Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 February	18 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. It appears to be snowing Guerillero | My Talk 15:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of films considered the best

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

The article is based on reviews and lists on the web. You cannot give a subjective opinion a reliable source, nor verify it. What's next? A list of best colours based on colour expert reviews? This list is against everything Wikipedia stands for and should be deleted. FnH (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please link the 3 previous discussions. Dru of Id (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Films considered the greatest ever

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there could never be an objective criterion for "best". As evidenced by the size of the list, the article's definition is lacking and over generous. Best by whose standards? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This meets criteria of WP:LISTPURP and WP:SALAT and is well sourced. With respects to TPH above, the criteria for inclusion on their specific lists are set by the sources provided, and we are not here to place a personal or arbitrary criteria for such... only to report and share their findings. If the list seems too long to some, then a split might be discussed on its talk page, and does not require a deletion. We do not judge the truth or not of the criteria used by the various organizations and sources for inclusion in their lists, just so long as the information provided is verifiable in sources deemed suitable for offering their judgements. As long as the list remains sourced and is not indescriminate, it serves the project and our readers. I wish to remind the 8-edit nominator that EVERYTHING included in Wikipedia is to be based on the reliable sources we find on the web and elsewhere, just so long as the source is considered reliable enough for the information being sourced. We accept that American Film Institute may report on the films they consider "top". We accept that The Moving Arts Film Journal may report on the films they consider "top". We accept that IGN may report of whatever films they consider "top". We accept that Rotten Tomatoes may report of whatever films they consider "top". We accept that BBC News may report of whatever films they consider "top". We accept that Entertainment Weekly may report of whatever films they consider "top". We accept that Time (magazine) may report of whatever films they consider "top". We do not demand or expect that all sources use the exact same criteria. As the threshold for inclusion is beased upon verifiability, and not what may or may not be a subjective or objective truth, we judge the messenger, not the message. And to address your comparison... IF a set of experts decided to offer opinions on what they considered the best colors and why, we could consider an article. But that's an argument for a different discussion. The list is definitely not "against everything Wikipedia stands for" as Wikipedia specifically has criteria for such lists. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, that there are tens of thousands of movie reviews written. Online, on paper, in books and so on. WHO decides which sources are important and valid when looking for subjective opinions? This list could easily be manipulated by finding many enough good reviews of a film, and adding it on the list. Collecting reviews and doing somekind of "best" list of them, is not objective, and the whole process of picking and choosing which reviews count is own its own, subjective and against Wikipedia policies. We cannot access all the reviews written in this world. --FnH (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you call a "problem" is a strength of Wikipedia... one that encourages cooperative effort and the work of a community. And again, inclusion herein is not dependent upon subjctive or objective truths, but upon verifiability of what is reported as being said and by whom, and this encyclopedic list itself follows the policy and guidline instructions for its use. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nominator misrepresents how the list works. There shouldn't be any subjective opinions by editors, the opinions belong to the reliable sources and are merely represented with due weight in our list, the same way all content is included on Wikipedia. Because reviewers' "best of" are subjective opinions doesn't mean we can't objectively create a list of those opinions. — Bility (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is ridiculous. The opinions are subjective, whether they come from a critic or an editor. It makes no difference how many sources the article has, ALL OF THEM are sources of SUBJECTIVE opinions. No matter how many times you say it, the list remains subjective. --FnH (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is it necessary to do this every two years or so? It can be a pain to keep out films that do not belong, but is has value. BollyJeff || talk 01:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only way to really 'verify' the criteria for best films is too use representation from professional critiques, reviews, audience polls, opinions, recognition from organizations and consistent cultural attitudes. This article does just that. It could be improved upon though. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per flawed justification. "You cannot give a subjective opinion a reliable source"? Then what are all those things in the Notes section? If we were to follow the nominator's line of reasoning, we should also delete the winners from Academy Award for Best Picture. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A list of Academy Award winners and nominees is objective and factual. These films were nominated for an award, and that's what the list deals with. There's nothing subjective about it, only facts. A list of films considered best by random websites and critics is completely subjective. --FnH (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any award assigned by members of an organizations toward other members of their organization and based upon their personal likes and dislikes is not objective. What we do with such lists is simply report "objectively" on the subjective results, and in that manner we preserve a NPOV. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ebert, the BBC, Time magazine, etc. are random websites and critics? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've been round and round with AfD complainers for years, trying to remove lists that are a compilation of data. WP deletionists get a clue. Compiling information so it makes sense is one of the great things we do with Wikipedia. Just because it is not one list copied from a single source doesn't mean its not valid. This is a subjective field, the lists that serve as the sources for this article are quoted in the ledes of many of the films in question. They serve to draw significance to an art. It elevates the subject from the dry; this is a . . . about . . . made by . . . in (year), to explaining how it is received and accepted, that it is exceptional. Carry that forward to this list, which then shows how that interrelates--what other films in the genre are considered the best by that source or other sources. This list itself serves to give further credibility to the sources by showing the other comparative films that are considered the best. If a source were to be outlandishly out of line, consistently, then we might "consider the source" as the phrase goes. The main point is information belongs on Wikipedia. Campaigns to delete or hide content, particularly well sourced and well founded content like this, are a terrible exercise of a few people's opinion trying to govern, perhaps even censor what the world is allowed to learn from this database. Trackinfo (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's exactly what it means. By picking and choosing, which sources of subjective material are reliable and verifiable is already on its own subjective, and this list can be manipulated in several ways. Again, how can you define a reliable source for a subjective opinion that you can use on Wikipedia? What do you base this definition on, and why some opinions are more important than others? Millions of people believe in ghosts. Is this belief subjective or objective? Millions of people are racist. Subjective or objective? Since we cannot access every single written review, nor can we pick and choose which ones count and which don't... This list simply cannot be objective, balanced nor fair. --FnH (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move - Although the article list itself is notable, the title of the page is suggesting it fails WP:POV, which it doesn't. This page has been moved and renamed countless times already, and if there is any place there is to form a consensus on where to move this to the widest audience, its the AfD. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 02:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The title doesn't fail WP:POV, because it's not an editor's point of view. These movies are found on lists literally titled "Best of...". Everyone discussing this deletion should take care not to conflate the subject of the article, which is inherently subjective, with the way the content is included, presented and titled, which adhere to all the normal Wikipedia policies. — Bility (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does. The opinions sourced and presented are by critics, who are people presenting their personal opinions, and is, therefore subjective. If this list is kept, then Wikipedia should also accept list of best songs, best cars, best colours and so on. --FnH (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons as last time. While I'm not in favour of limits on AFDs, like an article can only be nominated X times, it seems to me common sense that if one is going to attempt to re-nominate something that's already been kept twice after two nearly unanimous discussions, the nominator really should take the time to present an excellent case, ideally with new evidence or a policy shift that somehow invalidates the previous consensus. Clearly, the nominator has not done so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested enough to vote, you should be interested enough to read the already-existing debate on this matter. --FnH (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. The nominator is confusing the problem of a Wikipedia article advancing subjective opinions, which violates WP:NPOV, with the non-problem of a Wikipedia article being about subjective opinions, which does not violate WP:NPOV. The concept and discussion of "best film" is a notable one, and an article about that concept can comply with all WP policies by summarizing the statements of notable critics and institutions and the results of significant polls. We are therefore not asserting that Film X is the best and citing to Critic Y's list to verify that claim, but instead asserting that Critic Y says Film X is the best and citing to Critic Y's list to verify only that he said it.
Though of course one need not defend all such hypothetical "best of" subjects in order to defend this one (see WP:OTHERCRAP, WP:ALLORNOTHING, and straw man), I would imagine "best song" would also fit that bill as a suitable subject matter in the same way (cf. Category:Lists of rated songs, Albums considered the greatest ever), and even "best color" may have merit in some specific contexts such as an article about the popularity, critical assessment, and psychology of certain colors and color combinations in interior decorating or fashion. postdlf (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article has been AFD'd too many times. I was even starting to cleanup this article but so far I only got to action and animation genre and I haven't done much work past that. Most of the reasons why it should already stay are already explained. What this article really needs is cleanup and some watchers but not deletion. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I acknowledge that the title is problematic, given the ambiguous word "considered," the subject itself does seem to be notable, and there do seem to be sufficient reliable sources to make an article. The fact that it has several problems, including I think the title and maybe the general structure, is generally not considered sufficient grounds to delete articles. There could be a very useful article here, although, admittedly, getting it to that status might be a bit of a problem. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A discriminate list that is functional as a Wikipedia entry. It is an objective list of various opinions regarding films, and it is well-sourced. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very valuable list of sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As long as all entries are backed up by valid refs (such as referrals by respected industry critics and positions on valid industry polls - such as AFI, BAFTA & even IMDb) it remains a good resource.Angry Mustelid (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This indeed is not a list of the "best" films. Rather, it is a list of those films considered to be the best. There is a difference. Keep. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - It's a great summary article, and I can't think of another place better than Wikipedia to have an article summarising films considered the best. That in itself is not exactly the best reason, but provided the films listed are sourced (and it's quite good at the moment), I don't see why this shouldn't stick around. Ss 112 15:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Babovic

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

Player who has yet to appear in a fully professional league and has got minimal media coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Original article was deleted by PROD for the same reason. – Kosm1 fent 21:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 21:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Unsourced, and fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Cloudz 679 12:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After some searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources. Mostly directory listings such as this: from Transfermarkt. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom Edinburgh Wanderer 00:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per g5. CheckUser has confirmed Prokingsley as a sock of Antony1821. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:48, 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 Speedy Delete A7. Speedy or no, consensus below seems pretty clear on the matter. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paturin-suku

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

This is an unreferenced genealogy tree, with no connection to articles that I can see. PROD removed by article creator. ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOT, article would only assist in creating a 'genealogical overload', because the majority of these individuals (if any) don't merit articles on their own. SaveATreeEatAVegan 21:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who are these people, and why are they here? No indication, or even claim, of notability. Borderline speedy. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Snow this NN list, wholly unreferenced, as soon as possible please. Trout the article creator if he appears here. Waste of time. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article seems to be original research. Not finding coverage in reliable sources for "Paturin-suku", "Paturin-suku genealogy" or "Paturin-suku family". Appears to fail WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unreferenced without evidence or assertion of notability, not even in English. Any reason why this cannot go on WP:CSD A7? AllyD (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per WP:CSD A7. No indication of notability and a search turns up nothing. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 22:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyven-suku—same author and apparently a related family. 04:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dmoz Pakistan

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

Gnews and gbooks don't seem to be familiar with this apparently non-notable software company. Epeefleche (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:56, 9 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 20:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no reliable sources that refer to this company - doesn't appear to be notable. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. It appears to be a project that has appropriated the look and feel and concept of DMOZ. -- Whpq (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not merely poorly written, but clearly non-notable. Alternately, merge into DMOZ. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As far as I can tell they are not part of DMOZ so a merge is not appropriate. Their site makes no mention of being part of the open directory project. Their site is http://www.dmoz.pk/ whereas the open directory project's regional link for pakistan is http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/Asia/Pakistan/ which are clearly not the same thing. -- Whpq (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After searching, not finding reliable sources for this company. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:37, 26 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. I don't see an actionable consensus on the merger issue, so that discussion can and should continue on the article's talk page, but there is a consensus here that the material should be kept in some form. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Old Sanawarians

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

This list is redundant to Category:Old Sanawarians. It is completely unreferenced and contains individuals who may or may not be notable. Anyone notable on this list would more suitably be listed at the parent article, Lawrence School, Sanawar, anyway. Peacock (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's nothing wrong with a List article of alumni from a school. But I agree many on the list are non-notable. I've removed them. Sionk (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge with Lawrence School, Sanawar. I agree, there is nothing wrong with a list of alumni, but that doesn't exempt it from WP:N as a stand-alone article, merging to the school would do just fine.~~ --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 02:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lawrence School, Sanawar. I agree with the reasons given by Michaelzeng7 --Jbaranao (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Articles (including those reflecting bios) that are reflected in a category can also be reflected in lists. Lists and cats are not mutually exclusive. See our relevant guideline, which states:
"Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial because the two categories work together; the principle is covered in the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Like categories, lists can be used for keeping track of changes in the listed pages, using the Related Changes feature. Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of its entries, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available; lists also permit a large number of entries to appear on a single page."

I also note that we have dozens of such lists, some of which are reflected at Category:Lists of people by school affiliation, while others are embedded in school articles themselves. That's an editorial judgment decision, and this list is short enough that it could easily be merged into the not-long-itself school article, though I would at the same time have no objection to it staying as a stand-alone article. In any case, I don't think it would be appropriate to delete it.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but not Merge. Indeed a lot of the people on the list when the nomination was posted were removed by Sionk. This was a very helpful edit to the article. However, should the article be merged or kept? Because the list is fairly long, and if it is merged to Lawrence School, Sanawar, it could stray away from the topic of that article there. Epeefleche did a very good job in explaining the notability of this article and now I think lets just keep it. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tx for the kind words.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lawrence School, Sanawar, no indication that a dedicated article is warranted here. RadioFan (talk) 12:54, 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 keep. Sandstein 11:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Badger Don't Care

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

I don't believe this article passes the criteria of notability. At best perhaps a side note in the popular culture section of Honey badger, but as a 72-page book about funny animals it is hardly unique, and I don't think it's relation to a Youtube video (no matter how popular or notable itself) makes this book itself notable. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm in the process of trying to find reliable sources for this, but I have to admit that part of me does think this might best serve as a redirect or better yet, an article about the video and the book.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment. The more I find, the more I think that it's past time to create an article about the honey badger video. The video has created a book and a potential tv series for its narrator, so I think that counts as "notable". I'm going to work on it now and when it's finished I'll come back to vote for a redirect, but not until I've finished the page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Redirect to The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger. Most of the articles I've found that mention the book are more generally about the video, so I think that this would be best served as a redirect to the above article. It would probably be a good idea to keep the article's history in case there are enough independent and reliable reviews of the book to where a separate article would be necessary.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Changing vote to keep. I kept at it and I think that between the two reviews and some new articles I've found, that the book has just enough attention to warrant keeping. A good part of me still thinks that it might be better as a redirect to the article about the video, but the book does have coverage.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep It's notable and now referenced. Please note that quoting from the dust jacket (without commenting on the quote) is a copyright violation. Edgepedia (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for letting me know that! I hadn't really been told anything about that, so I'm glad to have that clarified!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep per Edgepedia. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:13, 24 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nordeca

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

Apparently non-notable company. I accept that they are the chief GIS providers for Norway, and I can find plenty of websites selling their maps, but there's a distinct lack of coverage on the company itself. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — it is not notable Reza1615 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD § G11/A7: no indication of notability and no refs. Actually, the article can be squeezed t a single sentence like "Nordeca is a provider of SaaS leisure maps for hiking and boating known as map series Turkartserien, Norge-serien, Båtsportserien and Vannsportserien" without loss of content. The rest of the article is unintelligible spam. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. There is nothing in the article that attests to this company being notable by Wikipedia's standards. It looks like it has been written by an employee or PR consultant of the company. __meco (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Subsequent to work done to the article it now meets the notability requirements. __meco (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a keep after resent upgrade. If this article is to be deleted, most of the articles at Category:Companies of Norway, or any other country for that matter, will have to be deleted. OddMM 18 February 2012 17:19 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Article writer has rewritten content and included references. Please help to improve! Runestrommen (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found several news articles about the company under its former name (from which I also created a redirect). I have added several of these and removed the refs to Norwegian Wikipedia and to the main pages of government departments and services, and done a more thorough rewrite. This included adding some info on the company cutting a subsidiary and an electronic map service, so the article is no longer so uniformly positive in content. I'm sure there's more news coverage out there; the company changed name more than once, and I only searched Kvasir and Google News, not Atekst. Thanks also to Runestrommen for a more recent NRK article than the one I had found. All the sources are Norwegian, but this is permissible under our notability policy and in my opinion the article now has sufficient independent and reliable sources to demonstrate notability within Norway. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with OddMM's comment about the fact that if this article is deleted, most of should be deleted. Per WP:CORP probably 90% of companies's articles on Wikipedia should also be deleted. Those, who doesn't feel comfortable with this fact, should address the issue on WT:CORP, not here. I would also note, that the situation that we have an article on company and no single article about its products itself goes against WP:CORP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see why an AfD was raised, but the articles quality is now acceptable. The article describes a topic that seems notable (the company is among the leading within its field on a national level, sufficient independent and reliable sources). Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the latest additions, this article clearly meets the notability guidelines. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:58, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DevForce

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

Non notable software. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sources in the wild; it didn't even deserve editor's reviews on cnet, pcworld, softpedia and other similar places working hard on reviewing every single piece of Windows software out there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete - Not finding much coverage, particularly in reliable sources. Here's an article from the page InfoQ, which doesn't appear to meet criterion as a reliable source [1]. Here's a Softpedia download page: [2]. If others are able to find reliable sources to qualify this topic's notability, then this !vote will change. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:16, 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Abramson

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

No indication of satisfying WP:GNG. Most of the references provided appear to be from primary sources, blogs, etc., and the possible WP:RS all appear to be local coverage that doesn't show how WP:CREATIVE is met. Kinu ^t/_c 04:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lee is an artist with a known public disability. The sources include news articles, ONE blog, his bands sites, and his personal campaign website. It isn't all "local" coverage...there are several sources that are outside of his area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeohhem (talk • contribs) 01:25, 11 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article shows that he received some secondary reliable coverage, and further coverage is easily foundable via Google. The WP:ITSLOCAL argument does not affect the notability of a subject. Cavarrone (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Marginally notable. Just enough secondary sources to pass muster.--JayJasper (talk) 21:38, 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. Sandstein 11:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hari baba aashram bidsar

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

Insignificant place with no reference indicating otherwise. Google results doesn't tell much either. Lovy Singhal (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - afraid I've drawn a blank looking for sources, and there aren't any at all in the article, either. Presume not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No good sources whatsoever. Bzweebl (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a misplaced "Deletion" vote by User:Anubhab91 on this discussion's talk page.
Delete - The topic doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. It exists; here's the Wikimapia page. After some searches, including in Google Scholar and Google Books, not finding coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:23, 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. Sandstein 11:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tuleap

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

Does not indicate notability. Internet search shows little coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article makes an impression of public advertisement of product with no proper indication of notability. Web search didn't yield anything to change this impression (including the 2011 award by some obscure site). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliably sourced references. Created by an SPA as possible promotional article. Dialectric (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I found these sources about Tuleap that seem reliable to me: From a famous French online newspaper : http://www.journaldunet.com/solutions/dsi/les-outils-de-gestion-de-projet-open-source/tuleap.shtml This is an article about open source tools for project management. Tuleap is compared to other tools: Redmine, Mantis and Jira. From the Open World Forum, an fair about free softwares in France:http://openworldforum.org/eng/News/The-2011-OWF-Innovation-Awards-The-finalists There's a website seems to be about the Community : https://tuleap.net/ Not so famous this tool but an interesting one, I tried it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.2.10.49 (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About those references:

"Source : JDN Solutions" discards this source for me.
And so what? Each piece of business software has at least one such award. This doesn't help unless there is a reason making notable all the software receiving this award (this essay is about companies, but the argument still stands).
Primary source to establish notability? Seriously?

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to see that my first article is seen as an advertisement. My aim was just to do a short post about a new free tool I came upon on the web. When I wrote it I tried to be the most objective as possible and look at other articles in the same category as Jira or FusionForge for instance. What can I do to improve it? Thanks. Enoushka —Preceding undated comment added 13:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

By the way, there is a testimony in French from a user in STMicrolectronics, should it help to assess the usage of Tuleap http://www.journaldunet.com/developpeur/temoignage/temoignage/406022/l-alm-tuleap/ --Enoushka (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Software to manage software development projects. Well, that's good readable English, as opposed to "application lifecycle management". But there's still no indication that this software has had significant effects outside the programmer pool, or even in it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I removed "application lifecycle management" and add 2 references at the end of the article. --Enoushka (talk) 17:35, 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 Withdraw nomination, did a slightly different search and found a great many sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Jordan

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

Apart from getting himself shot does not appear all that notable. Only 6 hits on Gnews in 1970 for the killing as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is not a shadow of a doubt that this article should be kept. As a three-term member of the Missouri General Assembly , Leon Jordan meets WP:POLITICIAN and nothing more needs to be said. In addition, he was the most powerful African-American politician in Missouri when he was assassinated over 40 years ago, and his murder is still unsolved and discussed by reliable sources decades later. It would be a travesty to delete this article which instead should be improved and expanded. His relatively common name just requires slightly better research skills. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's fairly well established that State representatives are likely notable, and there's a lot more to this bio than just that. I'm a little worried there needs to be more sourcing, but the subject itself is a keep. Shadowjams (talk) 10:38, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Ellis

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:BAND Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a good bit of searching to try and find sources for this, to no avail - Heavy Bones are just about notable, Cats In Boots might be (there are one or two reviews out there, plus a charted (in Japan) single), but Ellis himself - not so much. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same here. The bands might just scrape notability thanks to one hit wonder status, but the individual does not seem to meet the notability guideline.--SabreBD (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I speedied this earlier today Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks multiple WP:RS to satisfy WP:BAND or even WP:GNG … my attempt to speedy delete the recreation was declined. Happy Editing! — 71.166.140.155 (talk · contribs) _{16:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)}[reply]
Comment by article creator Joel Ellis started his own side project which sold fairly well in the US, not much is know about the band Cats In Boots in the western world I happen to have their first vinyl which was a very big seller at the time. Joel is notable for being the frontman of the ONLY intercontinental rock band in history so an important person. Yothers (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 71.166.140.155. Bzweebl (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The individual clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. Safiel (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet our N guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. I found this interview on Sleazeroxx.com, but the site doesn't meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources. Just not finding coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:28, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Printexpert

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

Non-notable software product. Apparently a custom-built document assembler that was sold to a few clients but never made much of a splash. The only cited links indicate that a trademark was filed, but even that was apparently abandonded. ([3]) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If all articles on non-notable software were as clearly and neutrally written as this one, I wouldn't have so many easy targets. Unfortunately, I find nothing in Google news/books/scholar that looks like a reliable source for this, and it does not seem to have been noted for any technical or other significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Full disclosure - I was managing the team and designed components of this software, however, I am not in anyway currently affiliated with the company or benefit financially from this mention. So I don't know if that is a + for being a reference or a - for having had prior association. Ayazskhan (talk)
Comment: Is your assertion that the software should be "published" and indexed by Google in order to be notable? There are some indirect mentions of the software if you search for PrintExpert and Omaha within Google. Also it is mentioned in a developer's profile. I think the point I am making is that between the Omaha region, various companies, developers geographically distributed in Asia and US, and end-users (Omaha, Kansas City), the product did get sold and used. Does notability have to be global or is regional ok? And does the product have to be sold actively? I cannot verify if it is still sold, however, it may still be used by companies under support. And, I do not have the full list of customers. However, if the information I provided needs to be verifiable with a simple google search, then I understand your assertion for deletion.Ayazskhan (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the maker of this software doesn't have an article by itself, then its software shouldn't have a stand-alone article. Also, I can't find any RS coverage whatsoever. This is the first article by the user who created it. Go easy on him by userfying it. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks. The company mentions it as a service offering. However, if you do a google search for PrintExpert and "Ex-Cel Solutions" you will find 34 unique mentions. The product, the company and its presence is not exactly obscure. I don't know if that makes it notable, however, keep in mind, there was a time when everything was not online. I am sure there are non-pdf documents floating around.Ayazskhan (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no coverage in reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google = notability?Ayazskhan (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – After some searching, not finding coverage in reliable sources to qualify this topic's notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What I claim as verifiable: 1) the company that created the software exists, 2) the software did exist as shown by the USPTO filing, 3) There are linkedIn profiles of people that developed the software and mention it by name, 4) There are 34 independent mentions of the company and software product in Google, 5) The links do indicate the software was used for automating documents.Ayazskhan (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no argument that this software exists (or existed), or that the company that created it exists (or existed). The point here is that mere existence is not the threshold for inclusion at Wikipedia. The software must have been considered notable - that is it must have been a significant development in the history of software or in the history of the company (which would then, itself, need to be notable). Since the software itself does not appear to have been notable (there have been any number of products that performed the same or similar functions), nor does the producing company appear to have been notable, and since no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources has been found, this software does not meet the criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:16, 19 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 without deletion, any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn Village School

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

Non-notable elementary and middle school. Fails WP:ORG Edison (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Auburn,_New_Hampshire#Education. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per usual with middle schools. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Convention with schools such as this one is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable, given the lack of substantial multiple coverage in RSs in gnews and gbooks. It does exist, and has run-of-the-mill coverage, but that does not suffice.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the part of the !vote to delete here has no supporting argument. By that I mean that to delete either the redirect (title) or any of the edit history, we would need to know why the material is objectionable. Lack of notability is only objectionable (i.e., a reason for deletion), when there is no wp:verifiable material to merge, and we also have no place/reason to redirect the title. In this case there is nothing close to such conditions. Unscintillating (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources have been added to the article. Unscintillating (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't matter if a school fails WP:ORG if it passes WP:GNG, this is spelled out in WP:N. I have spent a couple of man days taking an unsourced article to the point that it passes WP:GNG. This has the unfortunate effect of editors saying that sending articles to AfD is a good thing, because the workers work up the article, but the point is that maybe I could have found other discussions that would have been a more-efficient use of my time because of better-prepared nominations, and without a topic for which we never want to use admins deletion tools solely because of notability concerns. Unscintillating (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. WP:GNG tells us that in looking for sources that count towards notability, they "should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." Therefore, I don't believe that the primary sources that you added to the article (e.g., court cases, NH state law, a contract between the school board and the Auburn Education Association) count towards notability. Nor Parent Survey results. Nor run-of-the mill stories (parent threatens student) -- wp:GNG also indicates that the RS articles that count towards notability are those that are "significant coverage". They also have to be "Independent of the subject", and not affiliated with the school or those with a strong connection to it. And they also have to be RSs --it is not clear to me that "Great Schools, Inc" is an RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG notability is the sum of its component parts. None of those references to which the previous poster has objected are strictly primary references, they are also secondary references. For example, although the document is an agreement between the school district and the teacher's union, the publisher of the web page with the document is the state of New Hampshire. From the viewpoint of the State of New Hampshire, this relationship is "worthy of notice". Mentioning the set of knowledge that the previous poster does not have about Great Schools, Inc. is called an argument from an absence of knowledge and IMO does not add to the discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you agree that primary sources do not count towards notability. Are you suggesting that court decisions -- such as what you added -- are secondary source, substantial, independent RS coverage that confer notability? NH state law? A contract between the school board and the Auburn Education Association? I don't see any basis whatsoever for that. Quite the opposite. Court decisions are identified clearly as "primary sources". Same with laws. Same with "tabulated results of surveys". See WP:PRIMARY. Also -- on what basis, if it is your assertion, do you believe that the Great Schools, Inc. refs are independent, secondary source, RS coverage?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG mentions "secondary sources". There is a difference in wp:notability between a legal agreement published by the Auburn School District (or the Auburn Education Association), and the same document published by the State of New Hampshire. Is there any room to disagree here? The real question is, if WP:GNG notability is the sum of its component parts, how much weight gets assigned for this source. Unscintillating (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has sufficient claim to notability to pass GNG and many refs, although not the best. I've never heard of a modern public elementary school contracting with a private high school to take all of its graduates. Although schools should not need to be unique or "special" to be in WP, this one claim should be enough to pass the higher bar being set by those proposing deletion of most school articles. In addition, there is already too much encyclopedic information to fit into the proposed target locality.--Hjal (talk) 18:03, 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMO, the satisfaction of WP:GNG notability here comes from the variety of sources that come at this topic from many directions. This all exists without reference to the WP:NRVE material that exists in the 60 years of history that are not available on the internet. Were it the case that these sources fell short of meeting WP:GNG, I'd still be making the point that the material here is better handled as a stand alone article, as WP:N is only a guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. particularly per Epeefleche - The majority of the source added here are primary the few secondary sources describe particular incidents and the school is only incidentally the location of these (still minor) incidents. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school board. The "references" are for ordinary mentions in newspapers. All schools win titles every now and then and get some local coverage. That doesn't make them notable as their scope is solely local. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge valid, referenced information (from secondary and tertiary sources) to Auburn,_New_Hampshire#Education, and then create a redirect. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 26 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Mulligan

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

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Meets WP:NSPORT Generally acceptable standards "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". In this case, he played for the Ireland national Australian rules football team, which is the highest level of competition for Australian rules football.
The article is currently very weak, with a lack of sourcing to substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, so I see a case for merging it to a list until more sources are found. But the subject is notable, so the page and its history should not be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sorry about the copy paste from other ones. After the second one, I realised I wasn't going to write up each individual vote. The tournament is the major international amateur competition for Australian rules football, which uses a modified rule set to allow the game to be more readily adapted for use where Australian rules isn't as popular. The tournament is televised in Australia and receives media coverage in the Herald Sun and The Age. It is also covered on the AFL's website. It is likely that if these sources were searched, this player would be mentioned. It passes WP:NSPORT and there is a possibility it may pass WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the AFL International Cup is purely a development league played by amateurs and is a much lower level of play than most suburban leagues, it is nowhere near the "highest level of competition for Australian rules football". None of the references provided are significant coverage in major independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Shortall

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

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NSPORT Generally acceptable standards "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". In this case, he played for the Ireland national Australian rules football team, which is the highest level of competition for Australian rules football.
The article is currently very weak, with a lack of sourcing to substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, so I see a case for merging it to a list until more sources are found. But the subject is notable, so the page and its history should not be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sorry about the copy paste from other ones. After the second one, I realised I wasn't going to write up each individual vote. The tournament is the major international amateur competition for Australian rules football, which uses a modified rule set to allow the game to be more readily adapted for use where Australian rules isn't as popular. The tournament is televised in Australia and receives media coverage in the Herald Sun and The Age. It is also covered on the AFL's website. It is likely that if these sources were searched, this player would be mentioned. It passes WP:NSPORT and there is a possibility it may pass WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the AFL International Cup is purely a development league played by amateurs and is a much lower level of play than most suburban leagues, it is nowhere near the "highest level of competition for Australian rules football". None of the references provided are significant coverage in major independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SC Bor

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

Seems to be a small sports arena in a small town for a local team. Don't see how this can pass WP:GNG. GrainyMagazine (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What does SC stand for? I wouldn't automatically assume its not notable, we just want to make sure we search on the right terms before concluding its not.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's worth noting that an arena of the same size in an English-speaking country would probably be considered notable; for example, consider the arenas at Template:USHL Arenas, which are about the same size. Granted, this article has no references and I can't find any, but since any references are probably in Serbian they may be hard to find. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Are there sources to meet WP:GNG? If not much else is found on this subject, it would be more suitable to merge and redirect to Bor, Serbia.—Bagumba (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SC stands for "Sportski centar" (Sport center), so the article should be moved to Sport Center Bor. Judging on Google, they (used to) have a detailed web page, http://www.sportskicentarbor.com, however This domain name expired on 01/21/2012 and is pending renewal or deletion. There are plenty of references (or better, mentions), all in Serbian. [4], [5], [6], [7], though most of them are local. Based on size and local importance, I suppose it is just barely notable to pass GNG. No such user (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per No such user. While I'm just about on the fence with this, I'm going to AGF it based on the mentions in those sources. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Delete per my comment below. The original creator made a slew of questionably-notable basketball arenas with little to no sources, and this one in particular doesn't exactly scream notable. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For what it's worth, the user who created this AfD in question also created Sports Hall Smederevo, SRC Kraljevica, SRC Dubočica and Sc slana bara (before it was redirected). Now I'm starting to hear kittens meowing. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bor, Serbia Source #1 (mentioned above by No such user) is not WP:INDEPENDENT, produced by the arena. Source #2 is a press release from the arena. Source #3 has an excerpt with a trivial mention of the arena, with a dead link to the supposed full article. Source #4 is more about the airport than the arena, and is not significant coverage. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The meowing is loud on my side as well. Merge and redirect to the article on the city in the interest of WP:PRESERVE. Otherwise, delete.—Bagumba (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Source #1 is by local Radio television Zaječar, about financial troubles of the center, and it was only uploaded to Vimeo by the arena. Still, taken together, the level of coverage is as could be expected for an arena of a mid-size town; probably much more exist in archives of paper editions of local media. I don't, however, have an issue with merging this poor kitten somewhere, as it's rather unlikely that a good soul will expand it one day to a reasonable level of detail. Even the Bor, Serbia article is in rather poor condition. No such user (talk) 13:38, 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, v/r - T P 01:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jacob Biamonte

}

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uniblue Systems Limited

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

Previous page Uniblue was speedy deleted as g11/a7. Meat/sock puppet recreated under this new name. Is borderline notable and borderline advert. Rather than just re-speedy, I thought I would nominate and get consensus. Related meat/sock puppets have created pages for all of the products by this company, which lends weight to the advert ruling imo, but I will abide with consensus of course. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:SPEEDY § g11 as unambiguous advertising or promotion. I took time to port references to WP:CS2 format (for ease of fact-checking) and performed actual fact-checking (the results can be seen in this revision). I found no reference to establish company's global notability and long-term impact on world's or at least some industry's history. I would also note, that the article, which was written two days ago, multiple times claims that Uniblue Systems Limited is Microsoft Gold Certified Partner, but in fact the company is not listed as such. Overall— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uniblue is note worthy in my opinion. They have been featured in mainstream news like CNN . I investigated the company and they are Microsoft certified as claimed . The link to this is on the original article and also via link on their site ( which leads to Microsoft owned site with their partnership details . From a local perspective they are quite big ( Malta ) they were visited by our prime minister too. Their libraries are extremely valuable to pc specialists like myself in fact processlibrary.com is considered the benchmark referance for all processes on a pc and was named by pcmag as a top 100 classic site. The company also created localcooling.com ( this isn't mentioned or featured on the article or wikipedia and I think it should) . Their rankings on alexa also should be noted. In short I believe they should stay 212.65.121.202 (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please provide a proof link to the Gold Certified membership at least: I went the way you did it and came to the same results as I did before: Microsoft doesn't list them. About local perspective: sure you can find a perspective where they are quite big. Eg. from theirs. An refargding the PCMag ref: ProcessLibrary.com indeed was listed in one of PC Mags Top 100 lists, rated #74. But what does this fact have to do with Uniblue's notability? PC Mag doesn't even mention the company. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:33, 13 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, JohnCD (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No response from 212.65.121.202 since the deletion period. The article is stained with failed verification templates. The thing is though, I saw an ad on one of the products on TV. If consensus is made for Keep, a complete rewrite is mandatory for this article. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding the reliable sources here. And, as noted, it appears to be advertising. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After searching, not finding coverage in reliable sources (RS) for this topic. There are many mentions in blogs and many news releases, but not coverage in RS. Furthermore, Google Books searches include passing mentions: [8], [9], but not much else. However, if IP user 212.65.121.202 is able to provide the sources they claim, (per the comment above in this discussion), then this !vote can change. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:53, 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, and recommend pruning the article the conform to WP:BLP standards. Der yck C. 18:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Kamm

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:PERP. there is coverage to confirm he is a convicted sex offender but that's not enough to make an article. a namesake before his time appears in gnews [10]. there are huge WP:BLP concerns here with the number of grandiose uncited claims in the article. LibStar (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - apparently a religious group leader and an offender which all makes him notable.--Avala (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no it does not satisfy WP:BIO and WP:PERP. you have failed to say how it does. LibStar (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added three book sources to the article; together with the newspaper articles already included, warrants a clear pass of WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PERP and there is nothing in the article or sources that otherwise show he passes WP:GNG. Jance day (talk) 22:28, 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 talk}_{about my edits?} 18:40, 9 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) 11:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I know nothing of him, but probably notable for being notorious. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this vote makes zero attempt to address how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/rework into an article on the organization he heads, which is already the focus of much of the article anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no reliable sources in this BLP that prove he's notable, and I don't know of any that can be found easily. One other problem is that there was a baseball player with the same name, c. 1922. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources? Well, there's Snow's Deadly Crimes of True Believers, from the reputable educational publisher Greenwood Publishing Group, which devotes a couple of pages (110 and 111) to Kamm and his prophecies. There's Di Lauros' Through a Glass Darkly, from Sydney University Press, which analyses the effect of Kamm's personal charisma on the formation of the Charbel cult. Then there's King of the Stings from an imprint of Melbourne University Press, which also has a couple of pages (158 and 159) covering Kamm's biography and career as a self-proclaimed prophet. There's a biographical entry on Kamm in Melton's Religions of the World, a Comprehensive Encyclopedia, Vol. 4 (this one isn't in the article, I'll grant you that). You might also want to work through the not inconsiderable amount of news coverage. How exactly are you struggling to find sources? Yunshui 雲‍水 23:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Yunshiu has shown, there are plenty of sources. Here is a link to the chapter that deals with Kamm from the book "Through a Glass Darkly" published by Sydney University Press. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but ideally merge into not-yet-existing Order of St. Charbel, which better fits the relevant notability guidelines. William Kamm (barely) satisfies WP:BIO for coverage in multiple books, newspapers, etc., but not the more specific WP:PERP, in my view. --NTox · talk 17:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citric acid intolerance

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

I think this page is all original research. I could find no paper in google scholar, pubmed, or scopus about citric acid intolerance. Apinkcupboard (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are some book and scholar sources for "citric acid allergy" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Nothing pubmed though. --Lambiam 21:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This could be moved to Citric acid allergy, userfied, or cleaned up. There are popular-medicine stories about Citric acid intolerance -- but it does not appear to be recognized by the literature. The rest is original research. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:55, 9 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) 11:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself admits, right in the lead sentence, that this supposed syndrome is "little known". That's pretty much the definition of non-notable or not well established, isn't it? The only evidence offered to support this concept is a couple of websites where "some people" report various vague reactions under what are clearly uncontrolled circumstances. --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a recognised medical condition. Even as an unrecognised medical condition that some people think they have, it's not notable.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:45, 24 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Air Academy Federal Credit Union

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

WP:NN Jab843 (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This article definitely needs some good references and cleanup, but I think the topic is notable enough to warrant its own page. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:GNG. See this for coverage in multiple sources. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost all the sources listed there are utter trivia. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:58, 9 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) 11:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup per MyNameWasTaken. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Storyway

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

Storyway does not seem terribly significant WP:NN. The German Wikipedia does not contain an article on the topic, and it seems out of place here. Jab843 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Jab843 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was originally about a South Korean chain of convenience stores. It was hijacked to be about a German blog. The original article has been restored. No opinion about the notability of this business. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:02, 9 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) 11:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. Such coverage as I have found for the Korean chain store all seems to be press releases announcing routine transactions.[11][12][13] Machine translation suggests that this convenience store focuses on mass transit train stations and has a relationship with those railroads. This business may have some kind of cultural or historic significance in Korea that I am not finding because I can't identify the string that names the business in Korean or search on it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:28, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Duncan

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

articel has not been improved for sometime only information that is given related directly back to Mr. Duncan and his students. Tenteisai 18:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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 2. Snotbot t • c » 18:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no doubt this article needs additional work, but I believe someone with access to old martial arts magazines would be able to find multiple mentions of him. I just added one from Black Belt magazine stating he was one the first black martial arts instructors in the U.S. Papaursa (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although I accept BBMAG as a generally reliable source, I am not convinced of their reliability concerning Ninjutsu. I believed they published what the market would buy, not necessarily what was verified or academically acceptable. jmcw (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The article doesn't show me that he meets any of the notability criteria. I might change my mind if more reliable sources are provided. Mdtemp (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the problem there are no reliable sources for Mr. Duncan. I'm sure he maybe a great instructor but the facts are he has no legitmate standing in the martial arts world as he has no real evidence to support his claims to Kogo/Koka ryu ninjutsu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenteisai (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It seems like he should be notable--I get a lot of ghits for him. However, I'm having trouble finding reliable sources or seeing how he passes WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 19:13, 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:38, 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 no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation Park (Pennsylvania State University)

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

A non-notable business park attached to Penn State University; the article's only source is the business park's own website, and the text is largely an advertisement for the park's benefits. Google News and Books turn up no significant mentions in non-PSU sources, nor any specific claim to notability. Khazar (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the nominator's concern about advertising content, I would be inclined to keep this article simply because independent media seems to treat Innovation Park as the sort of notable place that's generally kept under criteria such as WP:NPLACE. See for example the many GNews results at [14] and [15]. I agree that the promotional content should be cleaned up.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:57, 9 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 9. Snotbot t • c » 21:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Significant coverage in a primary source does not establish notability. Other coverage not found. Unremarkable land area; such land areas have been similarly set up by other postsecondary institutions.Curb Chain (talk) 07:19, 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that the common search term would be "Penn State" and not "Pennsylvania State University". Using this search, independent coverage can be found. [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. I have not checked out these sources, and I am not claiming the subject is notable, so this is not a vote to keep. Logical Fuzz (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didier Castell-Jacomin

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

Non-notable person. Checked for ghits in English and French, nothing reliable found. The one source in the article is to a blog. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be fair, I just reduced this new article to a stub, as it had been contributed entirely in French (a copy of the French Wikipedia article). I also suggested to its author to build it up from there (in English). I reckon this should be achievable, as there are linked articles which can help source, in particular this 2009 article in La Depeche, and to a lesser extent a brief review and Q&A. He also played at the Carnegie Hall (Weill Recital Room) with a string quartet under the auspices of the Bulgarian Embassy: [21].AllyD (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No RS provided. And La Dépêche du Midi is a regional newspaper which I think can't be considered a RS.Farhikht (talk) 11:17, 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just looking at the cited references, none appears reliable or substantial or even topically relevant enough to form the basis of a biography. Sandstein 11:10, 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 delete. Sandstein 11:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OS.js

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

Non-notable software - no references found in reliable sources. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Web operating system: it seems to make sense to collect the software of a kind there (as well as Pyro Desktop, see AfD discussion). Note: I was the one to decline the PROD with the similar concern expressed in edit summary. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Web operating system shouldn't be used a dumping ground for listing all kinds of non-notable examples. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like a clearer delete than the Pyro Desktop one I nominated (and is linked above). I simply don't see the notability here. Shadowjams (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldnt find any reason why subject is notable. Per AndrewWTaylor, I'm inclined to suggest that long lists of non-notable examples is unencyclopedic. The other problem is what are the inclusion criteria for these lists? If there are barely any sources that we can use to justify a stand-alone article, as in the present case, how can we assess the subject for inclusion in a list? Pit-yacker (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no coverage in reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – After some searching, not finding coverage in reliable sources. There are directory and blog listings and commentary, such as this blog, but not finding coverage to qualify this topic's notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pyro Desktop AfD discussion outcome and WP:SNOW. As I was the only supported of this article, this discussion can be closed right now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:39, 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) B music ian 06:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bhabua Road

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

Deprodded without comment. No sources, no notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:50, 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 17. Snotbot t • c » 10:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a railway station and seems to have adequate notability. There are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger to the locality or railway line - the famous Grand Chord. Warden (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article currently has sources. A significant part of this !vote is in assuming good faith that the book sources cited in the article include coverage about the topic:

Choudhury, Pranab Chandra Roy (1965). Temples and legends of Bihar. Bhavan's book university. Vol. 127. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.
Rushbrook Williams, L. F. (1982). A handbook for travellers in India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka (Ceylon) (22nd ed.). Facts on File. ISBN 9780871966261.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a railway station serving a city of over 30,000 population. Such a station would never be up for AfD if it was in the US or UK. --Oakshade (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IN general all public railway stations are notable. Canterbury Tail talk 02:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lutein-free_diet

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

non-notable and untested and possibly dangerous diet

Delete No notability - no mention in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is a reliable source that highlights the need for this diet in susceptible individuals, data about it can first be added to the lutein article. --IO Device (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 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 redirect to West Pymble, New South Wales#Schools. Sandstein 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Perpetual Succour Catholic Primary School

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

Primary school, Kindergarten to Year 6. Review of gbooks and gnews fails to turn up multiple, notable, substantial, non-run-of-the-mill, independent RS coverage (note -- there are other schools by the same name elsewhere). 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) 08:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche - as you have indicated you wish to delete this page, please give detailed and thoroughly researched reasons why it should be deleted, the above comments are simple generic comments

the comments about school with a similar name has no bearing on the article whatsoever

this article was put together by the students of the school , and it deletion would only have a devastating effect on them Banjopat talk 08:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I performed a wp:before search. I read everything that came up in it. I read every source in the article. I read the article itself. I failed to find multiple, notable, substantial, non-run-of-the-mill, independent RS coverage. I understand the general practice at wp with Primary-6 schools (such as this one) that lack what I failed to find is that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article at the Project. My comment which you indicate "had no bearing", as to schools with a same name in different countries, was just to help other editors who arrive at this page, who will themselves perform similar searches, by flagging for them the fact that their initial search results (depending how they construct them) may yield schools that bear the same name as the one at issue but which are not the same school. By the way -- what is your connection to the school, if any? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to West Pymble, New South Wales, notability not established to warrant a stand-alone article. Wikipedia is not a school web host. WWGB (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to West Pymble, New South Wales, as above.Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. The article does not appear to merit a standalone article. There is useful encyclopaedic information here which, rather than be deleted, should be added to the West Pymble page in the schools section. Dahliarose (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above given that there's no sign of the relevant notability guideline (WP:ORG) being met. Nick-D (talk) 09:04, 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 delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon Music Exclusive

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

This article has no sources. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 05:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Time-filling promotional music videos for the network's musical artists with no notability beyond filling three minutes a Nestle's commercial couldn't. Definite Nickcruft. Nate • (chatter) 08:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too crufty, no independent notability as a stand-alone "product". Dennis Brown (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to verify if this short is notable. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 16:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 17:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 17:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – After several searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Short videos that only show to help fill a time slot. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel (West Africa)

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

Fails to provide sources that this channel even exists or will exist. JayJay^{Talk to me} 04:51, 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) 16:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Cabaret Metro 10-5-88

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

Does not appear to be notable: Google searched and does not appear in any notable charts nor is it reviewed by any significant publications. LF (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JayJay^{Talk to me} 04:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Does not meet most of WP:GNG. 71.246.200.190 (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 17:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only seems to get coverage on fansites and messageboards, not in reliable, third party sources. Sergecross73 msg me 18:23, 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 delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Siamese Singles

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

Does not appear to be notable: Google searched and has not been reviewed by any major publications or featured in any notable charts. LF (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 17:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for track-listing-only articles. This one serves only to justify abuse of a fair-use image in the infobox.—Kww(talk) 11:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only seems to get coverage on fansites and messageboards, not in reliable, third party sources. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 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) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Zamora

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

I think this is a pretty clear case of WP:1E Kevin (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I think a rename would be appropriate not delete JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per below JayJay^{Talk to me} 19:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This rises above the usual single-event as her life story was adapted into the movie Swearing Allegiance in addition to the crush of news coverage. - Dravecky (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - beyond one event.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:44, 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. (non-admin closure) B music ian 06:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees

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

This is trivial. Age isn't related to ability to appear on film. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extensive media coverage of oldest [22][23][24] and youngest[25][26] Oscar winners shows that these intersections are notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see anything wrong with this article JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I strongly oppose this proposed deletion. These are milestones that are routinely reported by the media in reliable sources. In fact, the Academy itself (AMPAS) — the most reliable of any source, in this particular subject — keeps a running log of this information at their official website. The age statistics are continually reported, sourced, maintained, and updated by the Academy. Also, contrary to the comment made by Justin (koavf) above ... age is indeed pertinent when it comes to winning an Academy Award (and, thus, by extension, when it comes to performing in a film). Winning an Academy Award is the highest honor that an actor can achieve ... and it is very notable (to say the least). Thus, being the oldest person or the youngest person to do so ... is that much more notable! Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Keep- The nomination is not a reason for deletion. Bzweebl (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It is trivial, but it does have plenty of real-world coverage. As a side note, the year column should really link to the ceremony, and not the year in film. Lugnuts (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done It does now! :) For An Angel (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one! Lugnuts (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether a list is trivial -- the gravamen of the complaint -- will necessarily always be subjective. But here we have some objective data that belies that description -- 19,000 views in the last month. And, as indicated above, it is something the RS media focuses on. A good example of why -- however heart-felt our own feelings may be -- we have to look for objective indicia in matters such as this one.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If people want to find out this information (and it's pretty clear that they do), it should be kept Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as no one but nominator is saying to delete and besides "trivial" is subjective. --WR Reader (talk) 23:45, 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 Redirected to Hard (music festival). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Destructo (dj)

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

I was going to just move the article to Gary Richards (DJ) but in the end, there is only one article remotely talking about him, and it doesn't use the name Destucto, or mention Nitrus or 1500 Records. For a biography, this is unacceptable. wp:n Dennis Brown (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 11 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, B music ian 02:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard (band)

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

Deprodded without comment. No non-trivial sources found. Nothing on Gnews or Gbooks at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The band has articles on 8 wikis, that would be highly unusual for a non-notable band. I am sure they are frequently covered in the major metal news sources, which I avoid at all costs usually.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Milowent, as a belated Valentine's gift you could have Kerrang forwarded to my address. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint, sweetie.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nine albums, five of which also have :en:WP articles? Now the current state for sourcing might be poor, but the nominator is going to need to show better evidence than merely wikt:whining about their prod being removed before they make a credible nomination for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, did you not see the thing about "no sources"? In case you missed it, I FOUND NO SOURCES. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that you look. On this or other articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please lay off the attacks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that you look. On this or other articles.

TenPoundHammer. I also don't believe that you look. I became aware of your pattern of behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xargs where it literally took me seconds to find what you claimed to be unable to find. In my opinion, this pattern of behavior is destructive to the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a couple of refs. Took me under two minutes. "Wizard" obviously doesn't work for a search, but the names of band members or albums usually do - just skip the first page to get past Amazon and musicbrainz. OK, they're not great refs and they wouldn't support an extraordinary claim that the Dalai Lama was in a fist fight with Brian Blessed, but within the genre of popular metal bands they're entirely appropriate.

You have made a career of deleting WP articles. Your prior search technique to show lack of notability is clearly inadequate. Either through lack of effort, competence (claiming "Nothing on Gnews of Gbooks for Wizard" is hardly adequate) or simply because you're unprepared to slow down your essential race to delete articles. Are you some sort of WP:WikiShark? If you don't get to delete ten articles a day, do you drown? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "sources" you've added are both interviews, which per WP:BAND #1 are not enough to support an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So spend more than the two minutes I did and add some better ones. You claimed there are no sources, I found some within seconds.

Besides which, before citing WP:BAND#1 to claim that interviews are not sources, then you might do well to actually read WP:BAND#cite_note-selfpromo-0. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ~~WP:BEFORE~~ WP:BAND #5 (notable label). Eight interwiki links and five albums with individual articles. Nominator has a pretty bad track record when it comes to trying to find sources before nominating articles for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICCF Finland), so I'm not going to trust him on that. —Ruud 12:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - why "Eight interwiki links" is a valid reason to keep article? Bulwersator (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm usually quite quick to censure TPH in such cases so it seems only fair to get in his corner when he has a point. As the nomination points out, there doesn't seem to be much on Google News or Google Books for this band, and so WP:BEFORE has been followed. And, as they've been around for some years, the lack of book coverage indicates that they haven't really made it. The existence of album articles doesn't help because that seems to be just more of the same - unsupported fanac. And inter-wikilinks aren't much better because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Warden (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get plenty of hits on Google News and Google Books. Because "Wizard" is such a generic term none of the top results are relevant, however. This does not mean there are no sources there. You also imply that Google Books and Google News are appropriate search engines for finding sources about bands, which sounds like a doubtful claim at best. A quick look on their last.fm profile reveals they have a decent amount of listeners and are in the line-up of Hammerfest. There are probably sources in more specialized publications. —Ruud 16:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One obviously has to use other keywords besides the word wizard and I used the name of the founder. For comparison, if one searches Google Books using the words Wizzard Roy Wood, you get about 800 hits. last.fm doesn't cut it as a source because it seems to be edited by its readership, like Wikipedia, and its content just seems to say "1. A German heavy metal band." That's barely enough to support a mention in List of heavy metal bands, which does not currently include this one. Warden (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I suggest using last.fm as a source? I suggested it 1) as a starting point for finding sources and 2) as a means to establish notability. Their listening statistics probably a more objective criteria for this than TPH's (or, for that matter, my) Google skills.

If I search Google Books for "Catamenia Riku Hopeakoski" (quotation marks not included) I don't get any hits either, raising more doubt about its usefulness for finding sources on bands. —Ruud 17:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catamenia Riku Hopeakoski gets 8 hits on Google News. They don't seem very high quality but it's something. And when I look at the Wikipedia article, I have to curb the urge to nominate it for deletion. I suppose the content in this article has been scraped from the band's own sites and so is essentially promotional in nature. And the trouble is that it is so uncontrolled that you could hide any amount of misinformation or BLP violation in there. WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTPROMOTION. Warden (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIA... Did you know some people might actually want to find out who the drummer was in that band they listened to at Wacken Open Air? —Ruud 19:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please lay off the attacks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you think "keep" just because the ALBUMS have articles? Maybe they're not notable either. Because PROBABLY there are sources? Don't make a baseless argument please. I searched for "Wizard" + the name of various band members and found absolutely nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you failed to address the existence of these articles in your rationale, implying you didn't exercise due diligence before nominating this article, as the fate of the articles on the individual albums clearly should be tied to this article. —Ruud 17:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)did you try the unfortunately nicknamed "snoppi"? That one led me to metal website articles like [27] (which amusingly cites the Manowar comparison in our article) [28] [29] [30][31][32][33] [34], etc. Now, I am not familiar with these metal music websites, but man this is a lot of stuff.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are just interviews. Per WP:BAND #1, you'll need more than that ("except for the following[…]publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves"). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That clause refers to press releases and advertisements, not interviews. —Ruud 18:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Just interviews"? What happened to "found absolutely nothing?" Once I searched "snoppi" and wizard the hits just blossomed.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, due to a lack of reliable sources. If there are some out there, as claimed, I'd advise you add them to the article, pronto. Oh, and saying "this band's albums have articles so they must be notable" is a non-starter as the album articles are also unreferenced and lacking notability. I'd suggest to the nominator to also take them to AFD. Giant Snowman 17:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the band's article is deleted, the albums can be speedied via A9. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has been improved & band looks to be notable. Giant Snowman 21:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Their page on their label's site [35] verifies that they have released 2 albums with them, which would seem to meet WP:BAND #5 at least. From their site [36], I can find several reviews of their albums, but I don't know enough about Germany's metal scene to figure out which, if any, of those reviews are from notable reviewers.Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found one review from a site called The Pit, and was able to get the gist from both Google Translate and two years of struggling through college German. Still on the fence with this one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Enough albums on significant-enough labels, coverage found borderline (I found a review from SLUG Magazine), but I'd give it the benefit of the doubt.--Michig (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep there seems to be enough coverage of them Bouket (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to apologize to both Ruud and Andy for being coarse with them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to delete this article under WP:IDONTLIKEIT - but I don't, because I accept that it has value to other people. There has to be more to this project than achieving some sense of personal worth by finding "stuff that can be done" and doing it regardless of whether that makes a positive contribution or not. This article was unreferenced, so (by some written policy somewhere) it ought to have been deleted within milliseconds. Yet why would that be useful? I'd have done my chunk of serious admin bizniz for the day, but would that really contribute to the sum of human happiness? This is a relatively unimportant article (it's not gravity, cheese or Leonardo da Vinci) and it will never be more than that. It needs the best references that contemporary metaller culture can provide for it (work on improving articles by sourcing is indeed an improvement), but this isn't going to have to start like Principia Mathematica and spend most of a chapter first proving the existence of metal, Germany and drummers. A sense of proportion is more important than slavish following of whatever opportunity the rules provide to exercise that delete button. Thanks though for your last comment, it's appreciated. Andy Dingley (talk)

Delete - I looked at the sources as Grandmartin11 did and don't feel that it adds up to even a weak keep. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears that Massacre Records is notable enough (look at their list of artists) to qualify per Band 5 (signaled above by Grandmartin). Drmies (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wow, articles on several other Wikipedias? When has being a Wikipedia article ever been a reliable source? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Last year (2011) Wizard played shows in Ireland (Dublin, Cork), they played in Slovenia as Coheadliner for Destruction, in czech republic they were coheadliner for Mr.Big on a very big festival, they played in netherland and in germany (e.g. support for Manowar on the Lorelei). This year they play in Wales on Hammerfest (Prystatin, near Manchester) at 19:00 o'clock on main stage right before Amon Amarth, in may they headline a festival in USA (near Chicago) together with Virgin Steele, they also play again in czech republic as headliner. Wizard played all important german festivals like Wacken open air (mainstage!!), Bang your head or Headbangers open air. Beside that Wizard were on tour with Grave Digger and played in other countries like greece, italy and poland. Wizard worked together with authors like Andre Wiesler, Wolfgang Hohlbein and William B. Nuke.

Wizard are signed by B.O. records (1 album), LMP (e.g. Rhapsody) and now (the last three albums) Massacre records. Can't believe this discussion that Wizard should be not worth noticed in Wikipedia ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.56.59.8 (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And Place Editing Restrictions on Nominator. As several commentator have noted, TenPoundHammer has a long history of somehow not being able to find sources during deletion discussions that others are able to find in minutes. Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xargs for an especially egregious example of this. I am unsure which noticeboard would be most appropriate, but he should be restricted from nominating or prodding articles until he can demonstrate an ability to conduct a thorough search for sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 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 delete. None of the Keep votes give any policy-based reason for keeping, there is a major issue with users using these articles to avoid previous AfDs, and the articles are major NFCC violations. Black Kite (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 in kickboxing

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

Article is just a compilation of kickboxing results from various fight cards. There's no indication of notability--in fact, many of these were recreations of articles that were already removed. Examples include all of the SuperKombat events (especially since the organization was found not notable) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (3rd nomination), the United Glory fights (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Glory 11: A Decade of Fights), WAKO-Pro events (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wako-Pro World Grand Prix 2011: Romania vs Italy (2nd nomination), etc. There's no indication of notability--it's like listing an entire season of results for any pro sport--every event is not notable. This seems like an attempt to get around the AfDs.

I am also nominating the following related page because it also just a listing of results with no indication of notability:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Would anyone consider this notable enough to divide it? 71.246.200.190 (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. Many of these were individual articles that were deleted via AfD. In 2011 dozens of articles on kickboxing events were deleted as non-notable. Many "It's Showtime" articles were also deleted last year, in addition to the examples I provided in the nomination. Stringing previously deleted articles together doesn't make the resultant article notable. Papaursa (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These events are notable in kickboxing. Why It's Showtime and K1 would be deleted when they are the biggest events of this sport? They are televised and broadcasted in multiple countries (including on Eurosport). --FavorLaw (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both I don't see that any of these events pass WP:SPORTSEVENT. That's why so many of them were deleted when they were individual articles. Mdtemp (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it interesting that these two articles were done almost exclusively by new users Thai Striker and Thai Land F. Both of these users started editing after WolffReik (who kept copies of deleted kickboxing articles in his user space) and his sockpuppets were indefinitely banned for numerous instances of sockpuppeting on the AfD discussions related to kickboxing. Mdtemp (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These articles are there to stop small, individual pages for events popping up all over the place like the MMA articles. Also, only the most notable and significant kickboxing events are listed and are well sourced. Thai Striker (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page and the 2012 one are very well-written and make it very easy to find out what happpened and what will happen in Kickboxing every year. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All that I see is a list of results, thus failing WP:ROUTINE. There's nothing that shows any of these events are notable. Papaursa (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles contain WP:ROUTINE coverage of WP:SPORTSEVENT and Wikipedia is WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Individually, none of the events pass WP:GNG as noted by their past individual AfD discussions. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Biggest events of the year are listed on these articles. If you are tend to delete them, you MUST delete Kick Boxing, Muay Thai, and even Boxing, too. C'mon, dare it...

Delete both These events fail WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:ROUTINE. In addition, many of them were previously deleted (as Papaursa pointed out). I don't understand the previous editor's comment--why would deleting a compilation of non-notable events require the deletion of articles on well known martial arts disciplines? Astudent0 (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These events do not fall under WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:ROUTINE. They are not "run-of the-mill" or "everyday" events, only the biggest and historically significant events are listed here. If pages such as this are allowed, then why not the kickboxing pages? Also, what is the difference between these pages and the UFC events which all have single pages for each event? Thai Striker (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since some of these events were deleted as individual articles it's already been determined that they fail WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:ROUTINE. You're also using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Frankly, if I were king I'd get rid of the UFC event articles that don't feature championship fights, but that's a battle I'm not starting. Papaursa (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I subscribe: "Biggest events of the year are listed on these articles. If you are tend to delete them, you MUST delete Kick Boxing, Muay Thai, and even Boxing, too."! We must find an agreement considering some unimportant MMA organizations have even individual pages! This is also a sport and should be mentioned. The events are not listed, please accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thai Land F (talk • contribs) 08:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have removed the non-free images from the article. Regardless of whether the article is notable or not, galleries of non-free images in list articles are totally disallowed per WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFLISTS, etc. Black Kite (talk) 00:47, 24 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Myoma Myint Kywe

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

A Burmese author of questionable notability. He appears to have won a couple of awards from the Burmese government. The only reliable source is The New Light of Myanmar, a jingoistic mouthpiece of the government, which just includes him in the list of winners. I'm not convinced of the notability of the awards, and there is no significant coverage of the subject. The article has been the subject of continuing edits by anonymous editors inserting unsourced and incorrect information. Given his borderline notability I think we might be better off without this article. Pburka (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be surprised if the anonymous editors are connected with the subject, having access to non published information. Due to thin coverage on topics from Burma, I would vote keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[37] on an unrelated matter claims to be the subject in an however it's not clear to me it's related to any of the IPs editing here. Nil Einne (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is sort of interesting. I would guess that Myint Kywe would not himself be fooling around with the wikis. He seems a bit too respectable for that. It is probably just some kids playing a game. The note you find could be genuine, or could be disinformation. For AfD purposes we have to ignore all the activity anyway. The question is just whether the subject is notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The New Light of Myanmar is the main source, not exactly unbiased, but presumably accurate in reporting the prizes. Blog-type sources seem to confirm authorship of various books. Presumably Burmese sources would give more detail. For Burma, this guy has solid web coverage. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak keep. I'm striking my delete vote per arguments by Aymatth2 and changing to weak keep. Bgwhite (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the blog-type sources and other is that they all appear to be associated with Myoma Myint Kywe. I think Myoma Myint Kywe is mounting a web campaign to get his name noticed. Everything from Yahoo answers, Hug Answer, dermatology review site and my favorite, a book review that has nothing to do With Myoma Myint Kywe, but the anonymous postings are chalk full of him and his father, including copy/paste of what has been on Wikipedia. If there is a wiki site on the web, he is on it and it is a posting of the earlier Wikipedia article. I counted atleast 35 people "honored" for awards in the newspaper article. So, what do we have, internet sources appearing to be all of Myoma Myint Kywe's work and a story from the government's mouth piece saying he won an award. He clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the military government announced in 2004 that he had won an award, and in 2007 that he had won another. In 2011 there was some sort of Myint Kywe awareness campaign. Men and women of letters will be dutiful to [the] nation only if their works serve public interest. Internal and external elements [are] resorting to various means to tarnish Myanmar’s image It is time to compile [a] mass of literary works designed to rebut various forms of accusations and made-up stories created at home or abroad. Interesting. I am inclined to say "watch this space". Certainly there is no urgency to delete it. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article about a 2011 awareness campaign. The article has been around for two years. How much longer should we watch? All we know about him is that he won two awards the help stop the, "the fabricating of stories, slanderous news and groundless accusations against Myanmar through Western media to mislead the international community into misunderstanding the nation." Bgwhite (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Sarpay Beikman. These are the most prestigious literary awards in Burma. They are awarded by a division of the Ministry of Information and the works have to support party aims, promote patriotism and so on. They are reported in government-owned media. Welcome to Burma. If, as you say, there is a web campaign to promote the guy on English-language sites, that suggests there may be more going on. But the awards alone are enough to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) B music ian 06:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surat Ikramov

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

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable biography. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ikramov is one of Uzbekistan’s leading human-rights defenders, and I can find plenty [38], [39], [40], [41] of articles after a brief search to support the subject's inclusion. SaveATreeEatAVegan 10:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per significant coverage in reliable sources:

"Uzbekistan: The Court recognized human rights activist Surat Ikramov guilty of insult and defamation". Ferghana News Agency. September 29, 2010. Retrieved February 17, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Surat Ikramov: The judicial and legal reform in Uzbekistan is the plan, but not action". Ferghana News Agency. March 12, 2010. Retrieved February 17, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Human rights activist Surat Ikramov: Participants of the Andizhan rebellion sentenced to imprisonment are denied texts of verdicts". Ferghana News Agency. February 27, 2006. Retrieved February 17, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Northamerica1000 and SaveATreeEatAVegan Both the Human rights watch and New York Times note him and his organization which is notable and is clearly WP:RS particularly for a Uzbek activist.He is one of Uzbekistan’s most notable human rights activist .Passes WP:BIO and WP:V.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:41, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Hodak

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

While he was a chief meteorologist for Detroit news channel for 45 years, he has received very little news coverage outside of his weather reports. The only significant coverage was several news stories released when he retired in 2010. It appears he fails to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,. Fixture in Detroit local television. Numerous local awards: member of Michigan Journalism Hall of Fame and Michigan Broadcasting Hall of Fame. Emmy nominations, local Emmy winner. -- Samir 01:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article only mentions the local Emmy award and the television Seal of Approval from the American Meteorological Society. There is no mention of the other achievements. Do you have sourcing for these things. It would greatly assist in establishing the subject's notability. On a related note, four of the sentences in the article are closely paraphrased from [42]. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[43], [44]. Also, I would argue that the retirement press for a local news personality of 45 years meets WP:GNG on that merit alone. -- Samir 03:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Fixture in local ..." to my way of thinking means not notable, as far as a general encyclopedia is concerned. DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. Newscaster in major North American city for 45 years + recognition by peers at the top level statewide renders one's biography encyclopedic by my take. -- Samir 06:06, 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 talk}_{about my edits?} 17:15, 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per state hall of fame attainments. This kind of bio isn't really that uncommon, the state hall of fame achievements does help us separate the wheat from the chaff.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few sources, there's really a lot out there if you dig. Please note that the major detroit papers, not much of their stuff is available free online.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Samir and Milowent. Detroit CSA is more than 5 million people, so being a "local fixture" is hardly insignficant. Quite a few references to him on GBooks as well, including an assertion that he was part of the first local news team to follow the "happy talk" style[45]--which may or may not be something to be proud of, but certainly seems significant. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:05, 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) 16:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael siemsen

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

I cannot find significant coverage of this author in multiple reliable sources per WP:AUTHOR. Search for "Michael siemsen" dig results in mainly booksellers and blog reviews. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 20:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:19, 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and found nothing to show that this self-published author has any notability per Wikipedia guidelines. (Author's only book was published through CreateSpace.) I wish him well in his career and hope that one day he can get the notability to pass WP:AUTHOR, but there's nothing out there to show that he passes it at this time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Additional. If all else fails, this could probably be speedied via A7, to be honest. There's absolutely no notability here and the author didn't sell that well to where he'd be considered exceptional as far as self-published sales go.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

"*Additional additional. I also wanted to address the PROD comments that the book is a bestseller. According to the author's page, it was a top 100 Kindle bestseller. Unfortunately achieving bestseller status in any format (whether it's on Amazon or NYT lists) does not in itself give you notability. You must have secondary and independent reliable sources to show that the book achieved notability. (And even then it'd be notability for the book and not for the author.) Blogs do not count unless it's by someone who is considered to be an absolute authority, which 99.9% of book review blogs do not have.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment. I had a feeling that the person who created the article was either the author himself or someone who knew him and I've managed to confirm it via this website: [46]. I've tagged the article accordingly.I'd advise the author to be careful since it's highly discouraged to create your own article since it can and often is seen by others as a promotional move. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete - as already said, WP:AUTHOR is not met. I can't find anything written about the author in reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR. ukexpat (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) B music ian 06:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

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

Not a notable organization. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is notable under WP:ORG. "As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area. 71.246.200.190 (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply But in this situation, this is not the case. This org is not substantially discussed by 3rd party reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note—this is not really an "individual chapter" or another organization. It is an independent organization—a schism offshoot from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, essentially. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know enough yet about the coverage of this sect to know whether its independently notable. But if for some reason it is not, its certainly notable as a part of Mormon fundamentalism, all verifiable content should be retained.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Any reliable sources should be reserved if they exist. But, this subject still is not notable, nor does it meet WP:GNG. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's notable enough as an organization separate from the general Mormon fundamentalist movement. There have been some sourcing issues on the page in the past with members of the church attempting to use their own blogs and website to substantiate information, but there is enough in reliable sources even currently used in the article to justify an article, IMO. The church only has a couple of hundred members, but because of their involvement in polygamy and the construction of their pyramid temple, they have traditionally "punched above their weight" in terms of the notice they attract from media and scholars. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:ORG. See also: WP:NTEMP. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 03:07, 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.