Rizzoli and more. No prejudice in speedily renaming for deletion these articles in one/two months if the red likns will still appear too much.Cavarrone (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 11:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, most are already notable here, or notable in other language wikis. — Cirt (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced and horribly noncompliant with BLP requirements. I doubt that actress Judi Bowker posed for a pictorial for this softcore mag at the age of fifteen, as this "article" would have it; I doubt that Oscar-winning actress Anna Magnani posed for it at the age of 62. I doubt that 46-year-old actress Gabriella Giacobbe signed on as the magazine's monthly "playmate" in 1969. Wikipedia in no way benefits from a misleading list of female celebrities that a softcore magazine republished wire service and publicity photos of, a list of the first names from the pseudonyms of nonnotable centerfold models, or an absurdly unnecessary list of back cover advertisements. No reliable secondary sources to be seen for the majority of entries, a rather fatal problem. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I argued nothing of the sort; did you even bother to read what I wrote? I doubt that many of those listed posed for the magazine at all. As I actually said, it appears that the magazine "republished wire service and publicity photos" and such, and it violates BLP to associate the subjects of those photos with an "adult entertainment magazine" which was most noted for its "featured photographs of nude women" (as its WP article points out in its lede) with no reliable sourcing whatsoever. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but unlink those with no article and cite. Delete if no reliable citations can be found. Playmen appears to have been a major publication in Italy, and many gained their start by gracing its pages the article says. Some of these women have gone on to become famous, including one of the biggest sex symbols of all time, Brigette Bardot. Between that AND it being the magazine that first published the infamous Jackie O' nude photo, I'd say it had a major global impact. Given that fact, I don't see how we can allow lists of; Playboy, Time, Forbes, Vogue, etc., and exclude this. We just need to get rid of the red links and cite I think. I deleted Judy Bowker from the list, seems like trouble suggesting anyone on that magazines staff would have anything to do with something like that, not to mention suggesting Judy Bowker actually did that without any proof. I saw the cover of the issue in question, her name is clearly not on it. Maybe she was interviewed inside? I dunno, but with no proof she doesn't belong. There's rumor she did. Ken Tholke (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bardot in no way "gained her start" in this magazine, and there are still no reliable sources that the magazine did anything more than republish/recycle photos of virtually all the names on the list. Neither BLP nor RS makes an exception for erotica. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me in the direction you are getting this information from. I can't seem to find what you're claiming. Ken Tholke (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party (UK)[edit]

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

Other than a failed nomination in the Norwich North by-election, 2009, this party has not had any notable success by any stretch of our definitions on Wiki, or by generally considered definitions, since its formation. The link on the page to a councillor is, in fact, a list of nominations, not elected councillors. There is no sign of this party being 'active' in the broadest sense. It fails the spirit, if not the letter, of our politician and politics notability rules. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Points

As can be seen by the discussion below, I have outed a "keep" supporter as someone unwilling to accept that this party is not notable enough for inclusion here. The person involved has not accepted that this party fails notability guidelines, insofar as they exist for political parties. Libertarian Party candidates have not once been elected to Westminster, Brussels, Holyrood, Cardiff Bay or any local council. They have not stood for London Mayor. There are not behind any significant campaigns or demonstrations. This all adds up to a group which is not notable enough for Wikipedia. The discussion below can be seen in full. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further Points User North8000 seems determined to keep this article. Let us be very clear - I did nominate this article for deletion before. And since then - nothing. The party has had no MPs, no MEPs, nothing to determine notability. Wikipedia has a policy on notability - and this party does not meet it. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Speedy Keep Clearly is wp:notable, and the reasons given in the nomination are faulty (they list non-existent criteria). So there is nothing to even address because no valid reason for deletion is even asserted. On the nominator's user page they identify themselves as being in the UK and "card carrying member" of an opposing party. I will expand this comment if desired or necessary, but this appears to be a wp:snow nomination. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This nomination looks like an attempt to censor opposition. The article is notable, even in its currently developing state. Abel (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Reply to North8000 Censor opposition is a invalid claim, and you know it. This micro-party, which has stood only one candidate that I can see and has not organised any campaign on-line worth national/notable attention, is no threat to me or the party I support. In basic questions of notability, which is a valid concern and is writ deep within Wikipedia's founding principles, this micro-party fails. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In your first sentence you are mixing up who said what, please recheck the actual posts. In the rest of your post you are basically trying to invent and apply your own deletion criteria. I don't know how to answer that except to say the obvious....that isn't how it works. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no place on Wikipedia for people, places or organisations which fail Wikipedia:Notability. This party fails what criteria we have. I remember pointing out many moons ago that Idle Toad exists here for all the reasons Libertarian Party should not. One has elected councillors and will remain notable for that reason if/when those councillors lose/retire. LPUK have nothing like that level of notability. What we have is an on-line protest group with no achievements. I would like to see the membership figures to further my case against this article doktorb wordsdeeds 13:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are linking and implying things about wp:notability, but your given reasons for deletion are not in wp:notability. North8000 talk) 15:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried, and sadly failed, to draw up a political parties notability rule set. This would have solved the problem we have on Wiki of housing political parties which are not notable enough. Being a political party is not (of itself) a guide of notability. If guidelines don't exist, we need to set them. Ignore all rules, another watchword around here, is relevant in this case. Wikipedia expects organisations to be notable - by any measure, LPUK is not. No election results recently, one terrible result three years ago and no known candidates for forthcoming elections. Not notable - easy as. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To sum it up, my comments are based on applying Wikipedia notability criteria. You are saying that Wikipedia should have additional criteria (that it doesn't currently have) which would cause this article to get deleted. And you are mentioning or invoking wp:iar, possibly to say that it should be deleted on a wp:iar basis. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To sum it up, you have it totally wrong. This party is not notable - it is not represented in Westminster, Brussels, Holyrood, Cardiff Bay or any local council. It has no notable leadership figure. It has no notable campaign. In short - it is not notable. Measured by existing notability rules, it fails. Its article should be deleted.
This conversation isn't going anywhere. You keep making responses that don't even relate to my posts, so there is no real conversation going on here. I'm signing off. North8000 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

doktorb wordsdeeds 16:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The are both small articles and combining them might be good. But IMHO that should not be mandated; this subject meets wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query: Do you agree, then, that if consensus is established for this article's deletion, this alternative should be used instead? - Jorgath (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, I have no stake in this article, just want to see the correct result from the AFD, which I think should be keep. Doubly so on the principle of it, because to me it looks like a faulty and POV nomination. But, that said, I think a merge is at least an OK move and possibly the best move either way. North8000 (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note / info This is the 2nd nomination for deletion by the same person. The first is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Libertarian_Party_(UK). North8000 (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Searching Google News Archive] found 4 or 5 more stories mentioning them. But obviously someone needs to beef up the article. As for notability, I think I could find a lot more articles far less notable if cleaning up notability is such a big interest of any individual editor. CarolMooreDC 21:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple of comments:
1. The fact that there are other articles which are less notable than this one does not mean that this one is notable, merely that there's a lot of cleanup to do (as there always is).
2. 4 or 5 stories does not necessarily notability make. Are those stories reliable sources, and would adding their information demonstrate that this article is notable?
With regards to the second, I'm open to changing my mind if the answer really is yes. - Jorgath (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the first point, I think that they meant that it exceeds the commonly accepted threshold. On the latter, the coverage itself would determine/establish notability, not a case made in the article using the coverage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Of course not. Why? Because the Conservative Party is beyond notable - it is the very definition of a notable organisation, everything the Libertarian Party is not. If you have found coverage, prove it. I would not contemplate deleting a notable organisation's article. It is clear to me that this micro-party is not notable at all. I do not believe the votes in this process are a true reflection of the wider community. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment comparing it with several other minor parties listed at List of political parties in the United Kingdom this article is not atypical of the genre. See, for example, Wessex Regionalist Party, Borders Party, Independent Working Class Association and The Common Good (political party). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You make a very good point. I tried (you can follow the /pp link from my user page) to formulate a notability guide for political parties. It didn't go anywhere and by and large we still don't have one today. The parties you mention could very well go through a deletion process. There is a good reason why, for example, the Monster Raving Loony Party has an article - they are an integral part of British political history with notable individuals involved in their leadership and campaigns. There is an issue with the minor parties you mention - some of them would not measure up to the most basic checklist of notability. I would like to try again to formulate a political parties notability policy. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Thanks, I vaguely remember this from before. For what its worth my view is that it would be better to sort out the notability guide and then (if that's the result) do a mass clearout, rather than picking off parties one by one. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The thing is, I think we can help doktorb in creating that notability guide in the process of AfDs. By doing a few, or maybe by reviewing old ones, criteria can be established (or at least guided) by use of precedent. - Jorgath (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If User:Jorgath
Has User:Doktorbuk tried to get rid of any of those other minor parties since his first, June 2008 attempt to delete this article? Why not try to formulate your policy using a couple AfDs of parties with different ideologies? Otherwise, one tends to think he is singling out one party for POV reasons. (Hmmm, why does this bring to mind the Brit leftie organizer who told me in 2000 "whenever they try to cut the dole we have a riot?) Anyway, I'm an inclusionist on organizations in general that people are likely to actually search here for, and if there are a few WP:RS, that's notability enough for me. CarolMooreDC 17:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do see where you're coming from, and I understand. I disagree that he is singling out this party for POV reasons, simply because I'm operating on WP:AGF. I think we're trying to draw the same line in slightly different places, and this party falls on the side of not meriting its own article. Merging to give it its own section (a long section, even!) in a more general article seems more proper to me, although we must include this title as a redirect targeted to that subsection, which would solve your "people searching for it" issue. If they ever win anything in a national election we can always un-merge. - Jorgath (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has nominated this article twice. On their user page the nominator does declare that they live in the UK and that they are a "card-carrying-member" of an opposing party. Such disclosure is very principled and laudable. Despite their best efforts it may be hard to resist being influenced by that. North8000 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean I have to admit I've been a member of the LP USA for 32 years? I've always been a gadfly vs. the partyarchs and apparatchiks, of course, as I am everywhere. But I also know how evil some people from other political viewpoints think libertarians are and that some think we must be purged from the planet. Sigh... CarolMooreDC 02:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
North8000, you are obsessed by my party membership. It is not relevant here. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following this confusing conversation. I mentioned it as one of several factors (another being characterizing the party rather than dealing in wp:gng criteria) that raise concerns about objectivity. But if any of it is of concern to anybody, I hereby withdraw any mention of any editor's affiliation. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong POVs can always be brought up on a talk or process page. COI accusations - like is a person and officer with an organization or an elected official running on a certain party - should be first brought up at user talk pages. (Former elected official? Mea culpa, but only locally way back in 2001.) But I'm sure everyone knows that and is practicing due diligence. :-) CarolMooreDC 16:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep the party has taken part in national elections as well as local elections throughout the United Kingdom and therefore is notable. Just because they have only one elected district councillor and the article is not fully developed does not mean that the subject is not notable. There is no need to nominate the article for deletion again. veganfishcake (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have reviewed this article in depth. It does not meet WP:GNG in its own right. In accordance with WP:ORG, we should therefore consider their primary criteria next. Extrapolating from the examples given of trivial coverage, the sources for it participating in the 2010 election are certainly verifiable, but they're borderline trivial. The audience prong is met, but the independent sources don't seem to give non-trivial coverage to the party. The last place to consult seems to be WP:NGO, and while the scope of the party's activities are national in size, the activities of the party on the national scale are only supported by a single source (the other source talks about the local election they won), and to be a special exception to WP:GNG, it needs to meet both of WP:NGO's criteria. - Jorgath (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be "proving a point" to got to Category:United_Kingdom_political_party_stubs and nominate a couple more to further elucidate what the policy should be?? Since I know nothing about them, I'd be going straight on prima facie wikipedia rules. For example, Free Trader (no refs at all); Red Front (UK) (no refs at all); Red Star (UK) (non WP:RS refs at all); Reigate and Banstead Residents Association (1 BBC election reporting ref); Republican Labour Party (no refs at all); Independent Green Voice (1 electoral ref, on WP:RS mention in passing). Or maybe Libertarian Party (UK) should revert to stub status too?
Of course, then there also is WP:Ignore all rules which I do only occasionally, and mostly in AfDs, being an inclusionist. CarolMooreDC 16:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A political party that runs candidates in national elections is notable. We have even kept many that never reach that stage, if they have an effective presence. What we don't keep are the ones where we cannot document beyond mere existence. Here, and for religious organizations, I think we should be especially inclusive, because of the difficulty in trying to define what represents notability importance in these areas, and the ample scope that arguing over that would give to prejudice & personal commitment-- in both directions. The prima facia Wikipedia rule is that we keep what we have consensus to keep,; it's the only definition of notability that matches our reality. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, only substantive contributor has agreed to deletion. I hope the experience was not too negative, and would point out that we have a number of articles, including bar chart and statistical graphics, which could use expansion, even if this particular instance is not notable enough for its own article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yamazumi Chart[edit]

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

Software tool created by Toyota, only internal use is asserted in the article and in the references. Prod contested with the talk page statement, Yamazumi Users, please help prove notability by stating that you use the tool in your organisation. That's what I call shooting oneself in the foot, since the call is to users and not professional reviewers who do not work for Toyota. In any case, the only references I found on Google were from Toyota. No secondary sources. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 10:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I can tell from the tone of the above communication that the creation of this Yamazumi Chart article could become a negative experience. Please be assured that my intention was only to contribute. I don't want to battle with you. Please delete the page from your site as you see fit. Ccoles3 (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

How to challenge this deletion? How to contribute external sources of usage? All avenues to discuss or restore, seem to be looping back here - which is marked as "Do Not Modify" (?) Thanks for your help! I'm not a Wikipedia geek, I don't understand what to do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.205.209.149 (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2020 (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IPetitions[edit]

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

This site isn't unique for its aim (there are other similar sites, i. e. petitiononline.com). Doesn't meet WP:Notability (web) (appropriate template was added in May 2011 and there have been no changes since that time). ♪ anonim.one ♪ 10:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saadat Noury[edit]

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

After research the article fails WP:AUTHOR. Most of Ghits are Wikipedia mirrors or articles written by the subject and not on him. Farhikht (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep - nomination withdrawn; no other arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure)  Gongshow Talk 00:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Botsina[edit]

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

Article was AFD-ed several years ago and tagged for more sources. I believe that the content was transwiki-ed, as that was the consensus at the time.

Since then, nothing has been done to improve the article, and it remains effectively unsourced over two and a half years later, suggesting that there is a very good chance it will never get those sources (and possibly raising issues of how well it can be sourced). Tyrenon (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is sufficient RS coverage, though much of it is under different spellings of the name, and in gscholar. As one would expect in this case, and as was reflected in the prior AfD. AfD is not for cleanup, and the refs need not be reflected in the article to satisfy our notability criteria (though that would of course be nice), but the article now as well itself reflects sufficient RS coverage, going back to 1889, and including a full section in a more recent RS devoted to the phrase.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn. I'm convinced more by the different spellings than anything...on previous searches, the reference total had been rather thin, but the addition of several varying spellings (botzina in particular) makes a difference here (and generates a much more reasonable and substantial hit count to boot). There seems to be enough there now to both drop the AfD and to clear off the sourcing tag.Tyrenon (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I always an impressed when a nom withdraws a nomination, if appropriate --- too many editors seem to get caught up with fighting for their original view, rather than re-thinking it when new info arises. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. as a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shriek Metal[edit]

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

No reference exists that shows that this term has any sort of widespread use. Searching for this term turns up no results in any other source, and thus the article seems to fall under WP:Neologism. Proposed Deletion was removed by article's creator, so I brought it here for a consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. No sources, all of the bands that it alludes to falling until this supposed genre either had their article's deleted, or don't even list the genre. WP:NOTNEO applies as well. Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A redirect to Harte-Hanks seems unexceptional though, so I have done it. Black Kite (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trillium Software[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 08:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article previously had references to both Gartner and Forrester reports on data quality tools from 2006 (still online) but these were deleted in 2009 on grounds that they were outdated. My thought is that it would have been better to alter the text to specify the year of the reports rather than delete the references altogether (notability - and references - are not temporary)? One can find various other references to Trillium in Google Books, for example by combining the name with "data mining". AllyD (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect into the parent Harte-Hanks article. AllyD (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn -- Y not? 15:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the (1) unintelligible article about (2) the subdivision of a company with no sources (3) neither in the article nor (4) in the wild (market reports and press releases don't count). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lapicini[edit]

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

Article is one sentence, citing a single source, about a tribe in ancient Italy. Other than the mention of the tribe as having been subjugated by Rome (something of a given, considering its location), the tribe seems to have no other material on it; a Google search just generates Wikipedia mirrors. PROD rejected by (I believe) the original author.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:

Garuli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Briniates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Tyrenon (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's obvious that just a minimal search for sources was done by nom; a search at books shows no Wiki mirrors and more sources. I've added a second source to several, but these obviously meet the WP:GNG and are encyclopedic not dictionary definitions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A perusal of the RSs in gbooks/gscholar show sufficient RS coverage, some of it going back well over a century (actually, at least to 1774, which perhaps is old enough to indicate some measure of lasting notability ... though I have a bit of trouble understanding that nearly 250-year-old source).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • All right, I did a deeper search, but a serious question comes up here (at least in my mind): Everything that I find seems to point back to a single passing mention by Livy (I went out and dug up the reference; he basically rattled off a list of tribes in a given area and said nothing more on any of them beyond noting their existence) and the other mentions are basically (again, from what I can tell) a regurgitation of "And Livy mentioned this tribe as well, among a number of others." Considering the limited mention in a single primary source, is this sufficient for notability?Tyrenon (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Livy is such an important source (because he's so well known, including by other sources) that something he mentions is likely to be a candidate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even passing mentions in other sources demonstrate that other people care somewhat about the topic. Our notability guidelines are really meant to address contemporary subjects that don't get much coverage; it would be rather absurd to exclude ancient peoples who have been covered by one of the West's most famous historians. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hope that some one can expand it one day. It is only a stub, but has two academic (if rather old) references. It is possible that the article is in fact complete, because nothing else is known. If so, we should just leave it alone, taking off the stub-tag. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fails WP:EVENT, WP:PERSISTENCE as pointed out. The Bushranger One ping only 16:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Kabul International Airport attack[edit]

2009 Kabul International Airport attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:GNG, is an orphan. Jorgath (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination: This was a minor engagement in what's been a long-running and large scale war. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; less than 2,000 google hits (at this time), with no mentions in reliable news sources. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2 people lost their lives through violence, maybe not notable in a country that is currently being affected by the scourge of terrorism. But such an event would be notable in many countries. Notability is not dependent on location hence this article should be kept. Flaviusvulso (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why consider a hypothetical similar event in some other country rather than this particular event in Afghanistan? Notability is not dependent on location, but it is also not dependent on whether people died or the number of deaths. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Because if this had have happened in London, say, then the event would definitely be deemed notable. Notability is not location dependant so therefore if it would have been notable in London then it should be deemed notable in Afghanistan.Flaviusvulso (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying. Notability is not location-dependent, as defined at WP:GNG and WP:EVENTS, but it is also not event-dependent. The reason that a suicide bombing in London likely would be notable is because, due to the rarity of such an event in that location, it would receive significant and persisting coverage in reliable sources. This particular event in Afghanistan did not receive such coverage, most likely due to the fact that such attacks are commonplace in that location. In each case, location is secondary to whether the event is covered by reliable sources, which is ultimately what indicates notability. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    On top of what you said, a suicide bombing in Heathrow Airport (the equivalent) that killed two people would not merit its own article simply because of the rarity of the event; it would need to get enormous and persistent press coverage too. It would, however, merit a mention (perhaps even its own section) on both the airport page and the page on terrorism in the UK. (Did not add London links because it's a hypothetical and I should be doing actual work) - Jorgath (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As Black Falcon said, we need to focus on whether or not this event is notable. While this event is, in my opinion, notable enough that it should be mentioned on Wikipedia, it is not so notable as to rate its own article rather than being included in War in Afghanistan and/or Kabul International Airport - Jorgath (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The topic does pass the general notability guideline since it has been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", including reliable news sources. It does not, however, pass the more specific notability guideline for events, which requires "significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time" (emphasis added). There was a flurry of routine news coverage of the bombing just after it happened, but there has been no persistent coverage of what is a minor footnote in a major war. At most, this deserves a short mention in the article Kabul International Airport, and it is already mentioned there: see the section 'Non-aircraft related'. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to include it in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present) article instead, not expanding the Kabul International Airport mention beyond what's already there. Otherwise, I agree with you and I wish to revise my rationale for deletion to be in agreement with yours (basing it off of WP:EVENT instead of WP:GNG), as you expressed it more coherently than I did. - Jorgath (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The attack probably does not merit a mention even at War in Afghanistan (2001-present) – although... I wonder if there's a list of Taliban suicide attacks – but if you find a suitable place, then by all means. On closer examination, I think you're right that the mention at Kabul International Airport should not be expanded. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Black Falcon. Doesn't meet the threshold set by WP:EVENT. Parsecboy (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Being an orphan isn't a rationale to use for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had revised my initial rationale for deletion above; it may meet WP:GNG, but it fails WP:EVENT - Jorgath (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with all the above reasons for deletion. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a car bomb in Afghanistan is unlikely to be notable unless it kills somebody really important. MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Wheelock Place[edit]

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

prod contested without improvement - no indication why the building is notable; one primary source citation. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is one of the less interesting buildings by Kisho Kurokawa 1, however it passes the current very low threshold of notability for buildings. It marks an important junction in central Singapore. --ELEKHHT 16:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Kwai Chung Road[edit]

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

prod contested without improvement with rationale being "main road"- no indication why the road is notable. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Ohconfucius nominated a large among of articles for AfD without regards to their actual notability. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my further comment below. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless shown to be notable. content can be moved to locality or umbrella article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:N. Craddocktm (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If in case it isn't kept, merge and redirect to Kwai Chung and Route 5. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Kwai Chung Road is the first throughway in Kwai Chung, connecting Kowloon, and Kwai Chung, one of the largest container port in the world. It is main connection between urban Kowloon and Tsuen Wan New Town. Google yields 267,000 results of +"Kwai Chung Road" and 172,000 results of its Chinese counter part +"葵涌道". There are no issues on notability. — HenryLi (Talk) 14:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

York Road, Hong Kong[edit]

York Road, Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

prod contested without improvement with rationale being "well known road"- no indication why the road is notable. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)blocked as sock[reply]
  • Delete Apparently every road, overpass, and detour has its own article in Hong Kong because the editors there are so intent to call them discrete things. I am sure it can be mentioned in some neighborhood or list of streets. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
It's notable since famous people live there or own the houses there. The Liaison Office of PRC's government is also having an office there. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)blocked as sock[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sunshine_Beach,_Queensland#Education. Black Kite (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Thomas More School, Sunshine Beach[edit]

Saint Thomas More School, Sunshine Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary school, Preparatory to Year 7. Zero refs (just an old EL to the school's website), so no indication in the article of notability. Review of gbooks and gnews fails to turn up multiple, notable, substantial, non-passing, independent RS coverage. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No refs have been identified which would satisfy WP:ORG, the relevant notability guideline. Edison (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Amended to new correct website. Boylo (talk)
  • Comment. Thanks. While the new link to the primary school's website reflects that it exists, it does not confer notability on the primary school.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. as a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pilz GmbH & Co. KG[edit]

Pilz GmbH & Co. KG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weakly. This business's self description is that it is working in the field of safe automation technology , with complete solutions for safety and control technology, which is the patent nonsense for "we make electronic timers, sensors, and relays". This firm is apparently an old one, and might have possibly acquired some sort of long term significance in technology, history, or culture. But this text is vague PR guff, I'm not finding much that looks like substantial coverage of encyclopedia-worthy achievements in Google News (many results in German, which I don't read well, but they too look unpromising); and the current article's unhelpful PR style only hurts its case. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 05:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Hollywood Undead. I suspect that this person will, indeed, achieve notability at some point, but despite a number of keeps here, there does not appear to be any convincing evidence that he yet meets WP:BAND. The analysis by Gongshow is excellently presented. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deuce (singer)[edit]

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

Deuce (aka Aron Erlichman) is a former member of the band Hollywood Undead. He has no notability outside of that band and [non-notable] members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles. This was affirmed at AfD in February 2010 and again at Afd nine months ago. Since then nothing has changed, indeed it was affirmed that none of his solo recordings are notable at this AfD last month and this AfD this month, and the Deuce template was deleted at this TfD this month. However the article keeps coming back. Three months ago Aron "Deuce" Erlichman and Aron Erlichman were protected to stop recreation so this article was recreated instead. There is no need to retain this as a redirect; there is already a link to Hollywood Undead more appropriately at the Deuce DAB page and given the history of re-creation I propose Delete and Salt RichardOSmith (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per nom and previous AfDs. Some previous claims of notability were based on produced works, which (per their previous AfDs) were found to be non-notable, and WP:BAND for a person isn't just being prolific or being an individual in a notable or prolific group. DMacks (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm extremely confused as to how Deuce is not notable as a solo-artist? As I mentioned in the articles talk page, "upcoming album, legal battles, performed alongside eminem at Epicenter Fest., official mixtape, signed to same label as Papa roach, motley crue, blondie, buckcherry and more, sponsored by a clothing line, worked with Ronnie Radke, Skee-Lo, Travie McCoy, Jeffree Star, BrokeNCYDE [all of which are notable artists], plans to tour with BrokeNCYDE, Blood on the Dance Floor and Jeffree Star [all of which are notable artists], exceeded 100,000 likes on Facebook, two officially released singles with Five Seven Music, under 10th St Entertainment, under eleven seven) not to mention work with Hollywood Undead" - surely these things alone, (exclude the HU notability) is enough to have a wikipedia page. The whole point of wikipedia is to educate and inform people of the topics they search for, it's evident that Deuce is notable enough for an article by the amount of "where as your wikipedia gone?" messages from fans, left on his Facebook every time it gets redirected. I believe this whole nomination for deletion to be a conflict of interest by a Hollywood Undead fan, because they seem to be the only ones really disagreeing with the fact that Deuce is notable on his own. Sorry for the assumption, and sorry if I'm incorrect. Maybe we need some kind of poll. TrueBlue9LIVES (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC) — TrueBlue9LIVES (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • You said "surely these things alone ... is enough to have a wikipedia page". I believe not. Would you care to cite any guidelines an policies that say they are? Certainly, none of them meets the inclusion requirements at WP:MUSICBIO: Subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works? No. The New York Post article is interesting, but it's about Hollywood Undead, not his solo career. Single or album on any country's national music chart? No. Record certified gold or higher? No. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of a ... tour? No. Citing that he's toured with other artists is insufficient; it's not his tour, and there is no evidence of non-trivial coverage. Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels ... with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable? No. Citing that he's signed to a label with notable musicians may establish the notability of the label, but he hasn't released any albums yet, let alone two. Note that singles and mix-tapes are not included. Is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles? No. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city? No, not shown to be the case. Has won or been nominated for a major music award? No. Has won or placed in a major music competition? No. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable? No. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio or music television network? No. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network? No. Please also restrict your comments to the subject rather than me; attempting to 'discredit' the nomination in this way is, frankly, a bit lame. See the template I have placed above as to why this is a discussion and not a poll. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he's a former member of a famous band, he's now signed to a record label (Eleven Seven Music, which considering the other artists signed to it, is a big deal) as a solo artist, he's been mentioned in publications (see the New York Post link and others) and he's about to release an album in March. I see no reason to delete this page; its only weakness is its tendency to rely on sources directly connected to Deuce himself for certain information (the article is overly detailed and elaborate), BUT that does not mean the other reliable sources can be discounted. 221.213.10.26 (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason to delete is that nothing he has done is independently notable per Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Anything he may do in the future can be evaluated then, not now. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the kind of thing that could yet satisfy the WP:GNG. Artistdirect is clearly a notable publication, though the opening text "ARTISTdirect.com has partnered with the rap-rock visionary known as Deuce" suggests it's not entirely independent of the subject. Do you have any more? RichardOSmith (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of these, the one at Noisecreep is, I would suggest, the most notable. The site has, according to Wikipedia, an "emphasis on lesser-known hard rock and heavy metal bands", but is never-the-less a part of AOL. It certainly seems that the artist is managing to attract some publicity in advance of his planned album release. As nominator of the AfD I will leave it to others and/or the closing admin to adjudge whether this coverage is sufficiently notable to meet the WP:GNG; it is certainly far greater coverage of his solo career than had previously been presented, or I had been able to find. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello. While doing some research I came back across Deuce's wikipedia and noticed it was up for deletion. Richard, here is an interview I literally did with Deuce yesterday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBMef5lScV0&list=UU6csxBR_iv27dRh-WAYqVpA&index=1&feature=plcp As you can see, it has already generated nearly 550 views in under twenty four hours, no small feat for any radio interview or product not accompanied by video. I also would like to point out my show, which is part of a medium market radio station, is broadcasting an edited version of this interview on Saturday- with broadcasting capability which covers both North Georgia and eastern Tennessee, including Chattanooga. While we are not syndicated, and as I said are a medium market station, I think we qualify as another example of adequate media coverage. We cover and interview many artists and entertainers, everyone from Greg Giraldo right before his death, to Joe Budden (Eminems artist), Tech N9ne and various other notable public figures. I don't think it was said, but Deuces latest video was also a main feature on Fuse.tv a few days ago- a very reputable site. Also most of the content on his page is generally agreed upon to be factual and has not been disputed by anyone who would be in position to do so. I encourage you to reverse your opinion. Thanks. Radioguy706 (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the avoidance of doubt, even if I were to withdraw the deletion nomination the process would continue - another editor also supports deletion and I cannot retract his comment for him. The final decision will not be made by me but by an admin who will base their decision on the various arguments made for and against.
There is no question that the subject is notable as a member of Hollywood Undead but what we need to establish is whether he is independently notable, as is required for a standalone article. There is still, for me, a very compelling argument that he is not. Unlike a newcomer, he is already in the news and therefore likely to find it easier to gain publicity for his solo efforts. So are the new sources presented sufficient to pass WP:GNG? A way of deciding it is with this test: if we were writing retrospectively and the subject's solo career had not been successful, would we have an article? I would suggest there would be at best no more than a footnote in the HU article, despite the amount of press achieved thus far, and per WP:CRYSTAL we can't assume future achievements. So on that basis, the article still has no place. Of course, if it is deleted we must be prepared for circumstances to change, and we would be: a new assessment could be made at WP:DRV and if it is agreed that circumstances have changed the article could be undeleted; nothing need be permanently lost even if the decision is to delete now. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 04:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If all of this (http://www.artistdirect.com/entertainment-news/article/exclusive-premiere-behind-the-scenes-of-deuce-s-america-video/9867358, http://loudwire.com/deuce-video-america/, http://banana1015.com/deuce-formerly-of-hollywood-undead-releases-lets-get-it-crackin-music-video/, http://www.noisecreep.com/2012/01/09/deuce-hollywood-undead-america-song/, http://pcm-music.com/2011/11/deuce-lives-on-five-seven-music/, http://loudwire.com/deuce-unveils-nine-lives-album-cover-new-release-date-tour-plans/, http://puregrainaudio.com/news/deuce-of-hollywood-undead-announces-epicenter-2010-solo-performance, http://highwiredaze.com/deucenews1, http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsburger/52939796-53/deuce-album-hollywood-lives.html.csp) doesn't count for independent notability, I don't know what does. That's eight independent sources, mind you. I suspect that the reason this page keeps getting nominated for deletion is because people see Deuce only as the former frontman of a signed band, not a solo artist that is signed to a record company with a huge fanbase. 221.213.118.244 (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I say keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.239.85 (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
I'm giving the benefit of doubt for the sources listed above; thus, inviting a final opinion call on their validity. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 04:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources supplied by the IP above. They certainly tend to rebuke the nominator's assertion that "nothing has changed" since the previous AfD 9 months ago. Yes, the sources all tend to be around one event, but taken in concert with the rest of his career, I think there's enough here for an article, and I think notability independent of his former band has been established. At an absolute bare minimum, even if this article is deleted -- and I really don't think it should be -- the sources supplied strongly suggest the article topic should not be salted. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 12:06 am, Today (UTC−5)
  • The sources cited above appear to be promotional, press releases or unreliable to me. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I misreading the sourcing? Noisecreep is an Aol pub, afaik Loudwire is a good source, as is ArtistDirect, and most of the rest look reliable-ish to me (with two exceptions: PCM Music, Pure Grain Audio). If I'm off-base on the sourcing, then I might take back my keep vote. It's hardly a slam dunk case. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per nom and per above. Most sources seem to be promotional; I don't see anything to indicate notability aside from involvement with the band, which suggests a failure of notability. I'm inclined towards salting, but perhaps a hair more cautious there.Tyrenon (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the sources are mostly press releases/promotional and I see nothing else of note. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is gaining much recognition as a solo artist. I listen to SiriusXM Octane and they play his new single "America" more than a few times a day, which landed #15 on their big uns weekly countdown. The information is relevant and should be noted that he is now a solo artist that was a former member of Hollywood Undead. Just because Hollywood Undead sucks now and hates Deuce for being the key member of their group doesn't mean he shouldn't have a page of his own. 16:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.220.59 (talk)
  • Keep per Ginsengbomb, a part of the sources provided by 221.213.10.56 appears reliable. Cavarrone (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources listed above as well as WP:BAND bullets #10 and #11. He has performed for a notable event (Epicenter with Eminem, KISS, and others) and he is also beginning to receive radio rotation on Banana 101.5, 89xRadio, and other notable national radio broadcasts. He is releasing an album which, according to him, is selling over 1000+ units a week (as well as his two singles), which will add up to a few thousand preorders EXTREMELY conservatively, which 3 thousand is still usually enough to chart on the Billboard 200 upon release. Realistically, the album will chart in the Top 50 on the Billboard 200 upon release, which will definitely satisfy WP:BAND #2 no matter what. So, if my two reasons above weren't enough to keep it, then number 3 will be on April 24th. So, there is no point in deleting this well written and sourced article. GroundZ3R0 002 03:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Apologies in advance if anyone finds the following to be WP:TL;DR. Now, looking at the WP:MUSICBIO criteria:
1. "Subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works." The Noisecreep and Salt Lake Tribune pieces would be fine except they are/read like press release reprints. The Loudwire blurbs might be okay; the site (and others like Taste of Country) is owned by Townsquare Media, and appears to qualify as generally reliable. The New York Post is, well, "tabloid-y", but not completely unreliable. With attribution, one could write: "In February 2011, the New York Post reported that Deuce filed a lawsuit against...". That said, I wouldn't suggest that the Post should be used to establish notability. The wording of the ARTISTdirect article is interesting (the site "partnered" with Deuce) - I don't know if I'm just reading too much into that. I'm not convinced on the reliability of the other sources provided. On the whole, it's fairly close but I'd like to see if the criteria below might push him over the edge either way.
2. "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." His single "America" is heading to U.S. rock radio next week, and some stations are already playing it according to Mediabase (including Sirius; see criterion #11 below). It's possible the song will reach the Billboard Mainstream Rock and/or Rock Songs charts in the near future. His solo album has an April release date and it's quite possible that it will enter at least the Billboard 200 chart considering the latest album by the band he formerly fronted recently debuted in the Top 5. I'd say it's likely this criterion gets a "yes" within the next two months, but that's getting into WP:CRYSTAL territory, so I'll proceed.
3. "Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country." Not as a solo artist.
4-9. Nope.
10. "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable" (e.g., tv/film). I don't think the above claim of live festival performances is, in this case, significant enough to apply.
11. "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio or music television network." Yes, if Sirius counts. Here's a link (requires log-in; alternatively, here's a screenshot) showing airplay for his song "America".
12. "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." Not that I can find.
This subject's multiple deletions/recreations reminds me of the band Falling In Reverse, whose article was deleted 23 times (by one admin's count) before it finally survived for good. For what it's worth, the Deuce article in its current state looks a bit better than the early Falling in Reverse drafts I recall seeing. My preferred outcome here is to incubate the article so it can continue to be improved over the next few-to-several weeks, at which time it's likely the singer's notability will no longer be questionable (ie, additional coverage for the upcoming album; chart info for the album/single).  Gongshow Talk 06:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I think it should be kept, I can't really dispute any of what you say here and, either way, I definitely think it's a borderline case at best. Given the likelihood that the subject's notability will likely be a lot less questionable within a few weeks, I would personally be completely fine with incubation if there is no outright consensus to keep. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree the subject is likely to become sufficiently notable for an article in future but WP:CRYSTAL obviously applies here. Furthermore, multiple previous AfDs have resulted in the article redirected so we should also consider whether there is good reason for overturning that and as you say, it's borderline at best. I too think it quite reasonable to userfy the article pending any change in circumstance which would overturn a delete outcome - but given the number of times the article has previously come back against consensus I would still prefer a delete and salt outcome so that its resurrection is properly discussed at WP:DRV and the matter is unambiguously settled. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I vote to keep it,there are far more lesser known people that have established articles,he's well known in the LA area and is expanding around the globe with his music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.171.140 (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's really popular as the Hollywood undead former singer, producer and songerwritter, and now he goes solo and his album Nine lives comming out soon is really waited by fans of all around the world, his first single Let's get it crackin reached number 1 on top chart and his second single America is also number one of chart but also on digital downloads. there's no needs to delete it. Hollywood undead fans should passes their hates on another page. this is wikipedia, not your blog. --Brunohbrassard (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No matter how anxiously anyone is waiting for an album Wikipedia is not a fan site. I see no evidence of chart success; do you have any? If it exists that would help establish notability - but see WP:GOODCHART for charts that are considered relevant. Please also see WP:NPA and comment on the subject, not what you perceive (incorrectly) to be my reason for nominating this article. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. as a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kitiona Pasene[edit]

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

fails WP:RLN notability guidelines Mattlore (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an earlier biography was also deleted - does this mean it now qualifies for speedy? Mattlore (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 04:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clip The Apex[edit]

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

I could not find any reliable sources to indicate that this is a notable website. Mattg82 (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable website. oyasumi (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 04:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banco Rugby Club[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Sources are all self published. No coverage in third-party sources. Subject fails notability guidelines. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 20:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—Some discussion between the article creator and myself after PRODding can be found here. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 20:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote on my talk page, I consider it a wrong nomination for those reasons: 1) "Sources are all self published": In the case of Banco, such as other minor rugby teams in Argentina, it is really difficult to find information beyond clubs' webpages because rugby union is not a popular sport in Argentina, and the media does not usually cover them. 2) If this page should be deleted, all the pages about minor rugby teams in Argentina should be so. Take a look at Torneo del Interior, Torneo del Litoral (or even Torneo de la URBA leagues: most of the articles of those teams are stubs.
According to User:Livitup's position, all short articles in WP should be deleted? ...
I prefer improving articles instead of nominating them for deletion. This is what WP has been conceived for, I guess. I hope User:Livitup help to the article improving it. Fma12 (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are NOT all self published. This argument is a fallacy. In fact, Banco is listed here as a club of Cuyo region of Argentina. Another Argentine website mentions Banco RC here detailing fixture and positions of Torneo del Oeste tournament which Banco takes part of. The Unión de Rugby de Cuyo (The Association which rules the practise of rugby in Cuyo) also mentions the club here as member. Banco Rugby Club also has a Facebook page with a large list of photos visible to all. Fma12 (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Along much the same lines as my arguemnt at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marista Rugby Club, although I feel the arguement in this case is weaker. The rugby union wikiproject tried to develop some guidlines for club notability here (Argentina is Tier one) and although it doesn't trump WP:GNG could be useful in situations where foriegn language sources are used. As to some of the discussion above and at Livitup's talk page there appears to be some confusion over reliable sources and third party sources. They are not always the same thing. The clubs website is a reliable source to provide information about the club, but it can't be used to establish the clubs notability. A mention on a blog is a third party source, but it is not reliable and can't be used to establish notability. Newspaper articles, rugby websites and books are third party and usually considered reliable and provide the best evidence of notability. AIRcorn (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to your words, the rugbytime source could be considered reliable, because that is a site about rugby union news, not only in Argentina but Worldwide. Besides, I also added a new source from another Argentine website, [8], which covers all international rugby. I hope this helps to establish notability. Fma12 (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sourced by sites affiliated with the subject only. Has no sources independent of the subject, a prime requirement for notability. Stedrick (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A google news search shows up these [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. The ones I put through Google translate were match reports and tournament announcements. They could be useful and are not sources affiliated with the subject. AIRcorn (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom-comment: Everything that has been found so far seems to be routine, trivial coverage, such as "match reports and tournament announcements". I don't see this kind of coverage meeting the spirit of the GNG, but I suppose that's up to the closing admin to determine. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 23:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 04:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User Stedrick is wrong. Sites such as rugbyfun [20] or rugbytime [21] (also placed as references on the page) are independent, not affiliated as he states so these are media related websites covering rugby union news. Nominator (Livitup) also talks about "trivial coverage", what is a fallacy, so Banco RC is a rugby club and takes part of tournaments, and the media covers that sort of news about the club. Apart from that, the websites named (as well as Diario Los Andes or Mendoza Online, provided by Aircorn) clearly qualify as third part sources, although nominator had written that the article did not have that sort of sources (what is not true). Fma12 (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: More sources where Banco RC is cited, here: [22], and here: [23], and here: [24], plus [25], also [26]... all of them referring to an active participation of the club in different official tournaments. "trivial coverage", according to the nominator... but it is what a sports club is related to, I guess. Fma12 (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teachable moment[edit]

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

This article was created in response to the Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy about President Obama's phrase to describe that incident - a "teachable moment". The only source given in the article that actually discusses the etymology of the phrase (as opposed to merely using it) is from a letter to the editor. I cannot fathom a reason that this would be remotely considered an appropriate topic. B (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think there's an argument to be made that undue weight is given to the phrase's use in the Gates arrest controversy, but this appears to me a fairly well-sourced, semi-interesting article. The source to Robert J. Havighurst's book is fairly convincing that the phrase has something like notability outside of the Gates controversy -- and, indeed, that it could/should be treated less as a phrase and more as a concept. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I cannot see a single reason why this is an inappropriate topic for an encyclopedia article. (Or, for that matter, why this is considered a language-related deletion discussion - simply because the article title is a phrase?) Angr (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looking at this again, that's kind of a significant point. This is a concept, not a phrase; we don't need etymology. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but slim down the political stuff; that's definitely undue weight. Nothing wrong with having the rest of the present article standing alone. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable topic, and as a bonus some (but admittedly not all) cited references are appropriate secondary sources. I don't agree that the Gates arrest controversy is the "main" political use, and I don't get what that "Pragmatic use" section is supposed to mean, but that's clean-up. Cnilep (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Didsbury#Primary_schools. Black Kite (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver Road Primary School[edit]

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

A primary school that has no substantial claim to notability. Saying it is above average and high in the league tables doesn't give it notability, nor do the uncited claims (since June 2010) that the school has appeared in a number of TV shows. As with many similar primary schools it should be deleted/redirected to Didsbury Bob Re-born (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per WP:NHS. — Pewfly (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per longstanding consensus for non-notable primary schools. Please note that WP:NHS relates to secondary schools and this is a school for ages 4-11. Carrite (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is obviously notable per the WP:GNG being the subject of detailed, independent and reliable sources such as this. Warden (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Didsbury. This is obviously non-notable per WP:GNG. The references are not significant, are primary sources, and do not support the assertions made in the stubby article. Fmph (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Warden. One of the most exemplary Ofsted reports I've seen; clearly a notable school that's doing something very interesting. The ofsted report being what it is, it's clear that the school is doing something interesting, and I'm sure that someone with knowledge of the school (like the original author) would be able to add substantial claims to notability. Per WP:NRVE, there is a strong suggestion that such sources exist, and therefore this article should be kept. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with stuff like Ofsted reports is that they are 1) primary sources, and 2) transitory/ point-in-time viewpoints or opinions,and as such are open to being reviewed. Even Ofsted nowadays do not believe that all 'outstanding' schools are really outstanding. Fmph (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage is significant per WP:SIGCOV as it provides plenty of detail and so enables us to write upon the topic without recourse to original research. Inspection reports are not primary sources because they are summary reports which are written for general publication. The report cites above states "Inspectors observed the school’s work and examined a range of documentation, particularly that related to the safeguarding of pupils and the progress of individuals and groups. Case studies were examined of pupils who have particular needs. Samples of pupils’ work were studied and questionnaires were analysed from staff..." Those documents, case studies, questionnaires and samples would be the primary sources in this case. The report digests, analyses and summarises these primary sources and so is a secondary source. Warden (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That might be true if those documents were the main basis of the report. But in reality they are not. Otherwise the inspector would never need to visit the school. The evidence could just be packaged up and sent to the inspector, for him/her to make their judgement. Actually the key to a successful inspection is for the inspector(s) to visit the school, meet the people, absorb the atmosphere, validate the evidence, and make a judgement. it's a primary source. Fmph (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Fmph. The references used don't establish notability; nor does "an exemplary Ofsted report" Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Didsbury, where it is the accepted view is that most Primary schoold are NN, but they are worth recording in the local article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 04:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - To village or parent school district article, it seems to me that these "ofsted" reports are subjective depending on the reader. Per pre-established consensus a redirect is in order. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete This school would go down the typical primary school route of deletion or becoming a redirect, due to failure to satisfy WP:ORG, except for the claim that it was "featured in many English television shows" which is tagged for lacking a reliable source. Could someone find sources for the extent of coverage in the shows? If it was just mentioned, or appeared in the background of a shot, that would not satisfy WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Edison (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  With no more than a few minutes, I found that the first reference link in the article is a dead link, which makes this entire discussion suspect.  I just finished an analysis of 25 recent Primary-school AfD nominations and less than 10% resulted in the use of admin deletion tools.  What this means IMO is that nominators should be either bold about merging primary schools or the merge discussion belongs on the talk page, not at AfD.  There also seems to be some disagreement about the purpose of a deletion review, which does not say "AfD review", but "deletion review".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  I found more than 30 secondary and/or primary references.  IMO, the material easily satisfies WP:V verifiability.  It serves no purpose to analyze the WP:N notability of these references, as the topic is an institution that by solid community consensus we want to cover somewhere somehow in the encyclopedia, whether or not as a WP:N stand-alone article.  Any further analysis belongs on the talk page of the article, as any merge consensus at this AfD can be overridden by a newer consensus on that talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you could copy one or 2 of those scintillating references in here, or on the article to show us what you mean? Fmph (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the state of the article at the time you posted your !vote on February 4.  You reported, "The references are not significant, are primary sources, and do not support the assertions made in the stubby article."  Given that the first link on the list of references is a dead link, the evidence is that your testimony in your !vote is academic dishonesty, that you could not possibly have known whether or not the sources were significant, and you could not possibly have known whether or not they supported the assertions made in the article.  In my first comment, I reported indirectly that your !vote was suspect, so the flippant reference to my UserId has the appearance of admitting to the concern through and by an act of retaliation.  Had you done the work that I did to analyze the dead link, you would know that the dead link leads to references in a local newspaper.  Had you followed (or not chosen to ignore) my !vote analysis, you would agree that these references are not relevant to the current discussion.  I hope that you will consider retracting your !vote.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So,exactly how would you know that the first reference was a {{dead link}} on the day I voted? Did you check it that day? (hint: the correct answer is you can't know that). But that's beside the point given that my vote referred to Wardens reference quoted here as opposed to the article page. In fact I did both a news and books search as I always do, and came up with nothing significant. I expected your response to quote some of the passing mentions which I don't see as significant but which others (including you?) sometimes do. Academic dishonesty? Do me a favour...Fmph (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The point I was trying to make in my keep vote above regarding the good Ofsted report was that it suggests that the school is doing something interesting and noteworthy (at least in respect to the field of education). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a Chair of Governors of a school that was twice rated good by Ofsted and once rated satisfactory, I can tell you that a 'good' from Ofsted means nothing of the sort. All it means is that on the day of the inspection, the inspectors thought we were slightly above average. Fmph (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to claim unverifiable authority in a discussion on the internet? Are you serious?
If you were actually in a position of authority at a school, then you would be aware that Ofsted reports are never based on a single "day of inspection". From the Ofsted report linked above:

This inspection was carried out by four additional inspectors. Inspectors observed 36 lessons taught by 34 teachers. Meetings were held with staff, groups of pupils, representatives of the governing body, and with the School Improvement Partner. Inspectors observed the school’s work and examined a range of documentation, particularly that related to the safeguarding of pupils and the progress of individuals and groups. Case studies were examined of pupils who have particular needs. Samples of pupils’ work were studied and questionnaires were analysed from staff, pupils in Key Stage 2, and from 260 parents and carers.

Observation of 36 lessons, meetings with students, staff, governing body, and academics, examination of case studies, documentation, work samples, and deployment of questionnaires doesn't happen in a single "day of inspection". I'm speaking, of course, from my experience here in Australia, but the UK can't be that different. That said, I don't even really have to speak from the perspective of my work experience because what you suggest is utterly ridiculous. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say if the UK is different from Oz, because I have no experience of the schools in Oz. I can and do have plenty of experience of schools in the UK. Which I understand you don't. What I suggest may well be utterly ridiculous. But it is also true. Most inspections - especially primary schools - are no longer carried out by a team of 4+ inspectors. Quite often there is only one. Many times they will not even meet the governing body. The School Improvement Partner is a role which no longer exists. 36 lesson observations might be about right for a secondary, but would be quite unusual in the vast majority of primaries. And if you want to crib about the duration then I will quite happily concede that the day of the inspection could be extended to the week of the inspection, or even the month of the inspection. The judgement is still a snapshot in time, and some schools are better than others at pulling the wool over the inspectors eyes than other.
The main point I was making was about the nature of a 'good' judgement. There are 4 possible judgements available to the lead inspector: - outstanding, good, requires-improvement(formerly satisfactory), and unsatisfactory. By and large, any analysis of the judgement set will show that approx. 10% of schools are 'outstanding'; same goes for 'unsatisfactory'. That leaves 80% to be split evenly between 'good' and 'requires-improvement'. And that is a standard bell-curve distribution. The difference between 'good' and 'requires-improvement' is often very small, and may well be down to the inspectors view of the school's own capacity to improve. Many schools flip-flop between 'good' and 'requires-improvement' in turn. And that's because they are distinctly average. 'good' means above-average. That's it. Fmph (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This Ofsted report states that which I've quoted above which renders most of what you've said quibble. There's not much more to respond to here. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this Ofsted report does not pronounce the school as 'good'. It says the school is 'outstanding'. I wrongly assumed you know the difference. A school which is judged as 'outstanding' is, at that moment in time, and extremely good school. Somewhere in the top 5-10% of schools in England. But because they have the ability to lose that position just as easily as they gained it, this does not make them notable. Notability is forever, not just a transitory judgement of the inspectors on that day/week. Fmph (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fmph is correct. An Ofsted evaluation is a measure of quality (at a point in time) not notability. An assessment of outstanding is worthy of mention in the article, but does not in itself confer notability on the school. --Bob Re-born (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about, Fmph? You're talking all over the shop here. You say that Ofsted reports are generated on the basis of next to no actual investigation. But the text of the report quite clearly says otherwise.
Once that line of argument was over, you're now talking about whether it says "good" or "outstanding", when that wasn't what I was talking about. You say that it isn't a "good" school, it's an "outstanding" school. And? Outstanding is better than good. What's your point?
So to say it again, and I'm going to try to keep it as simple as possible so that we can stop with this shifting of goal posts and whole playing fields. Consistent exemplary Ofsted reports, like the one linked above, indicate that the school is likely to be doing something notably interesting in respect to education. There being a strong likelihood of there being something notable about the school, keep is the best outcome here. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be easier if you just used the terminology that is used by Ofsted and the rest of the educational world in England? We don't use such terms as 'consistently exemplary'. Thats your subjective view of what this school is. It isn't supported by this report, or any other of the Beaver Road reports. This is now - at this point in time - an 'outstanding' school. Thats not my judgement. It's Ofsted's. Your judgement of 'consistently exemplary' is just yours. And it doesn't stand up. They used to be a 'good' school, which is, as I have explained, only 'above average'. To suggest otherwise is original research. It's no use you dreaming up these wonderful descriptions of the school. We need reliable independent sources to say that. Lets find these references, show that it is notable, and then, and only then, keep the article. Lets not imagine stuff, or make it up, or pretend. Lets find the sources that will stand the test of time. Until then, lets not bother. Fmph (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have said this again and again, but the fact that it's received an exemplary report (and I'm using the term "exemplary" as an assessment of the whole report; wikt:exemplary and wikt:outstanding are strikingly similar in the English language, so long as we're not going to play semantic games) suggests that the school is doing something interesting, as I've said repeatedly. WP:NRVE suggests that the existence of articles pointing to notability not currently in the article should be considered. Being that the school receives exemplary reports, it's likely to be doing something interesting. An editor with local knowledge could potentially expand this, and therefore the result should be keep. This shouldn't be a problem to understand if you have the experience with schools that you claim. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a case of semantics. It's about the actualite. As far as you see it, this is an exemplary school. However the references you quote don't say that. The use a very specifically defined term - outstanding'. And the definition of this term is quite different from the wikitionary definition:

Almost all pupils, including where applicable disabled pupils and those with special educational needs, are making rapid and sustained progress in most subjects over time given their starting points. They learn exceptionally well and as a result acquire knowledge quickly and in depth and are developing their understanding rapidly in a wide range of different subjects across the curriculum, including those in the sixth form and areas of learning in the Early Years Foundation Stage. They develop and apply a wide range of skills to great effect, including reading, writing, communication and mathematical skills across the curriculum that will ensure they are exceptionally well prepared for the next stage in their education, training or employment. The standards of attainment of almost all groups of pupils are likely to be at least in line with national averages for all pupils with many above average. In exceptional circumstances where standards of attainment, including attainment in reading in primary schools, of any group of pupils are below those of all pupils nationally, the gap is closing dramatically over a period of time as shown by a wide range of attainment indicators.

So you can use the wiktionary definition, or make up one of your own if you like. But it would be more sensible to jus stick to the reality of what 'outstanding' actually means in this context. But your argument above obfuscates the real point of the argument against using such a point-in-time judgement as a notability marker. To misquote Aristotle, one 'outstanding' judgement does not a summer make. What you would need would be sustained 'outstanding' judgements over a significant period of time, together with reliable independent sources which acknowledge that point. At that point, I'd agree it should be a keep. But we haven't reached that point here, so lets not keep. Fmph (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
404. But thanks for making me think about it. Seems pretty consistently exemplary to me (noting the infrequency of the inspections, because it's a fairly highly rated school) ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you call 'infrequently' is actually distinctly average. What we have here are 4 inspections in 10+ years. 3 of which confirmed that the school was judged 'good' (i.e. above average) and one which was judged 'outstanding'. Not only is that not infrequent, it also averages at 'above average'. Nothing more. It's a pity you don't really understand the English inspection regime. Fmph (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were involved as a School governor or some such? I don't need to have an expert understanding of the English inspection regime to have noted (by clicking through to the actual reports) that one of those 4 is not a report, leaving 3. One of those three is outstanding, and one good. The earliest one seems to have used a different rating structure, and, the results were pretty exemplary. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Been there. Done that. Bought the t-shirt. When you say that 1 of them "... is not a report....", I'd have to say that it depends on your definition of report. And if you understood the Ofsted inspection framework, you would understand that this 'non-report' is a simple confirmation that the school is still at the level it was previously. This is produced after a shorter-form inspection, usually by a single inspector, who will have gathered and studied an in-ordinate amount of information from a variety of sources - exam boards, the school, the parents, the local authority - and will have have made a presumed judgement of 'good', with no back sliding before visiting the school. They will then turn up at very short notice, spend a day looking around, poking their noses in here and there, trying to confirm or reject their presumed judgement. If they decide to confirm the presumed judgement, they dont complete a full report. Instead they produce the letter that you found which just confirms that the school is at least as good as it was during the last visit. This allows them to postpone a full inspection for between 18 months and 3 years. Its a money saving device. It still means that an inspection took place and the school was still good.
I know there are tricky peculiarities about Ofsted that are often not very intuitive. Just thank your lucky stars that you don't need to actually work with it day-2-day where you are. Fmph (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought from the way you were talking that there was something really special about this school. As it happens it has received one 'outstanding' rating and one 'good' rating. The old report contains a lot which is good but nothing that makes it stand out as exemplary/exceptional - just good. Which brings me back to notability - a single 'outstanding' rating does not make a school notable, just as a blue ribbon award in the USA doesn't make a school there notable. --Bob Re-born (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being that WP:WPSCH/AG mentions Blue Ribbon awards explicitly, I think you'd need to explore consensus about whether that wouldn't contribute towards the notability of a school. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I am still willing to go with the compromise that primary schools are not usually notable, unless there is something exceptional to say, and routine bureaucratic reports are not among them. If of course the compromise breaks does and we do end up discussing each one, I will probably change my opinion to any adequately written article about a primary school is notable, because some sort of reliable sources generally do exist. (The other argument that is increasingly influencing me is that these provide a way for young contributors to get started. The need to keep the encyclopedia going is basic to everything; as long as WP:V is met, Notability is much less important than users. We can have an encyclopedia with carrying degrees of notability; we cannot have one without continually attracting new volunteer users. The underlying principle is that WP is a free encyclopedia, what type is secondary. alternatively, this can be worded as the basic IAR principle that whatever is necessary to help preserve the encyclopedia is justifiable, and the rules must adjust to permit it. As I said, I'm not prepared to go there yet, because I have a great reluctance to break any of our rare compromises. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. There are seemingly insufficient resources available online to write an encyclopaedic article. An isolated outstanding OFSTED report is not sufficient to confer notability. We do not normally delete or redirect non-notable schools. We merge the usable content into the locality articles. I have taken the pre-emptive measure of merging the content. I would hope that a local editor would be able to find the sources for the mentions in the TV programmes. If sufficient sources exist to expand the content then the article a standalone can easily be recreated. Dahliarose (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factory life during the industrial revolution[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Factory life during the industrial revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is merely an essay. Subject to vandalism, and although there have been references (a reference) in past versions, they have been poorly cited at best. Information is sparse enough that it could be easily merged into Industrial revolution. 78.26 (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Social history of the industrial revolution would be a legitimate encyclopedic topic, which is what this would be, if it were more than an unsourced, unwikified paragraph. It's not often that a hand grenade should be used to clear the field for the "real article" of the indeterminate future, but this is one such case. Carrite (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete -- This reads like something that a 12-year old might write in a school exercise book after first being introduced to the subject. It is so dreadful as to be completely beyond hope of rescue. WP has ample coverage of Industrial Revolution, with ample sub-articles. I do not even think it qualifies as an essay. I cannot believe there is even any content worthy of being merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facilitation board (economics)[edit]

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

non-notable hypothetical institution

  • Comment The subject matter appears not to meet WP:GNG - it's a hypothetical type of organisation conceived by a couple of marginally notable academics and gets a passing reference in a couple of secondary source books. Subject matter overlaps with Participatory Economics article and contains very few references.
A search for "facilitation board" returns a lot of false positives as it's a fairly generic term in economic organisation like "steering committee". If further evidence can be found to justify the article's continued existence I'd suggest moving to "Facilitation Board (participatory economics)" or the term the academics used which is "Iteration Facilitation Board"Dtellett (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 04:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find the argument at Wikipedia:Obscure does not mean not notable is applicable here. Iteration Facilitation Boards receive independent (not written by Albert and Hahnel) academic discussion here:
    • Auerbach, Paul; Peter Skott (1993-07-01). "Capitalist Trends and Socialist Priorities". Science & Society. 57 (2): 194–204. ISSN 0036-8237. JSTOR 40403341.
    • Laibman, David (1995). "An argument for comprehensive socialism∗". Socialism and Democracy. 9 (2): 83–93. doi:10.1080/08854309508428167. ISSN 0885-4300.
    • Samuels, Warren J. (2008). "A theory of socialism inoculated against Hayek?1". The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought. 15 (1): 135–149. doi:10.1080/09672560701858731. ISSN 0967-2567.
    • Laibman, David (2011). "Incentive design, iterative planning and local knowledge in a maturing socialist economy". International Critical Thought. 1 (1): 35–56. doi:10.1080/21598282.2011.566039. ISSN 2159-8282.
    • Jeong, Seongjin. 2007. Models of Participatory Planning for Socialism in the 21st Century. GSNU (Gyeongsang National University) Working paper. 168( 1): 1-41. (Copy of text here) For reference, "Seongjin Jeong is Professor of Economics and former Director of Institute for Social Sciences at Gyeongsang National University, South Korea. He received his PhD from Seoul National University and has written widely on Marxism and the Korean economy. His work has appeared in international peer-reviewed journals including Review of Radical Political Economics and Rethinking Marxism. He has also translated some major Marxist works into Korean."
I think the separateness of their notability from Participatory economics is present, if limited. However, given that IFB's have been a central part of the critique of the viability of ParEcon, of which Auerbach and Scott is only one example, there's reason to separate them. The better reason, though, is making it easier to understand the ParEcon article, per WP:Article series.--Carwil (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. as a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hameeduddin Ahmed Al-Mashriqi[edit]

Hameeduddin Ahmed Al-Mashriqi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Problems meeting WP:GNG. One of a series of articles edited by a relative & IPs from his location, who is also the source of the obituaries scattered on the web in various arcane publications. Maybe there is something offline, but I can find nothing of note otherwise. Relative is Nasim Yousaf. Sitush (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's no evidence that any of this is true. Were this article newer, it would be subject to a BLPPROD, and that alone is reason for deleting here at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calito Soul[edit]

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

Doubtful notability. ZZArch talk to me 21:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Business service provider[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. Patent nonsense definition of a non-notable neologism, filled with puffery and other indications of intent to advertise: Business service providers (BSPs) are companies that offer state-of-the-art business applications over the Web. More gibberish:

  • A service-based application is composed of a number of possibly independent services in a service-oriented architecture (SOA), which perform the desired functionalities of the architecture.
  • BPS are delivered as Web services , designed with modern security, management, and identity standards to facilitate the plug-and-play integration of these services with other BSP services or with internal corporate Web services. The integration platform for BSP services within a company is the enterprise service bus, a standardized communication platform built on top of service-to-service messaging.

That's almost the entire article. "Referenced" to definitions hosted at some kind of Wiki or similar bloglike site. You will notice that the definition is oddly parochial and ahistorical; apparently nobody was a "business service provider" before the World Wide Web. Truly, computers are what makes the world go round! - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
  • Keep- the article no longer sounds as promotional, will try to clean it up. A412 (Talk * C) 19:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable business concept. Articles on subjects like this necessarily use jargon; we should clean them up a little, but we have to use the vocabulary that is used in discussing the subject. After all, we don't do OR for what people ought to call the concepts. Making fun of it in the nomination, however appealing, does not amount to n argument for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. No substantial argument raised below that WP:GNG is met -- Samir 20:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepy Hollow (band)[edit]

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

Article subject fails WP:BAND. It was already previously deleted but has snuck back into Wikipedia. Like the previously deleted version no content is cited from a source meeting WP:RS requirements. No members, albums or their label have any notability to support keeping this article on Wikipedia. Suggest the name be blocked from recreation to prevent any future versions from sliding past the censors. Mr Pyles (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. They've apparently signed a deal with a record company called "Pure Steel Records". Whether or not this is a major label is up for debate. I'm not overly familiar with metal band labels.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Kind of leaning towards no, though. I've been doing a search and there really isn't much out there that would be considered reliable. There appears to be a sizable fandom, but this group falls under the same problems that most indie bands have: a fanbase but not enough coverage in what would be considered reliable sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Keep. I started the article several months ago, and others have added to it (including references from various websites around the world). The history page shows someone was trying to edit the page with information for a different band of the same name - this seems to indicate that there needs to be a new page set up for the other band, and this page edited to be called Sleepy Hollow (NJ band), as both groups seem to have public interest. Kimsuccess (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 6:21, 8 February 2012— Kimsuccess (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. I looked pretty hard but I just can't find enough reliable sources to show that this band meets any of the requirements of WP:BAND. They have a fandom but just don't have any reliable sources out there. There's more than a few blog and forum posts about them as well as various primary sources, but nothing that'd be usable. It's a delete vote from me.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Keep I believe it does meet the criteria, Pat Gesualdo is playing drums for the band and he is the founder of the D.A.D. program. He writes for Modern Drummer and is backed by many endorcers including Sony and The Giants. He has been in the news and is pretty well know. I believe the keyboard player was suppose to play on his project before he got into a bad car accident, but now he is working with the Sleepy Hollow band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.109.222 (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC) — 68.193.109.222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I live in New Jersey and have been following Sleepy Hollow since seeing them play in 2000. They were the only progressive/acid rock band of any note in the NYC area at the time. Other bands playing back then were all hardcore or punk music. There have been other bands in the same vein since then, but Sleepy Hollow started the trend. Sleepy Hollow has 4 CDs released. The last 2 CDs were recorded and mixed by Bob Both, James Brown's former recording engineer. Sleepy Hollow has a fanbase and a longer history than many other bands out there and are still actively recording/playing. Just because they're not a household name doesn't mean they shouldn't have an entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.183.68 (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC) — 69.126.183.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep They meet the criteria. They have been around for 12 years and have 4 albums. They worked with James brown engineer Bob Both and Kiss artist. They changed the music scene across the board. They changed it from Hardcore to Hard Rock gain. I saw them headline the Limelight in the city. They had to have a Punk band open up because there were no other bands like them on the scene. Now there are hundreds. They have repressed their EP 5 times I believe including vinyl. They also Headlined a couple of festivals in New York State. If you do your homework, you will learn that they have influenced bands like Iced Earth to Tori Amos. If this page doesn't stay, you will loose and important link in music history! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.235.88 (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC) — 68.196.235.88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 68.196.235.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep A band that has been around for 12 years (has 4 albums and a sizable loyal fan base) who has changed and influenced the hard rock scene in the tri-state area definitely has a place in Wikipedia. I've followed them since 2002 and have witnessed the sellout crowds at their shows. The production value of their shows and the crowds they draw are that of an established band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.243.75.4 (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The influx of SPA !votes, especially from New Jersey, suggest "quacking" to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Wikipedia is not a democracy. The flood of SPA !votes, which all may be from the same editor, are not counted against the consensus of this discussion. However, currently there is no consensus to take an action, in my opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 03:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious strong fan base, but that simply isn't enough for a wiki page. Nothing out there that clearly passes WP:GNG. Though, for what it's worth, the list of records/firsts did make me laugh at the ridiculousness of some of them. Ravendrop 06:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:BAND, though it is heartening to know they have so many friends or fans, so they might become a notable band in the future. Edison (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepOne of the criterias listed for a band wiki page is a band that has changed the music scene significally. Listen to their first release in 2000. Then listen to all the music that came out in the 20 years before it and then listen to all the music that came out in the 11 years after it. Enough said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.177.151 (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC) — 71.187.177.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Curious. Another !vote from another SPA from New Jersey.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Do you have proof of this claim that they've influenced a whole genre of music other than your say-so? I only ask because all of these claims lack reliable sources to back them up, especially when you claim that the entire music industry has changed their sound due to this band, yet there's a dearth of independent, reliable, (and most importantly) verifiable sources about the band itself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Comment. By the by, can anyone verify that there was actually an article about the band in the March 2004 issue of Metal Edge Magazine? There's no way of knowing whether this was an in-depth article or a brief blub and since the band's website doesn't mention anything about Metal Edge on their website, I'm a little skeptical about whether they were actually mentioned enough (or at all, considering some of the claims fans have been making) to count as a source.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • CommentI believe that there will be a major influx from NJ, seeing the band originates there and people take pride in entertainers from their area ie Bruce Springsteen & Bon Jovi. The guidlines allow for a band that made a major influence/change in their area for a musical style. All there was in the area in 2000 were hardcore punk bands. Now all that can be found in the tri-state area is hard rock. The Sleepy Hollow Band had a fantastic stage show which probably helped keep them in the public's mind. Just because a band is on a minor lable does not mean they will not influence major acts. I.E. The Misfits, who are from the same town, influenced the likes of Metallica and Guns N' Roses while the Misfits were on their own label. Pink Floyd also influenced the like of The Beatles and The Rolling Stones while they were on an indi label. There was footage of John Lennon going to see a Pink Floyd show that was recently released. Seeing that The Sleepy Hollow Band played New York City often, that allowed many musicians to step in and view the band live. They opened with the Theme to the Clockwork Orange and Dream Theater would follow years later, both being from the NY area and prog bands. If you listen to the mix on Goin Over and then listen to Tori Amos the beekeeper which was her next album after the first said release, you can hear the exact same sound that did not exist on her previous albums. Iced Earth released Framing Armageddon after Goin Over as well, which featured Hammond Organ on a thrash metal song for the first time in Bad Reflection. Iced Earth would feature Hammond organ for the first time on any of their albums, on their release after Goin Over. Theory of a Deadman's the Bitch came back was a direct rip-off of Two Too Late off of their first release. I am just throwing out some examples. Just because you haven't heard of it, does not mean they don't exist or made a major impact. There are plenty of wiki pages containing articles for subjects many are not familiar with. Before wanting to vote a page down, which would be a travisty to wiki, do some in depth homework. This band has sold for 50 to 100 dollars on E-bay. There must be a reason. Thank you kindly for taking the time to hear my comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.174.233 (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — 67.83.174.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Now the big flaw with your arguments is that there's a lot of coverage for indie bands such as The Misfits to prove that they had this influence over other musicians and that they were notable. The same could be said for other great non-mainstream bands such as The Cramps. Being indie and/or non-mainstream doesn't mean that you are exempt from providing multiple sources. It's also possible that you're seeing a lot of notability where it isn't, assuming that because one band started playing music that was becoming popular, that they were the reason for the change in music tone. It's entirely possible to say that the band themselves picked up on the sound due to influences from other musicians. To put it bluntly, you're claiming that a band that has little to no reliable sources about them is/was as influential as the Beatles, Siouxsie Sioux, and The Misfits, having altered an entire type of sound and inspired generations of musicians. It's just very hard to see how this is possible without some sort of sourcing such as the artists mentioning the influence (not the Sleepy Hollow band or fans, but someone like Tori Amos). Without these sources any and all speculation about the band's reach is original research and unproven theory. You can say that the band had this or that influence, but generally speaking most musicians and bands with that much influence are at least moderately covered in magazines, movies, books, and the like. These claims have to be proven and so far this seems to be mostly original research and puffery (WP:PUFFERY). If you want to save the article then you need to do it by way of things that you can show us with bonafide articles and such. Be aware that things not related to the band (such as links to an article about mosques that have nothing to do with the actual band) and primary sources do not show notability. The band can claim whatever they want on their sites, but you need to have multiple independent and reliable sources to show this notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete. I've taken my time to consider my !vote here, having looked at this a number of times and awaited further evidence of notability. I agree with Tokyogirl, Ravendrop, and Edison -- essentially, it appears, all the editors !voting here who have over 4,000 edits to their name. I recognize that this puts me at odds with a nearly equal number of editors/IPs, with edit histories ranging from this being their first edit to having up to 1 or 2 dozen edits to their name. But perhaps they are less familiar with your notability criteria, none of which this band appears to meet.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BAND and the WP:GNG. None of the "Keep" arguments are convincing, they just sound like fan(s) standing up for the band. Arguments that border WP:ILIKEIT and "they've got lots of fans and have been around" don't mean anything when there isn't significant third party coverage to back it up. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems like all the Delete votes coincide with a lack of investigating. Pat Gesualdo is a know name, and known to have worked with major names like Deep Purple and our 43rd president. There is a source of Fox news which is a major news company. This band has 4 albums out and a pure listen would subjigate the fact that they changed the scene. Please kindly read the criteria for a wiki page and you will see that they do have some of the criteria, of which, they do not need all. It seems quite coincidental that another Sleepy Hollow band popped on the scene at the same time the decision to take this one down was started. Might I suggest that this may be an attempt to open a new page for the other band of the same name. It seems odd that someone keeps removing the viable sorces such as web sites including fox news. If for example, looing at Jethro Tull's wiki page, they have the same kind of sources. Just a thought. Yes, I am a fan, that is why I carry an extensive knowledge of the band, but, I do know they have the criteria worthy of a wiki page. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.115.235 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you dislike the !votes of all the experienced editors, but Sergcross is another editor with more than 10,000 wp edits, with a fine reputation for investigating. We simply don't see the requisite indicia of notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some reliable, third party sources backing up your claims? Also, Jethro Tull is not comparable in any respect. They are a popular classic rock band who's career spanned multiple decades, and whose article has over 35 references. Sleepy Hollow contains 10 sources, about half stemming from their own website or websites like "progarchives", which is deemed an unreliable source here on wikipedia... Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply Yes, these are reliable sources, and the comparason was not with the band, but, with the sources that are deemed exceptable. Why on the standard, is the Official Jethro Tull Web Site deemed a reliable source and the Official Sleepy Hollow band web site not a reliable source? Both are the band's official sites. I personally could care less if the page stays or not. I will always be a fan and keep up to date on new releases. I just feel that taking the Wiki page down will remove a VERY fundimental part of Hard Rock History. I had the pleasure of meeting Joe Dell in 2001, and he told me that the record industry had slammed them for being too "retro" and then in 2004, everything was retro, and the in sound. I believe the story he told me, was that the original bassist's gradfather was in the friers club and many alot of enemies. Therefor, closed some doors for the band. But, thousands of sales later, they are still around and a major influence. Great talking to you guys, and good luck to you as well, you seem to hate this band for some reason, but, one day, you might like them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.115.235 (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't hate the band, I've never even heard of them, I'm working purely on Wikipedia policy here. Anyways, first party sources are okay to use here and there, but not okay to establish notability. Somehow, I feel like Jethro Tull has enough reliable sources in those other 34 sources to pass WP:GNG. (And again, ridiculous comparison. They are an internationally acclaimed (and platnum album selling) band. It's like comparing Metallica or U2 to some band that plays local community colleges.) Additionally, all these off-hand personal anecdotes about grandfathers and whatnot don't help affect meeting the WP:GNG at all. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • view the website, I was just telling a story. I believe that there are viable sorces and Pat Gesualdo joining the band is big. One of the criteria is a member working with a notable band or persons. It takes one criteria and they are viable. The comparison was made to make the point, Wiki criteria is Wiki criteria across the board. If I am wrong, please show me where it says a major bands web site meets criteria and an under ground band's does not. That is like saying a rich sports figure is allowed to murder a person and get away with it, but a janitor needs to to prison. Rules are rules for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.115.235 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You misunderstand me. Neither band's official website help's its notabiility. It's just that Jethro Tull has many other sources that establish notability. If you don't believe me, by all means nominate JT for deletion and see what happens. Also, regarding your "notable person association" argument: the best way to prove a person is notable is to look at their respective article. The fact that Pat Gesualdo doesn't have his own article probably isn't going to help that approach. Sergecross73 msg me 22:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Fox News article that keeps being referred to doesn't mention the band once. It's a short, rather trivial article that quotes that Pat Gesualdo, a band member. It probably wouldn't even help establish his notability, let alone the band, that again, isn't even mentioned. Sergecross73 msg me 23:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • replyNo need to question the Tull page, love that band. Just making a point. The Fox news artical is in what way trivial? It establishes Pat as a noteable person. It is a whole segment. He is the founder of the worlds largest music charity program and segemnt is a reference to that fact. References do not need to mention the band, they may mention a band member and refer to a project that they are involved with. The fact that it is a major news station makes it viable. Wiki is a site which allows the entire public to edit as they see fit a long as they provide a viable sorce. Just because an editor has a "name" does not make them better or more creditable when comes to a particular edit. Wiki is here to provide the public with advanced knowledge on a subject and by participating in a page's information, you are helping the public advance their knowledge. The sources used are not fabricating any knowledge. It is better for Wiki to be expanded rather than trimmed because of mear symantics. Please, on the next reply, copy and paste the section of Wiki Criteria that counters all the above mentioned resorced. Thank you so kindly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.174.125 (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC) — 67.83.174.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Hi. Are you by any chance editing from more than one location? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is already very short, and the first half of it is about the Rehab center, not especially him. Then there are two small quotes from him, and a sentence about the programs funding. Definitely not significant coverage on him as a person, let alone establishing his notability, let alone doing anything regarding this band's notability. It's such a huge stretch. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • response ok, no, I only edit from my home computer. Again, please comply with a copy and paste from the Wiki page criteria section stating the sources are not ceditable. I appreciate your opinion, but, I like cold hard facts. Please provide the requested evidence. Thank you kindly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.14.18 (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't follow who you're talking to, or what exactly you're asking for. Can you clarify some? Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello again, to you, Sergecross, please copy and paste the section of the Wiki criteria that states the references given along with articles to not meet the criteria for a Wiki page. Everone who is against the page aren't giving solid, hard, evidence. Just words. Please provide the evidence. Thank you kindly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.14.18 (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The policies are specifically linked to up and down this AFD discussion, and quite frankly, the fact that you 1) Don't know them. 2) Don't bother looking for them yourself and 3) Don't see that they've already been explained a lot -- isn't helping your argument or credibilty at all. But I'll humor you some:
        • WP:GNG is the "General Notability Guidelines". That's the part that backs up the part that people keep saying about how there needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources separate from the band itself. I can't break it down any better than what's in the link.
        • WP:BAND are some more specific guidelines that help determine the notability of bands/musical groups in particular.
        • The argument for deleting argue that this band doesn't meet that. They don't get much coverage from music websites, their albums don't chart, they haven't won any noteworthy awards, etc. Now, if it can be proven that they have done some of these things, then the article should be kept. However, they need to be from reliable sources, not random editors declaring that they like them, they exist, etc. There needs to be proof. Little to none has been provided. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Kudos to Serge, for his response.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply, oh, it allows 3rd party sources that check their facts, you know for a fact that these 3rd party sources are unreliable? Oh, and I do know the criteria, that is why I asked for proof. Again, the fox news is a MAJOR news station. Now, please copy and paste wear it is not allowed to show a project worked on by one of the band members? I know that one of the criteria is that a band member has worked with a notebale identity and I believe that Pat working with Deep Purple and President Bush Jr. is pretty credible. This is what I want to see copy and pasted, where that is not in the criteria. I know what the reliabel sources are and you are cutting it thin stating site like the Prog Archieves are not a reliable source. They are the internets encyclopedia of prog bands. You both obviously are not prog rock fans and have very limited knowledge on the subject, whether you have a screen name or not. Start listening to prog, get into the prog world, then find the sources that most people look for and you will learn more about the subject. I am not trying to be offensive at all my friends, I am just trying to guide you both in the proper direction. Oh, and the Tokyogirl can start to hunt as well, as long as it doesn;t take time away from her throwing doritos at her sisters. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.114.166 (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:ALBUM/REVSITE explains why "Prog Archives" is not an acceptable source. Knowledge of prog rock isn't necessary here at AFD, what's necessary is knowing Wikipedia policy, and what sources have already been deemed reliable or unreliable. (Additionally, I'm very active in editing articles related to Steven Wilson and Porcupine Tree, very much so progressive rock, so that argument doesn't work either way.)
            • While working with a notable person could help, it doesn't with this "Pat" person. I think that criteria is more relevant if this band had collaborated with, you know, Michael Jackson or Paul McCartney or someone like that. Maybe not necessarily that level of musician, but still, people clearly recognizeable in music. This "Pat" is nowhere near this level, doesn't have his own article to prove he's notable, and all in all very little is known about him anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just a tip. Being nasty and semi-insulting about or towards other editors doesn't exactly endear us towards you or your cause. In my case, I actually did do a rather thorough search of Sleepy Hollow, which is how some of the sources on there got onto the article in the first place. There just wasn't enough to make me believe that the band is as notable as you are claiming. The problem here is that you're cherry picking what rules you think should apply to the band and which shouldn't. The band isn't notable. The coverage they've gotten is minimal at best and as some are arguing about the sources that are about the band, the sources on the article are rather weak. Be aware that an article about a project that one of the current band members started working on before he joined the band does not give notability to the band. At most it'd give notability to him, but the project just isn't all that notable to begin with. The standards here are very, very strict and 99.9% of the bands out there do not meet these guidelines. I'm going to be completely honest when I say this next point and I don't mean it as rude: the people who are trying to say that this band has had a huge influence on the music world akin to the Beatles creating and influencing several genres of music is actually doing more to harm the credibility of the article than help. It looks and sounds like complete nonsense and you aren't helping your case by insisting that this band is responsible for even a quarter of the musical sounds out there. There is no hard proof that this is actually real beyond an anonymous IP saying "listen and you'll see". That's not proof. That's theory, original research, and conjecture. Without proof such as Tori Amos herself saying that she listened to Sleepy Hollow and got inspired, this is at best going to be seen a fan theory and at worst, an outright lie. The thing is, the band and their fans can claim whatever they want but you need independent secondary sources from reliable sources to back these claims up. On a side note, I'm going to let you know that I'm going to take this to the administrator's noticeboard. The arguing back and forth on this article is getting a little over the top and while it's not the worst I've seen, it needs to stop. It's not helping anything. (Plus the revert wars on the article itself is getting pretty old.) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KeyFS (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable software product. No journal or news entries, few relevant g-hits. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 23:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Merge It appears to be a program that serves as a two-level file tree for manipulating authentication information on a Linux platform [27]. Any relevant information should be merged in the article Polish Grid Infrastructure PL-Grid using a KeyFs Deployment section header. OSU1980 23:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage into indicate notability. For that matter, it is unclear what importance it holds within the Polish Grid Infrastructure PL-Grid as I can see nothing that even denotes this as an important item to merge to the main article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 03:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Benetton Free Band[edit]

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

Non-notable band; minimal local press coverage only, supported by a couple blog references and YouTube links. Hairhorn (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's hard for me to judge how well the sources conform to WP:RS, but it seems reasonable. this looks like a solid RS, and provides significant coverage. this is slightly shorter, but also an independent reliable source. It looks like both of these are national outlets, so we can't really call that local press. I can't really find if Slovakia has an albums chart, so I have no means to check if the album charted. Google translate hasn't been really helpful in translating this, which claims they either receive, or don't receive radio airtime. Some slovak translation would be nice here, though even without the airtime, I think we're scraping by the good side of notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Notable album by notable band. Previously nominated by same editor: so same result. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was deleted in the past as it was established as not notable. I was thinking of the separate articles for The Black Album and Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols which used to exist but have both been redirected to the artist discography page. Regardless, this double album has never been established as notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. LF (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. The nom is misleading. This article passed its last AfD with a "keep" result. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was kept at the first AfD just 3 months ago, for valid reasons, and no reason has been articulated to change that result. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nomination is completely deceptive. I demand that the nominator explain themselves if they wish to ever edit Wikipedia again. Was just kept at AfD 3 months ago, nomination makes no reference to this.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Being the creator of this article, I completely agree with the previous statements in favor of keeping this article. The nomination is completely misleading, as this article was never deleted in the past. It was up for a deletion vote back in November of 2011, but it ultimately passed at AfD with the result of "Keep". The nominator might be thinking of The Dandy Warhol's 1996 demo album which is also entitled "The Black Album". I believe that album did have a Wikipedia article which was deleted for being "not notable". Allow me to reiterate the fact that this article ("The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols") is not about the aforementioned 1996 demo album. This article is about an official, double album which was self-released by the band in 2004. If the album article is deleted, then there will be a hole in the discography of the band. As for the nominator's argument of, "No professional reviews by notable sources or inclusion on any major charts.": Even though those items are both nice and helpful, they are not required in order to start an album article on Wikipedia. Nominator, feel free to edit the article by adding those things if you wish, but the article doesn't need to be deleted because it lacks them. In the future, I would kindly suggest that you do a little research on an article before you nominate it for deletion. --Neuroticguru (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings, Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. Kindly explain how it is notable. LF (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same person (different user names) nominated article twice for deletion: To whom it may concern: After doing some research on the present deletion nominator (LF) of this article, I found that they are the same person (Lachlanusername) who nominated this article for deletion the first time around. You can see that the LF user page will redirect to the Lachlanusername user page. Lachlanusername, LF, or whatever you're calling yourself, you need to respect the decision to "Keep" this article! All present and past reasons to do so are absolutely valid and legitimate. I believe that what you are doing is considered vandalism by Wikipedia. In fact, I will be placing a "vandalism" template on your user page and contacting administration about your multiple account usage. Your use of multiple accounts in order "to reinforce your viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust." (See: Wikipedia policy on multiple accounts) I politely request that you cease and desist this behavior. --Neuroticguru (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apology: To all involved, I let this second nomination for deletion get too personal and I apologize for acting in a rash manner. I was warned by administration as regarding my actions towards LF's user page and the "vandalism" template which I placed on it. That template was removed by me a short time ago. However, I still believe that LF and Lachlanusername are the same user. If I am wrong about that, then I sincerely apologize to LF. LF, you asked me how this album is notable, maybe it's not. If you really think about it, notability is completely subjective anyways. I understand that Wikipedia has its "guidelines" on such matters though. I just thought I'd make an article about this double album. I'm only marginally a fan of the band. I do own this album, but it's not on heavy rotation for me. Feel free to use this information however you'd like to. Neuroticguru (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3053[edit]

3053 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. A little premature to put it mildly. And it contains nothing of note. Will WP still be around in the year 3053? Yes, it will be.[citation needed] "In the year 2525, If man is still alive, ...." Alan began singing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The year is too far in the future to say anything verifiable about it. A single mention in a work of fiction is not enough for notability. JIP | Talk 06:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article doesn't provide any useful information, and the Rainbow Mars mention is already in the Rainbow Mars article. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Delete per above. I can't think of any reason to keep this as it stands.Tyrenon (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Also, we should not encourage creation of articles about years far, far in the future, because there is literally no limit, and articles about the years 1,000,000 through 1,999,999 etc could as easily be created. Edison (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above JayJayTalk to me 22:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Most obvious one I've ever seen. 71.246.200.190 (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TERREX[edit]

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

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable organization. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – After some searches under the search terms "Terrain Experts, Inc.", "Terrain Experts", "Terrex" and "TERREX", not finding coverage in third-party reliable sources. The searches yielded commercial websites, directory listings (example) and such. Another option is retaining the page as a redirect to Presagis. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, WP:SNOW, obvious unsourced neologism, and see below. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flint Effect[edit]

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

This started out as a cross-biography of a person, a company, and a WP:NEO. After it was tagged for CSD, the page creator trimmed down the spam (and the CSD tag) and left the neologism. Rather than duke it out with the article creator and get into an edit war over CSD tags, I'll just bring it here. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 00:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teracent[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidlines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. It was deleted by Fastily per CSD G3. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 00:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Summon/RoboTechnic EclipseSmashers (manga)[edit]

Summon/RoboTechnic EclipseSmashers (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Claims to be video game and manga series, but article makes no mention of the manga, so I'm not sure what's up with that. Anyway, the WikiProject Video Games source guideline has this custom Google search for reliable sources for video game articles, and a search for "RoboTechnic EclipseSmashers" on it turns up absolutely nothing. A general Google search for "Summon" "RoboTechnic EclipseSmashers" -wikipedia doesn't seem to bring up significant coverage in reliable sources either, mostly Wikipedia mirrors. This causes me to question whether or not this game and manga series is a bestseller, has won any awards, meets the notability guideline, or even exists. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 00:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged for CSD: Could be CSD'd as hoax, test edit, or vandalism, depending on the mood of the admins. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 00:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_February_15&oldid=1142635437"