Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 January	27 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Gettysburg Battlefield. Redirect was made for unrelated reasons some time after this AfD was created.

The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 07:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barlow Knoll[edit]

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

I am nominating that these articles be merged with the Gettysburg Battlefield article, since they describe minor portions of the battlefield and from what I've read these places were not vital for either army to possess in order to win the battle. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Just a question. You mentioned "probably need to be left as a stub", so does that mean the article should be retained and not deleted? Lake Woodhouse in Denver (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)~~ Comment struck as sockpuppet of User:Target for Today, who is currently indefinitely blocked. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I pasted this nomination from Talk:Gettysburg Battlefield to see if I could do it right, but I agree with the Vegaswikan that the article should not be deleted. The topic of Barlow Knoll is a historically notable landform like The Peach Orchard, McPherson Ridge, East Cemetery Hill, etc. and clearly meets the wikipedia notability requirements for includable topics. Isn't that all that's need to keep? Also in addition to the Civil War battle at the knoll and the postbellum historic events, the hill is more notable than the adjacent Blocher's Run, which itself meets the notability requirements for a stand-alone article. Hopefully some other folks have ideas on the matter (there were a lot at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Peach Orchard which is a similar hornfel and had a somewhat less desperate battle.) Lake Woodhouse in Denver (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Comment struck as sockpuppet of User:Target for Today, who is currently indefinitely blocked. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion exceptionalism[edit]

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

Combination of original research with a simple notability problem; ostensible topic is mentioned in passing in a couple of borderline reliable sources, and additional material (the African and Middle Eastern sentence) is synthesized in. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Roscelese is correct. This is simply a phrase occasionally used, but not a discrete topic which has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an Original Essay or a Non-Notable Neologism, your choice. Carrite (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase appears in sources a dozen years old. What exactly is your definition of "neologism" (="new" word)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some sources, but it would be much much better if the concept was discussed in context of the legal status of abortion. JFW | T@lk 21:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds more like a merge !vote than a recommendation to delete. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea that "abortion is special" (compared to other medical procedures) appears in all sorts of sources, but particularly legal sources. "Abortion exceptionalism" is the formal name for the concept. There are comparable concepts for other medical situations, e.g., HIV exceptionalism (HIV infection is so scary that it requires special legal protections; see sources). PMID 10182216 addresses abortion exceptionalism.
Additionally, I'd like to know more about what Roscelese believes is a NOR violation in that stub. The paragraph at the top of page 10 names Rwanda and Kuwait (among others), and I believe that those are generally taken to be African and Middle Eastern countries, respectively. I'm not sure how it could be "synthesized in", either, given that the paragraph actually uses the exact phrase abortion exceptionalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we accept the idea that abortion exceptionalism is the treatment of abortion in a different way from other medical procedures, rather than any situation involving exceptions and abortion, it is clear that "abortion isn't normally allowed, but it was in a situation of war rape" clearly does not belong. By the way, the phrase in that source is "anti-abortion exceptionalism." The material you recently added has the same problem - an article should be about a topic, and throwing together a bunch of disparate situations involving A) abortion and B) an exception to something just won't do. The material that is actually about the ostensible topic is sparse and brief. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  "Abortion is legally special during war" is not a materially different subject from "Abortion is legally special during peacetime". The subject of the article is the legal specialness of abortion. That includes treating it as legally special in war and peace as well as in places that normally ban and normally permit it. And you will want to read far more of that book than you apparently have before you make pronouncements about how much of it discusses the oddities of the legal status of abortion. I'd suggest also running a quoted search on Google books for "abortion is special" and see how many sources spend whole chapters talking about the abortion being an exception to the usual legal and regulatory rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that's not what's going on in the war rape situation in that book. In the USA material we have abortion as legally distinct from other medical procedures, whereas in the WWI France material we have some abortions as distinct from other abortions. (Also, re: Rwanda and Kuwait - what?? The source doesn't even mention abortion in relation to those countries on the page you cite. Other pages, yes, but not in reference to any exceptionalism.) Again, the article should not be a dumping ground for any scenario involving 1) an abortion + 2) an exception. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes, there are sources, but I don't see how using a phrase in many diferrent ways adds up to a single article. Bearian (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be two uses of the term: one, to indicate an excessively rigorous view of the indications for abortion in contrast to other medical procedures (which would be a logical extension of the way the "exceptionalism" term is used elsewhere) and the less logical use to mean the treatment of abortions for some reasons in some exceptional social situations as much more permissive than usual for that procedure. Until a standard use develops, it would be hard to have an article. DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 2 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 18:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PH-balanced cosmetic[edit]

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

Dictionary def, zero gnews hits, zero gbooks hits, zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While pH balance seems to be a popular feature in modern cosmetics, I couldn't find a reliable source that establishes notability for the term per se. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Veljko Batrović[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this article passes any of our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL ~Feedintm^Parley 00:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, page re-created after prior deletion after full AfD discussion, and the re-created page was referenced only to internal sites and did not address the issue of lack of notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media Forest[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As is almost always the case, the crux of this discussion is whether or not this band meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A large portion of this discussion is not in fact about that subject but rather mudslinging between the participants or discussion of aspects of the article not relevant to the reasons it was nominated for deletion. Of course all such remarks were disregarded when making this close. Once all that material is discounted, it appears that consensus and policy favors the view that the article be deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Revenge (band)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Local band of questionable notability. Provided references are all primary sources or fanzines. Due to common name, Google search results are problematic - however, adding the modifier "My Revenge" "Spencer Crispe" (Crispe is the lead singer, and is also editing the article) Google news shows only one result from a local paper - a standard search shows a lot of primary sources, social media, sales links, directory listings, and unreliable sources, but no significant coverage found from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I worked for Big Heavy World www.bigheavyworld.com in Burlington, Vermont. Big Heavy World is the Vermont Music Library and Shop. It is the largest archival collection of Vermont-based music in the state. I am a Vermont underground music historian, and also quite knowledgeable about this band, Vermont venues, Vermont music history, particularly focusing on the past 30 years. I am working to chronicle notable Vermont encyclopedia-worthy artists in Wikipedia as a volunteer.

Not a local band - Band is a national and international touring act for a full decade. Moreover, band is a professionally published band on a widely distributed record label www.thorprecords.com. Furthermore, numerous bands on this record label have Wikipedia entires - See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madball; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_for_Blood; and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheer_Terror

These are just a few of the bands on the same record label, also with Wikipedia articles.

Additionally, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Static_Age This is a notable band also from Vermont, similar stature, no maintenance tags.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_(band) - This article has citations which are not questioned nor maintenance templates, and it is consistent with numerous other Entries.

My Revenge is also notable as being the first punk and underground band from Vermont to tour internationally. If you look at history of page - Spencer Crispe was involved for ease of copyright in obtaining image uploads. Sources are characterized as reliable and found within innumerable other Wikipedia entires - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_(band) Did google searching before creating article and found band toured in Nova Scotia, Mexico, United Kingdom, and Japan. Meets and exceeds Wikipedia notability standards. Vermont Hardcore Punk (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Vermont Hardcore Punk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per lack of notability. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The issue is the lack of substantial source material which is both independent and reliable. --Jayron32 05:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to Weak delete per new sources. The allmusic blurb is nice, but not enough in my opinion to meet the "Significant coverage" portion of WP:GNG. When all of the reliable writing about a subject that exists is a paragraph, that isn't "significant".
  - A paragraph is plenty for telling detail and opinion, and these would certainly be used in any good article on this subject. How then can it be insignificant? It's not all the reliable writing that exists: Exclaim! is an accepted RS, vetted by WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE for instance. Its review really is brief, and informal, and yet knowledgeable. KindaMuzik has been cited by VPRO and The Wire. 86.44.55.100 (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - In my opinion, it isn't. Significance of coverage requires a level of depth that I don't see in those sources. Produce a longer reliable source, and I could be convinced otherwise. --Jayron32 17:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't feel i need to. your view is out of step with consensus views on the subject, as per WP:BASIC, WP:CORPDEPTH etc., and while i want to say you are entitled to your opinion i am uncomfortable with trying to form local consensuses based not on some well-reasoned exception but merely on an idiosyncratic personal view. However, I do appreciate that you have moved from your original position. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC) ******On the contrary, both of the links you gave require source material to be substantial/significant. I don't find the level of coverage so far provided to be substantial/significant. I'm quite aware of what the Wikipedia standards are, and it does not appear, to me, that the subject of this article meets it yet. --Jayron32 19:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)*******You don't appear to have read the links, frankly, & are not aware of what the standards are. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)*******Jayron, you seem a very capable article writer. Could you quote what leads to your reading above? I see the reading and the pages as obviously incompatible. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial..." Also, would you find these sources useful in a decent article on the subject? If so, they are significant coverage. Even selecting the work for review is itself significant. You might almost say these outlets have found the act "notable" ;) Following your view there would be no problem substituting all instances of "significant" with "substantial" in guidelines, perhaps with a minimum wordcount specified! :) 86.44.24.82 (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Band has allmusic.com guide entry. http://www.allmusic.com/artist/my-revenge-p657423. To characterize band as a "local band" shows wilful ignorance of content of article and facts. Multiple albums. Characterizing them as local band likely shows bias. Question as to abusive editing by Mike Wazowski in violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment and especially - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment. User MikeWazowski also violated wikipedia standard by a retaliatory nomination fo deletion. User may know subject article creator and have personal bias also in violation of wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermont Hardcore Punk (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Vermont Hardcore Punk (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)— Vermont Hardcore Punk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Vermont Hardcore Punk's allegations are spurious. I left warning messages on his talk page after he twice removed the AfD notice from the article {[1], [2]) and has continually removed maintenance templates from the article without correcting the problems (in addition to the two instances already linked, see also [3], [4], [5]). I have a long history of editing on Wikipedia, and this is just another case of a questionable article I flagged for deletion, nothing more. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to MikeWazowki above: - I have made even further improvements to this article to your disregard. Your editing and nomination for deletion is in violation Wikipedia guidelines for conflict of interest and bias. The proper thing to do was to add comments about my improvements to the article on the talk page, which you did not before disruptively placing back the maintenance tags. Your arguments are patently vacuous and already I've warned you about the various Wikipedia guidelines you have violated. I unfortunately have to report your vandalism to this article, coupled with your conflict of interest. The fact that you play the card of having edited for sometime for Wikipedia means nothing in this context because the length of years of your editing is only as meritorious as its quality. Please review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest - "If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits" You have a conflict of interest, and bias with regards to your relationship to this article and therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines should cease the vandalism and disruptive edits and "step back." Thank you. Vermont Hardcore Punk (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tedious - the only "further improvements" you've made are the addition of the same link six times into the text, as well as some internal links. However, that link not only offers no corroboration for any of the claims you cite, it also appears to fail as a reliable source, as it's a user editable site. As to your threat of reporting me for vandalism, as I've stated several times on other pages, please give that a try. It will fail spectacularly. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, my main issue which I have written about on the talk page, but will reiiterate here is as follows: The chronology giving rise to this dispute as I see it is 1) You put maintenance tags up (an obvious, welcome, and necessary component of Wikipedia), 2) I made an effort to address the maintenance tags, thought I did, and removed them. 3) You became angry and nominated the article for deletion. I believe this was retaliatory and in violation of Wikipedia guidelines for AfD. Moreover, it was unconstructive and unfair for an editor to do that, particularly without communicating with me and giving me even a modicum of time to work to address the issues. If you felt that I did not sufficiently address the issues in the maintenance tags to justify removal, then you should have discussed that with me, the author, on the Talk Page and afforded me the opportunity to address them. We could work collaboratively and construtively to address the tags you put up and I was happy to do that, particularly if afforded the time. Instead, as I see it, you just reactively nominated it for deletion, which, amongst other facts that have transpired here, was out of bias, retaliation and conflict of interest in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. I would like to propose a dispute resolution - If you will work with me to keep the article from this deletion, I will work as expeditiously as possible to address the issues raised with the current tags. I am affiliated with www.bigheavyworld.com, the large Vermont music archive. I can address the "improper references to the self-published sources tag" by putting up new photograph images disconnected from the subject. I certainly can also work to improve the links; and I do have newspaper articles through the archive which can be used to strengthen the sources - I just need some time (a week or 2). It is my hope that this proposal will be amenable to you and that our participation in this can come to be constructive and positive together. Sincerely, Vermont Hardcore Punk (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for bands. Sources quoted are not reliable and / or independent. QU ^TalkQu 19:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that notability guidelines are not met here - there is no evidence of in-depth coverage by reliable independent sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poorly referenced. Does not satisfy the expectations of WP:MUSICBIO. -- WikHead (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep allmusic review[6] KindaMuzik[7] exclaim.ca[8] allmusic employs professional critics for its writeups.[9] it is a RS for reviews. in fact, no part of it is user-editable.[10] & VHP has a point about Thorp Records as an indicator of notability. 86.44.55.100 (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)— 86.44.55.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I note MikeWazowski is edit-warring in order to affix a silly and unjustified tag[11] while simultaneously ignoring the content of my edit. Edit-warring is against something called a policy around here, i believe, while "comment on the content, not the contributor" is perhaps more of a maxim. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)— 86.44.24.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I note someone is editing without logging in, trying to create the false impression that multiple editors objecting to this - they are not. Also, SPA tags are allowed, and in cases like this, encouraged. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're stating Vermont Hardcore Punk is editing from a dublin, ireland IP with a completely different style? interesting. i'm plainly not an SPA by any definition. you are an edit-warrior and a rather foolish assumer of bad faith who is, it seems, incapable of debating on the merits, resorting instead to violating guidelines, policies and common sense good practice because you feel that politically you can get away with it. In short, you are the drop-off in editorship in one figure. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And since you can't argue the merits, you're going into personal attack territory. Very classy. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irony. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - allmusic.com is reliable reference and through examination of other wikipedia band entries, record label information has been accepted definitively as a reliable source. this at least fully satisfies the expectations of WP:V as well as meeting the first criteria of WP:BAND. reference to thorprecords.com meets criteria 5 of WP:BAND as many on the label's roster are quite notable in the hardcore punk music scene. article does need more links to it. administrator take note, in reading history this article should not have been proposed for deletion to begin with. while MikeWazowski may not have bias, his conduct throughout surely is suspect of personal bias. wikipedia is not a muscle flexing witch hunt, and MikeWazowski's suggestion that wikipedia editor above was used to create a false impression of multiple objections, only to be disproved by it being revealed it was a dublin, ireland IP, further confirms that MikeWazowski has a personal COI and should not be editing article period. based on revision history and current maintenance tags, deletion seems an excessive solution to currently minor issues. would like to see improvement in citations, but any lack of citations is certainly not to the degree in this instance as to warrant deletion. keep article and continue to improve. references, particularly allmusic.com, are sound. Roshanbo (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)— Roshanbo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I don't believe Wazowski has any bias beyond wanting his nom to be successful. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE ON MY KEEP I have edited this article and made improvements. I added some additional references for verifiability and notability purposes, and removed a citation where content was not found. This page is now linked from at least 3 other articles which should address the "links to page" maintenance tag. I believe the minor amount of self published content in this article is permissible because it meets criteria 1-5 under WP:SELFSOURCE. Roshanbo (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Allmusic seems to me like an inclusive database of musicians that does't check for notability, much like IMDb. That the subject don't even have a biography (only overview and discography) on Allmusic definitely speaks to its lack of notability. Hence, despite the shaky argument above by two suspect users who have made few edits outside of this discussion, the subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 05:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that it is reviewed at allmusic, i gave links to what that means, and i gave two other sources. The reason IMDb is unreliable is because it relies on user-submitted information. please make a report on any users you see as suspect, rather than smearing me merely for editing as an IP. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That you were an SPA at the time I posted my argument can be plainly seen by anyone viewing your contributions, and it is a statement of fact, not belief. That I am smearing you, however, is a groundless accusation and constitutes a personal attack. You have been warned. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 22:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Contributions/86.44.55.100 [12] &etc. What on earth are you babbling about? If you suspect something, the two things to do are make a serious report or keep your mouth shut. Calling me "suspect" because i'm an IP is neither. It's a smear. 86.44.40.73 (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the sources reach the level of significant coverage. All music is problematic in as much as it simply a database entry with no biography; the argument that it is a reliable source is moot in that there is not actual biography. -- Whpq (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whpq, please engage with my post as 86.44.55.100 above. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've looked a the sources and the best available is a capsule review of an album. That's far below what is needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. Which source of the three are you referring to? I do not see why three reviews are not sufficient. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am knowledgeable about subject and article is verifiable and credible. See other Vermont band entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowningman as similar entry - they are another Vermont band from the same record label. Self published content in this instance is permissible b/c it meets criteria 1-5 under WP:SELFSOURCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.76.38 (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC) — 76.118.76.38 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep – Squeaks by our notability guidelines, with coverage in multiple independent sources: in Exclaim, Allmusic, and the Burlington Free Press as previously mentioned, as well as several less-mainstream online magazines that cover this genre of music such as Spendid Magazine, Asice e-zine, and Decoy Music. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not convinced by the sources that WP:GNG are met. I'm also disgusted by the blatant spamming of this AFD by individuals with a personal interest in keeping this article online. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should indicate which individuals you are referring to as blatant spammers. I (86.44...) am seeking to keep in this discussion, and would strongly object to such a categorization. 86.44.40.73 (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'd be one (or possibly all) of them, matey! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've made a list of additional sources on the article talk page. I'll be asking the people who have commented so far to take a look at them. This isn't my subject area so I can't speak with certainty, but I think all the souces together probably meet GNG now. Cloveapple (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I more or less do not care about whether the article is kept or deleted; I just want to take note that certain users have been participating in this debate with extremely bad faith, and as a result I am unwatching this page and deletion debate and would simply like to be left in peace. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 08:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your sentiments. In light of what a mess this Afd has become and because I just removed a reference that completely "failed verification" (thank you for checking and marking that MikeWazowski) I wanted to add that I have checked all of the sources listed below. All but one center on the band and I have put a note by the one source that only mentions them in passing. Cloveapple (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: List of additional Sources

"My Revenge | Less Plot, More Blood: De soundtrack van een oude skatevideo. from online magazine KindaMuzik (Google's machine translation here)
Peter Huoppi "On Scene with: My Revenge!" March 2nd 2005 in The Burlington Free Press (behind a paywall at newspaper archive )
"Andrew Paley. "The Static Age (US)" at online magazine Click Zoom Bytes: Art & Politics of Romanian Music (My Revenge is not the main topic, but the opening paragraph has background info on My Revenge.)
"My Revenge! – Less Plot, More Blood (CD)" on Neufutur Magazine (Not sure if this should be counted as blog or as magazine. So not sure if it's a good source.)
"Splendid Magazine reviews My Revenge:Less Plot, More Blood"
a couple more sources mentioned by Paul Erik in his Afd comment above:
- Asice e-zine
- Decoy Music Cloveapple (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are these sources additional to? The ones in the article? 86.44.40.73 (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are additions since the Afd was started. The Afd began late on the 26th (UTC). I compiled a list of more sources on the article talk page over the course of January 30th and into the 31st. Two of all these sources were later added to the article by another editor, but the majority are not yet in use. Some other sources were mentioned above on Feb 1st. I listed all of them here as "additional sources" because I realized many participants in this Afd who had already commented may not have seen the article talk page or the mention of these sources. Sorry for any lack of clarity. Cloveapple (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you include the exclaim and allmusic reviews? I guess i still don't really get it. 86.44.40.73 (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It should be noted that this article has made considerable improvement since the nom began. I now see more reliable and verifiable sources including online magazines and a newspaper article. There are still several minor improvements needed to this page, but none rising to the level warranting deletion. Article should be kept based on its merits and meeting Wikipedia source guidelines, particularly in light of recent edits & improvements.Thrasher77 (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)— Thrasher77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I don't think there is any bias going on here, but at the same time I think the article easily passes guidelines. Note new improvements. I also now see at least 3 outside links to article and more references provided. Band is also notable for its regional and national reputation for political outspokenness in speaking out/activism against sexism, racism and homophobia. My Revenge has been a considerable proponent of gay rights, same sex marriage movement.Doveplusdove1 (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC) — Doveplusdove1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please Note + Comment Changes and improvements have been made to Article since nomination began. References / Citations are improved - newspaper article has been added + outside links, among other improvements. One additional source of verifiability was down for several months, but is back up now containing a reliable source which I am going to add to strengthen the article in the next day. My interest is in music, Vermont, and music history and I hope these improvements are duly noted. Thanks a lot!Vermont Hardcore Punk (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the article does not appear to meet any of the criteria which may indicate notability at WP:BAND. Of the provided sources, only one (allmusic) is independent of the band and that source provides no biographical information. All other sources are excluded under WP:MUSICBIO #1. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:51, 3 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 Terry Jones#Collaborations. Discussion on alternative targets should likely take place at Talk:Terry Jones. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely Anything[edit]

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

Per point 5 at WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, but no prejudice against recreation at the appropriate time. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER until confirmation at least that it is all funded and actually in production and has a planned release date (however tentative). Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete' WP:NFF. I tried to prod it already but it was declined by the creator. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected he would, hence the pre-emptive AfD. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect A section in Monty Python is a plausible redirect with a citation or two (e.g. http://movies.broadwayworld.com/article/MONTY-PYTHON-Troupe-to-Reunite-For-Upcoming-Film-ABSOLUTELY-ANYTHING-20120126 ) and then re-create it as an article when it's appropriate. I don't see why deletion is necessary but I suppose it's an option. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just boldly changed it to a {{R with possibilities}} to Terry_Jones#Collaborations, where BBC and Variety refs document the possibility. 67.100.127.249 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the Question. If there are no objections to the redirect, I'll go ahead and close this in a bit. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casper smart[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTINHERITED. No notability of his own; purported relationship with Lopez (which is in itself nothing more than gossip) does not confer notability. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Outside of tabloid rumors, has no notability on his own.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vitaliy Katsenelson[edit]

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

Notability? Insider (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A very brief search on Google revealed the following sources: [13], [14], [15], [16]. Those are enough to establish notability, and I'm more could be found (my search took about 30 seconds). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The sources presented by ItsZippy are enough to establish notability. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDILY DELETED by User:Peridon under criteria A7; "Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". (non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carlisle Communist Party[edit]

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

No references, no websites found on the Internet. No reliability proven. Whenaxis about | talk 22:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If it does exist, there is no evidence of any notability whatsoever. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete under CSD A7. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 22:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Redfern[edit]

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

Dubious notability; what appears to be unreliable and/or primary sources; may fail WP:BIO. (Please do not CSD as recreation of AfD material, as the previous AfD was closed as speedy deletion) ZZArch ^{talk to me} 20:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references in the article are a blog/PR mix; I'm not seeing any there that meet WP:RS. Similarly, searches on Google and other sites are not turning up anything substantial to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please see this related SPI case page. Amalthea 12:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Sourcing in the article does not represent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phials of Acid Jazz[edit]

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

Zero in gnews, zero RS coverage in gbooks, Allmusic doesn't know it, and tagged for zero refs for 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find anything beyond bare track listings; no notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage such as album reviews or critical commentary to establish this as a notable compilation album. -- Whpq (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finger armor ring[edit]

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

Zero in gnews, zero RS refs in gbooks. Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no references which refer to this object as described in the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Heart for South East Asia[edit]

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

Nonnotable religious ministry Lom Konkreta (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence that this is a notable ministry. Nothing from any news sources. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party sources to demonstrate notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Result - Speedy keep per WP:SK #1 - "nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion". SmartSE (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black billionaires[edit]

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

Why the page should be deleted Esterhase (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've moved this AfD to reflect it is the fifth nomination. To nominator: you should provide a rationale based on the deletion policy as to why this page should be deleted, preferably one that takes into account the results of the past four nominations — Frankie (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close No rationale supplied by the nominator for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. There is a fair amount of discussion below, though not as well attended as one might wish, but no real consensus emerges. This is a topic about which we should clearly have some coverage but it is not certain whether it should be a separate article or an entry in a list. AussieLegend cogently argues that there is space in the season list to include all the relevant and sourceable content. On the other hand, DDG's point that episodes of a particular TV series should usually be treated in the same way is also reasonable and explicitly endorsed by Roscelese. So while merging may well be a viable long-term solution, if it is to be done, it shouldn't be done one episode at a time. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drought Conditions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an unreferenced article that fails to establish notability of the subject. It contains only a plot summary and a list of guest stars, all of which has been merged into the season article.[17] As an article that is essentially a plot only summary it fails WP:PLOT and, as all content has been merged to The West Wing (season 6), the article is now fully redundant to that article. I tried redirecting this article, but it was opposed, with the opposer citing a DRV discussion.

The article was originally deleted after AfD in February 2010, but was restored after DRV. The nominator at DRV expressed concerns over a number of issues:

The AfD was sparsely attend - This happens all the time, but it is really no reason to restore an article that was deleted for valis reasons. Even the nominator acknowledged that the AfD closer did not close poorly.
This is the only episode for which there is not an article - There is no requirement to have articles for every episode. Only articles that meet the requirements of WP:N, WP:V and MOS:TV should exist. In fact, of the 154 episode articles that exist for The West Wing]], 136 fail to meet the requirements of our policies and guidelines.
It appears to be the only episode article that was nominated for deletion - This is in the realm of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In reality 135 other articles should have been nominated, but for some reason weren't.
lack of deletion of other articles implies tacit consensus for recreation of the article - One could use this argument for most DRVs and, if it was valid, there would be no point in even nominating most articles at AfD. The more likely reason is simply apathy, which is probably also the reason the entire West Wing series of episode related articles have not been improved and contained multiple errors until I started fixing them a few weeks ago.

Despite those concerns, the simple fact is that this article does not establish notability, fails WP:PLOT and is now significantly duplicates content contained in The West Wing (season 6). Accordingly this article should not exist. AussieLegend (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- There are 130 listed at [[Category:The West Wing stubs]], including the template. Even if none had content, the only foreseeable result would be to redirect the episodes to the appropriate season. This seems to be the wrong venue, and would probably be better served as a comprehensive WP:RFC than WP:RFD, though you're right that this is a terrible example. The show was wildly popular, and I'm sure the ratings are available somewhere, but I don't know how to find them. Other real world context would likely be more difficult, except for those who already know where to look. Still, Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Dru of Id (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The West Wing stubs erroneously includes a number of articles that don't qualify as stubs, but stubs aren't the issue here. There were suggestions at the DRV that the article be recreated at Drought Conditions (West Wing episode) although this was never done. There is no disambiguation page for "Drought conditions" so the only way to find this article is to use the correct capitalisation. If you use incorrect capitalisation (Drought conditions or drought conditions) you end up at Drought, which has no link to the subject of this AfD. In the event that this article were to be retained, it should really be moved, with Drought Conditions becoming a redirect to Drought conditions, which should be a disambiguation page. However, it seems a waste of time moving this article now when it's just as easy to create Drought Conditions (West Wing episode) as a redirect if this article is deleted again. As for ratings, in the event that somebody decided to add them, there are additional fields in {{Episode list}} so that the ratings could be added to the season articles, where'd they'd make more sense than in individual episode articles because they could be easily be compared against each other. However, nobody seems interested in improving The West Wing episode and season articles. A few weeks ago I discovered that a season 6 article existed, although it wasn't linked to from List of The West Wing episodes. Instead, episode lists that existed in both The West Wing (season 6) and The West Wing (season 7) were duplicated (almost) in List of The West Wing episodes. I've since corrected duplication and numerous other errors in both season articles and transcluded the lists to List of The West Wing episodes.[18][19] I've also created articles for the first 5 seasons and reworked List of The West Wing episodes completely.[20] Despite all this work, nobody has shown any interest except when I started sorting out the episode articles. There just doesn't seem to be any interest in bringing the articles up to an appropriate standard. While you might be correct in stating there is no deadline, as lovely as that essay is, it doesn't mean we should allow articles that fail to meet basic requirements stay alive forever, especially when nobody seems interested in improving them. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who split these articles out a million years ago (was it really 2006...). I'd like to see all of the individual articles merged into season pages, as I believe individual articles are unnecessary and no longer the best approach. Selectively deleting episodes (which has already happened) is a terrible approach. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With no help, or interest in helping it seems (only criticism), I'm already merging articles. This one though was problematic. There has been no selective deleting of articles. No articles have been deleted at all at this point. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Simmer down.
    You're the one creating a deadline. Which is fine, but then you can meet it yourself. Merging these articles is something that should be done eventually, but I see no rush.
    I believe another individual episode article has been deleted previously and remains deleted. I'd tell you which one exactly, but there are other things I need to be doing right now. You personally have also nominated or proposed several articles for deletion recently, so I'm not sure why you're trying to suggest otherwise (or coming dangerously close to suggesting otherwise).
    What, exactly, is exceptional about this article? So much so that it should not even be a redirect. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not creating a deadline at all. The articles have been sadly lacking for some time and I've only recently discovered that. Rather than procrastinate though, I've set about trying to correct the problems. The episodes that I've prodded have not been chosen selectively as you've suggested. They've been chosen in simple alpha-numeric order. As I indicated on your talk page,[21] I've been going through the articles progressively. The reason why this article has been nominated is explained in the first paragraph of the nomination. Its conversion to a redirect was opposed by an editor who says that unless we merge all of the articles we can't get rid of any.[22] --AussieLegend (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I appreciate all of the work you've put in so far and I trust that you'll make the appropriate decisions necessary to improve the encyclopedia. I can't imagine I'll have any time to help (life has changed quite a bit since 2006 ;-) but I wish you luck in your cleanup efforts. I still believe that every episode has enough notability to warrant being mentioned here somewhere (in season lists, preferably) and that consistent treatment of the individual episodes is important. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this was the article that was previously deleted. Twice, I think. Not sure how it came back. Not particularly surprising that it did, though. It makes no sense to have articles on every episode except one. I'm still completely unclear why deletion would be better than redirection here. If it's just a sourcing issue, that seems fairly easy to resolve. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How the article came back is explained in the nomination. Deletion after AfD was overturned at DRV. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the parent article. Lom Konkreta (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consistency is a virtue, especially within handling a series. I think this is possibly a series that does warrant such extended treatment, but even if I thought otherwise, I would never consider omitting one episode. (Including a separate article on one particularly notable episode of a series can be another matter, but if most episodes are notable, its simpler to handle them all similarly than argue on each of them. The reason against redirection is that the information contained in list of episodes articles or sections is inadequate for understanding and therefore not encyclopedic . DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you've said really doesn't seem to make much sense. The encyclopaedic content from several of the 136 related articles that fail WP:PLOT and or fail to establish notability of the subject has been quite easily merged into the episode list articles which seem entirely adequate for understanding, since they contain exactly the same information that was in the episode articles. Deletion or redirection doesn't omit one episode, there are several that are now quite rightly redirects, and a few that have been deleted. The content still exists, it's just now easier to get to from the season articles. This particular article is nothing more than a unreferenced plot summary that fails to establish notability, and all encyclopaedic content is now in the season article, so what does this article provide that the season article does not? The answer is nothing, and our policies and guidelines say it shouldn't exist. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming what you need to prove, that this material is not encyclopedic. How extensive plot information should be is not something on which there is real agreement here, but my rule of thumb is that it must at least be enough so that a casual viewer who did not see the episode can maintain continuity, or a non-viewer follow a discussion about the story lines without seeming stupid. The information in most episode lists does not do so. The information in many episode articles contains a somewhat too much, usually not very well presented. The choice is fuller lists, or shorter articles. Experience here shows that if we go to the list option, the content will inevitably be reduced below the level of intelligibility. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming anything, I just think your logic and arguments are a little skewed. For example, your claim that there is no real agreement over the extent of plot information is not completely true. {{Episode list}} specifies 100-300 words while WP:TVPLOT specifies "200 to 500 words" for an episode article and "approximately 100–200 words" for a season article "with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines". That's the current agreement. Comparison of the length of plot summaries in episode and season articles does not apply here, since the plot summary in both articles is identical. Similarly, your argument about reducing the content in the list articles doesn't apply. The plot summaries in the episode articles are generally well within {{Episode list}}'s 100-200 word recommendation (Drought Condition is 193 words) so there's no need to prune and, so far, the response to cleaning up the lists has been minimal. Nobody seems interested in doing anything, let alone prune episode lists. Your arguments to keep this redundant article are based on issues that don't exist. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and per consensus at the recent DRV. I know it's a pain, but if you want to delete these articles, you're going to have to do it en masse. As I said back then: Wikipedia doesn't need to cover individual episodes, but given that we do, we can't leave readers wondering what happened between "Freedonia" and "A Good Day," because that detracts from our coverage of the series and is worse than just having a season-by-season episode list with external links to more detail. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:06, 4 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) 20:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

School of suspicion[edit]

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

Article says, "School of suspicion is a famous term coined by philosopher Paul Ricoeur." My reason for deletion: WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no evidence that it is either a famous term or a term for a meaningful concept at all. Lom Konkreta (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence that this is a notable or important term. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references clearly say that the expression is famous and use it as a canonical. A search in google books can provide mamy more sources. (Btw, the article has long been present in wikis in three other languages, and only recently the English wiki has catched up).--Sum (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is plenty of evidence that this is a famous, meaningful, notable and important concept. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed the point of the deletion rationale. The article isn't about a "concept" at all; as written, it's about the term "school of suspicion". So how is the alleged notability of the concept relevant? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way to fix that is to reword the article to make it about the concept rather than the term, as an encyclopedia article should be, not to delete it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made that change in a few seconds by changing two words. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I reverted you in even less time. Sorry, I don't see any evidence "school of suspicion" is a concept at all. It's a term. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just take a look at all of the books and scholarly articles that I linked to above. They treat this as a concept. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to look up 544 Google hits? Really? Did you, by any chance, look at all 544 of them and verify that they do indeed treat "school of suspicion" as a concept rather than a term? Pardon my skepticism. I did glance at one of them (the second hit), and it says "Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud have been called the masters of the school of suspicion." Again, that sounds like a term to me, I'm afraid. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Phil your "plenty of evidence" is 90% rephrasing of one and the same phrase about Marx, Nietzsche and Freud, and nothing to elaborate what exactly this school is. On the other hand, the phrase is indeed searchable, so why don't you and withMorons start with expanding the (miniscule) section about philosophical views of Paul Ricoeur? Lom Konkreta (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I will rephrase part of my earlier comments since Polisher of Cobwebs felt they were too personal: The article has enough references to meet wikipedia notability standards, and that's enough to end this fruitless polemic. Any further demand beyond the notability standards, like that the article should "elaborate" to better explain the topic to someone, is undue and should not be expected in an AfD. It is also my impression that some comments in this AfD are based on no knoledge of this topic or "continental philosophy" in general; when that is the case, I think it would be more transparent if users began their comments with "I don't know anything in this field, but...".--Sum (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, a personal attack rephrased to make it seem potentially not a personal attack and therefore just acceptable. I won't remove it, but I don't have any trouble understanding what it is, and nor will other editors. You are entitled to your view that other editors are ignorant kids, but per WP:NPA, you aren't entitled to state it. If your case were really convincing, you wouldn't need to stoop to this kind of stuff. To the extent the article is about anything at all, it's about Ricœur's ideas. "School of suspicion" doesn't cut it as an independent subject. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The world "famous" should be avoided per WP:PEACOCK. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "peacock" term can be kept if preceded by an "according to" or equivalent phrase attributing it to someone.--Sum (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Using the term is rarely a good idea. If the term is famous the article will show it clearly enough. In this case, the article does not show it, neither do the sources. It's one of the many terms he uses. I think we'd need articles specifically discussing his use of the term, & I don't see any at present DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Paul Ricœur. Still reads like a dictionary entry, and seems to be mainly associated with this one author. Sandstein 18:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Toddst1 under criteria A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (organization). (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interact Club of Hindu College Colombo[edit]

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

No information, no references, no notability Inlandmamba (talk) 17:09, 26 January 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 January 26. Snotbot t • c » 17:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binärpilot[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was deleted, has been recreated. I don't see any notability attested to in reliable sources. I didn't request speedy deletion since article has been written fairly well. meco (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -meco (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete non-notable, no reliable sources and previously deleted at AFD. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no RS, basically Essay, fails WP:Artist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - previously deleted by AfD, recreated by "Astoever" which probably is the artist himself. Could also qualify for speedy. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feathering the scope[edit]

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

OR, NFT, etc. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 14:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (CSD G7: Author blanked the page)

Spencer Rockman[edit]

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

Non notable individual - Only independent sources I can identify are extremely trivial mentions in the likes of the East Brunswick, N.J. "Home News Tribune". Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as above. Appears to be self-serving, personal original research. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ezophagotomia[edit]

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

Notability of band. I am not knowledgeable in the subject but from the material I'v been able to find the article does not comply with WP:BAND Callanecc (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable in the slightest; two of the three sources provided are Facebook and Myspace profiles. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - the article doesn't even assert notability signs such as concerts, records or awards. Ukrained (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kollaboration (talent show)[edit]

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

Finding only unrelated news hits, primary, blogs, social media links. It has a lot of claims of "notable participants" and locations, but can't verify it is notable with only primary links. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete only has primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no external sources.--Avala (talk) 13:09, 2 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 18:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Dormehl[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. His journalism "credits" are unreferenced, his book appears to be a self-published download. Any of the productions he is supposed to have worked on do not have their own pages and are not notable. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Atkinson[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Most of the "references" are little more than weblinks to the home pages of companies he supposedly had "multiple high-profile corporate jobs" for. Any of the productions he is supposed to have worked on do not have their own pages and are not notable. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The sourcing is in the article, despite the number of references, doesn't do it. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ensogo[edit]

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

Looks like spam. It is not really a neutral description of the company (or website) but sort of an ad but apparently G11 does not fit. Lakokat (Drop me a line) 09:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Online business, now a subsidiary of LivingSocial. Advertising: primarily offers discounted daily deals on lifestyle and entertainment.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 22:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical attack on behbahan battalion[edit]

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

Possible merge to Iraq-Iran war, but WP is not news, so doesn't need its own article. I don't think a redirect is useful either. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 19:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, the nom is spot on with his assessment, and I agree with it. Redirect not useful (unless you create a new one for Behbahan Battalion instead), merge useful info per nom. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Accepting the offline sources on good faith, I think that this might be notable. We'd certainly have a (hugely detailed) article for any recent chemical weapons attack on a western military unit had these occurred, and have lots of articles on much less significant military engagements than this. Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~ this is unquestionably notable. Should be kept somewhere. Suggest we close this AfD and let the normal editing process take its course. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not arguing against the notability - alot of news stories are notable. However, this is one minor engagement in a battle which doesn't even have an article (not that that means a whole lot). Also, please read Wikipedia:Speedy keep#Applicability. In no way, shape or form is this eligible for speedy keep, unless you are suggesting this is a bad-faith nomination. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright, Strong Keep or possibly rename to Battle of Shalamcheh. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is customary when one changes their !vote, that they strike their old !vote, by surrounding it with <strike>[old vote]</strike>, or their entire comment if that is appropriate. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - My meaning is clear. Would everybody please stop tying me in knots with wikilawyering red tape and vote on the substance of the discussion. Mr Brown, you could at the very least express an opinion. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I already did. I was the first. Look up. And my comment was only meant to be helpful. Please read WP:AGF. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I was a little confused with Buckshot's comment to Dennis Brown as well, seeing as he already...anyway, its probably best to let this tangential conversation die. Buckshot, my apologies for any "wikilawyering"; it's just that speedy keep has a very specific meaning, and it can be somewhat insulting if used wrong. Regardless, we're about to have a forced 24-hour cooldown. Cheers, and I hope to see you on the other side -- Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 00:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - apologies to Mr Brown, my oversight. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an incident during Iran-Iraq war, it worth to have an article. Just some improvements are needed.--Aliwiki (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What does its involvement in the Iran-Iraq war have to do with whether or not we should keep it? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 19:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - whatever the Wiki-history here, the article is now satisfactorily written and sourced. If it doesn't fit well with other coverage of the I-I war, that means other articles are waiting to be written, not that this one is at fault. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Chiswick says, at this point it meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Weber[edit]

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

PROD removed. Insufficient reliable sources to establish encyclopedic fit of an individual's biography. Sources simply establish that he exists. tedder (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- seems to be a much loved (but NN) retired pastor of a church that is presumably also NN, as there is no link to an article on it. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe a loved pastor, but not an encyclopedic entry. Now, please forgive me pastor for I have voted for deletion... History2007 (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[comment redacted due to contention]Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strange request from such an experienced editor as yourself. Withdrawing the nomination wouldn't close the deletion debate since someone else has voted "delete". You are, however, welcome to vote "keep". St Anselm (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[comment redacted]Unscintillating (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Keep Easily satisfies WP:GNG based on Google books search. Unscintillating (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, failing WP:AUTHOR. --Ifnord (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google search indicates that Weber has been a speaker at Christian men's events throughout the United States. I wasn't able to find publication numbers that I was sure I could trust, but there are enough references to his Tender Warrior as "popular" or as "best-selling" to persuade me that it sold fairly well. (The "Publisher's Description" at Christianbook.com claims that over 365,000 copies have been sold.) Weber and his works, notably TW, are cited at some length in several academic studies of the Promise Keepers and of the Christian men's movement generally, e.g. this article in Social Thought and Research, and this and this in Sociology of Religion (the journal, not the Weber book). I think there's been enough coverage, both in and outside of the Christian press, to satisfy WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple gbooks hits, satisfies GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His books are frequently read and discussed. St Anselm (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and also as per Ammodramus.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Diana Haddad. And delete first. Sandstein 18:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Sahra[edit]

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

Searching by song and singer name, I found zero RS gbooks hits or RS gnews hits. Tagged for over 2 years for zero refs and for lack of notability. Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect. Standard policy for non-notable songs is to redirect to artist page and add an album/song mention in their career section. User:A412 (Talk * C) 15:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 07:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redirect; no indicatins of notability. Lom Konkreta (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete: original author blanked the page hence deleted per WP:CSD#G7 AngelOfSadness talk 15:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCloth[edit]

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

Computer program with little claim of or sources supporting notability. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 10:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC) How can I provide the claim of/sources supporting notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmovania (talk • contribs) 10:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm two questions 1) How do I provide the claim of notability?
2) As I told you before, I am the owner of the project and the whole content hosted on the http://code.google.com/p/opencloth page. You can verify this by looking through the samples which clearly state in the license that I am the owner of it. Moreover, you can also check that all the commits are being done by me (mmmovania). 3) The project was highlighted in the news on OpenGL.org(http://www.opengl.org/news/permalink/opencloth-a-collection-of-source-codes-implementing-cloth-simulation-algori/) and Geeks3D(http://www.geeks3d.com/20110825/opencloth-a-collection-of-cloth-simulation-algorithms/), the two premier website for realtime graphics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmovania (talk • contribs) 10:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Source above appears to be press-release- use of "We" is a giveaway. Does not have the coverage required to establish notability. And obviously promotional in tone. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creator of page is repeatedly blanking and obviously wants out, so I think we can Speedy this one. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Zaiko Langa Langa. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zaiko Familia Dei[edit]

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

Does not provide sources to back up claim of notability. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 09:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found at least a couple independent and reliable looking French language sources for "Zaiko Familia Dei" [23][24][25] I'm not exactly sure how this relates to Zaiko Langa Langa, but that seems to be related[26] --- the Brazzaville source suggests that this may be a group of related acts in the Parliament / Funkadelic manner. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to Zaiko Langa Langa; it is indeed one of the related acts, and that article sets forth their relationship convincingly. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above; there isn't enough to keep as a separate article, unless the links found above would be sufficient, but a small section in ZLL would be fine. If anyone wants to add sources and argue for a keep, ping me and I'll rethink. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azalea Technology Investments, Inc.[edit]

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

The only significant thing I'm seeing that isn't a mirror of this article is that it's "the holding company for the Internet-related activities of the Ayala Corporation"[27] and brief mentions here and there (how much is R521.17 million?). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another investment company that offers a wide array of information and communications technology (ICT)-related services advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. Lom Konkreta (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The awards won establishes notability easily. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Richardson (special effects designer)[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominated for an Academy Award means he's easily notable. Lugnuts (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:ANYBIO... in spades. Two Visual Effects Society Awards nominations and one win. One Satellite Awards nomination. Two Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards nominations. One Online Film Critics Society Awards nomination. One Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards nomination. Eight BAFTA Awards nominations, and one win. Nine Saturn Awards nominations and win. Five Academy Awards nominations and one win. While article will benefit from expansion, we do not delete stubs because they are stubs with a simply claim of WP:JNN. We instead look to see if notability criteria are met and then perhaps tag the article for improvements. And in case we hear arguments here that "some" his repeated shared nominations and wins are non-notable beacuse they were presented to several other involved in that same creative effort, he also has many accolades awarded to him alone. And in the other cases, awards are not all somehow diminshed when shared, as they are awarded to recognize significant achievment, and it only reasonable that awarding agencies present such to all those whose creative efforts are deemed worthy of recognition, even if it means they award the efforts of two or three individuals for those creative efforts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep He already won an Academy Award (plus the awards mentioned by Michael), he is notable enough. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Won an Oscar. Definitely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. The thing about Alan Liefting is that he never searches for sources before he nominates articles for deletion. SL93 (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian and New Zealand cities by number of major sports teams[edit]

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

As far as I can tell this list is an out-growth of the sporting rivalry between these cities; the list serves no useful purpose. The selection of sports appears entirely arbitrary. The placement of teams within cities is also arbitrary (for example the St. George Illawarra Dragons has two stadia, neither of which are in the City of Sydney). These teams, cities and sports competitions all appear to have sufficient in-depth coverage, categories, lists and wikiprojects without the need to resort to this list. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This is an arbitrary and not at all useful way of ranking these cities. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or merge with List of Australian cities by number of professional sports franchises (created May 2011), which may itself be up for an AfD. Both articles were apparently created as an ANZ version of List of American and Canadian cities by number of major professional sports franchises. However, there are different definitions of what constitutes "major" and/or "professional" sporting leagues. The North American lists are notable; the Australian lists are not. I ♦A 11:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, surely two lists of this type are unnecessary. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Lom Konkreta (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Till I Go Home (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN to be stand-alone, and fails WP:OR to be merged anywhere. Title would fail WP:Identifiability if that were a policy. Unscintillating (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all the above. A snow close would appear to be in order.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus, such as it is, is that our inclusion requirements at WP:BIO are not met. Sandstein 18:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian J. Kott[edit]

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

A Lawyer who was in the real estate business. Handled some cases for the City of Detroit and is active in local civic institutions. None of the references mention him. Can't find anything that says notable via Google. Article has been around since 2009. Bgwhite (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Lom Konkreta (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A possible redirect to Word of Life Church is an editorial decision. Sandstein 18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Room Prayer and Worship Center[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this worship center such as would confer upon it the notability requisite for a stand-alone article. The church it is part of does appear to be notable, however. Epeefleche (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no indication of notability. Lom Konkreta (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the parent church article. -- 202.124.73.241 (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could understand a redirect, and that would be fine with me. And any appropriate material could be created there. But a merge would -- as this is challenged -- require RS inline citations for the text, which we do not have.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that part of the merge policy? -- 202.124.75.75 (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it seems that the best way to do a merge here would be to add one of the pictures to the main article with a short caption. St Anselm (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CHALLENGED, any material challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. We can't add such challenged text to the target article without violating wp's core verifiability policy. This is also discussed at the talkpage of WP:MERGE here. You don't have to merge a picture -- you can add it (just done). A merge does require (as distinct from a redirect) the movement of article history to the target article; by the editor proposing merger, not by the closer.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have tagged the article as challenged. Although merges of material containing tags of various kind are routine, that probably strengthens the deletion case, unless sources can be found. And I must admit, on searching I can't find even one WP:RS. -- 202.124.75.50 (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did it only to clarify -- if it wasn't already clear to each and every person from the already existing tags -- that it is challenged. It would, I would submit, be a violation of our core policy as wp:v to move (essentially, recreate in a target article) text that has been challenged and which still lacks an inline RS citation.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no reliable sources say so... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By challenged, I think is meant "reasonably challenged", and the reliability of a source for material depends upon the nature of the material. We do not normally require a third party source for routine information about an organization, unless there is some reason to suspect it. The existence of this room as part of the church can be supported by their own web site; that a church should have a room for prayer is not exactly controversial. But there is nothing distinctive about this room; everything said here about it in the present version is already in the main article. The earlier material about the symbolism of the room is not encyclopedic content. It might be for a famous building, but then there would be third party sources. I do not consider it a likely redirect, either; anyone likely to think of it will already know this church. Having a separate article on it amounts in my opinion to promotionalism. (I leave aside for the moment the question about whether the church itself is notable, or if all the content there is defensible). DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 2 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 18:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jotta a[edit]

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

Spam and an unsourced BLP. Lakokat (Drop me a line) 05:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguously promotional. I have looked for sources to see if it would be possible to rewrite the article without the promotion. The boy is undeniably a very talented singer (there's a lot of videos of him singing in a talent show), but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any coverage of him in reliable sources. It would not surprise me in the least if sources emerge, and at that point a neutrally-written article can be created. --bonadea contributions talk 08:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, but I am open to changing my vote if reliable secondary sources can be provided. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 09:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have also tagged this article with BLP-PROD, as it appears to be about a living person and contains no sources whatsoever. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 10:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm also open to changing my vote if reliable sources emerge, but a promotional BLP with no reliable sources can't stay in. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found this article through a google news search. http://christianlifetoday.net/amazing-boy-jotta-a-sings-amazing-grace-my-chains-are-gone-%E2%80%93-joven%E2%80%99s-talentos-kids-2011 I couldn't find much else other than videos of him. The article does seem pretty promotional, but maybe as more third party sources are published a new article could be created. For now, it doesn't fit on wikipedia.--MLKLewis (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstpex[edit]

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

Proposed deletion per WP:CORP of non-notable trading platform founded less than a year ago with limited third party coverage, primarily brief or incidental. Article has limited content and appears to be a vehicle for an editor with WP:NPOV issues to use for purposes of WP:ADVERT. This is one of several non-notable trading platforms established in recent years |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 23:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ The article has issues, but WP:GNG failure doesn't appear to be one of them. Some of the links in its "External links" section are iffy (the Bloomberg link, for example, looks like a straight press release), but some of the others, e.g. this Reuters piece, or this Independent piece, or this brief Institutional Investor article, which links to this Reuters piece, seem to constitute reasonably in-depth third-party coverage. Ammodramus (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are a couple of pieces all in a very short period of time that are basically a regurgitation of the company's press release / promotional material. This is not sufficient to establish the company as notable. This is minor / incidental coverage of the company. Having some exposure to this industry there is a big difference from the more established players trying to get some attention.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll yield to User:Urbanrenewal, who appears to have done a lot of work on business-related articles and is probably much more conversant with consensus on notability in that area. I'll note, however, that the two Reuters articles linked in my earlier comment are separated by some four months; would this affect his comment re. "a very short period of time"? (The second Reuters piece wasn't cited in the article at issue; one of the pieces cited in the article linked to it.) Ammodramus (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Two reliable sources that are comprised of significant coverage; topic passes WP:GNG:

"Trading platform could put price on Ikea and Bosch | Reuters". Fr.reuters.com. 2009-02-09. Retrieved 2012-01-19.
Jeffs, Luke (November 15, 2011). "CORRECTED-Advisor opens new line on SME funding". Reuters. Retrieved January 19, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I tend to agree with Northamerica1000 here; the two pieces in Reuters look to be sufficient for a pass of WP:GNG. Open to reviewing my !vote if they can be shown to have derived solely from press releases, but I've been unable to find evidence of that myself. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am surprised that there would be support to keep a 150-word stub article about an insignificant company. I work in this general space and am confident that this company does not meet thresholds for inclusion. This article is an exercise in self-promotion. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

however, we judge not by opinion, but evidence. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 3 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Institution of Technicians and Engineers[edit]

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

No attempt made to demonstrate notability. Created by a person with blatant COI. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

RHaworth

This is not blatant,I am a person who knows very much about the organization.

Delete non notable. COI argument in nom is irrelevant and not a reason for deletion. Greglocock (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how to things mean notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shobybxi (talk • contribs) 03:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see wp:notability Greglocock (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Institution i.e ITE Kashmir is fast growing professional organisation in Kashmir to provide education with professional development.

Some of the trades, fields of Engg. and Local Craft have been given impressive interest for their propagation and Training programmes these branches in Kashmir by INSTITUTION OF TECHNICIANS AND ENGINEERS, KASHMIR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acknowledger77 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC) shobybxi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

This Institution is inspired through works, craft-work introduced by great sufi and scholar Mir Sayyid Ali Hamadani way back some 650 years with present system of importing Technical Education on Scientific and Technological basis.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the claims in the article are backed by reliable independent sources. If you took out the unsourced material there would be nothing left. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shouldn't have been relisted. Non notable, no RS Greglocock (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VCW Championship[edit]

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

Article is about a professional wrestling championship in a non-notable organization. No sources have been added to show notability. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PROD tag was removed by author of article, AfD is also a procedural AfD. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons, all titles of a NN professional wrestling organization:

Comment VCW non-notable? It has been mentioned in Slam! Sports, Pro Wrestling Torch, Wrestleview, Wrestling Observer, four major third-party reliable sources for pro wrestling. Starship.paint (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing general notability guidelines. I would expect it to be mentioned in wrestling news sites but I don't believe notability is independently established. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original reasoning: "Article for an event for a company without a wikipedia article, no established notability." Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 01:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Cherry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This child actor certainly exists and is working, but I can't find any evidence that he is notable per our biography notability guidelines. I haven't found any articles about him, interviews with him, or really anything that isn't a simple movie listing or an aside in an article about another of the actors in one of his films. I freely admit that I am not an expert in the field but I did consult a renowned, long-standing international expert in the field of teen male actors ("Tiger Beat"), and found not a mention of him.

Note that online searches for this name bring up a namesake of some notability (Mrs. Rupert Murdoch's first husband), so searching online can bring up more results than perhaps would be accurate. NellieBly (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail on notability. Yes, he has worked a lot, but not in the leading roles demanded by WP:NACTOR. He may make it as an adult but time will tell.--AJHingston (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons stated by above arguments. He has starred in some notable films, but his roles were not major enough to where I could state without a doubt that he was notable in the films. His roles weren't small or minor, but there's enough to argue that he was more of a supporting character than a major one. I did a search and couldn't find any reliable sources to show that he's gotten any coverage in the news. There's a bit of a fan following, but not enough of a big one to qualify under that part of WP:NACTOR. He's on the border of notability and non-notability but I'm going to say that he just falls shy of what's needed for an article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep I'm finding the arguments above more conducive of this article needing improvement than for deleting it. What convinves me of notability is WP:ANYBIO and this actor being repeatedly nominated for Young Artist Awards... in 2004, 2007, 2008, and 2010. While as with any actor, he has had minor roles and one-ofs in televison series, enough of his roles found signficant to notable productions have allowed him to receive recognition for them. We have the verifiability of some of his film characters being significant to the film's storyline. Heck, even in The Sorcerer's Apprentice, his character introduces the entire storyline... remember that note young Dave was chasing? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt, the subject appears to pass WP:ANYBIO#1 and WP:ENT#1. Furthermore, he appears to pass WP:GNG: despite the main part of his Google News entries is made of trivial mentions, there is significant coverage, as here or here Cavarrone (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:ANYBIO. Till I Go Home (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Super Star (Arabic TV series)#Super Star 3 (2005-2006). (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asma Ben Ahmed[edit]

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

Lacks substantial coverage --though she does have a number of passing references -- in RSs, outside of her Pop Idol competition. My understanding is that placing 9th in a version of Pop Idol does not in itself confer notability. Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coming in 9th Place in a Pop Idol contest doesn't establish notability, and I can't find significant reliable source coverage otherwise. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article section on her particular season at Super Star (Arabic TV series)#Super Star 3 (2005-2006), and please do this through normal editing for all such contestant articles that don't merit standalone status instead of bringing them to AFD. postdlf (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not uncontroversial, unfortunately.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's not uncontroversial, redirection here? I don't see anywhere in the article's edit history that it's been even tried. postdlf (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not uncontroversial that a 9th place finish in the competition does not confer notability on a participant.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Star (Arabic TV series)#Super Star 3 (2005-2006) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:14, 3 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PHDL[edit]

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

Minor code that doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. While there's a bunch of hits for PHDL, almost none of them is related to the subject. When I typed PHDL "Brigham Young" came back with a few google hits, mostly forums and non independent sources. CSD declined though the page is obvious promotion for a person to get to use the code. Prod removed by article creator, and added another unreliable source (a slide presentation) Delete Secret ^account 00:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I declined CSD because the topic appears to have some coverage in Google Scholar, depending on what the 'P' means:
Philips Hardware Description Language[28]
Python Hardware Design Framework[29]
Granted, the coverage is sparse. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's coverage of a different piece of software. According to their site, it's actually Printed circuit board Hardware Description Language. A412 (Talk * C) 00:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, I'd say delete it if the article can't be brought up to WP:GNG standards within a week. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello, I am the original author of the PHDL article but I am not an experienced Wikipedia contributor, mostly a user that corrects mistakes from time to time. I've communicated with some friends in the Open Source community and a lot of them hesitate to contribute to Wikipedia because of similar problems. There are few Google hits on PHDL because it is open source and free. No company is writing articles and generating churn about PHDL because they cannot make money from it. It is written by electronics designers for electronics designers. Personally, I am not a PHDL developer. I am a user, an early adopter and beta tester. Quite a lot of work has gone into the development of PHDL and a little work into this Wikipedia article. If you can see your way to leave the article it will be very useful when trying to explain what it is. Thanks for your consideration and best wishes. Padudle (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We understand that, but it's very difficult for an article on a new tool open source or not is very difficult to meet WP:GNG in the first few months, thus the reason they get deleted all the time on Wikipedia unfortunately. Like I said in the talk page, you can move the article to your userpage and try to boost sources to meet the criteria when they arrive sooner or later. Thanks Secret ^account 17:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The project needs to be evaluated by secondary sources.

First, every development project does not deserve a WP article. There needs to be some indication of significance or acceptance. Even the article does not provide such evidence. There are motherhood and apple pie claims such as maximize productivity and design reuse. Those are non-trivial issues, but there is no indication how they are achieved. How is productivity maximized? Low cost schematic editors already have hierarchy / macro expansion. SCALD had recursive expansion in the 1970s. What level of design reuse is contemplated? Technology substitutions? Through-hole/surface mount? 5V/3.3V? Module generation? Design reuse has its own collection of propagation nightmares. How are the ECO alternatives handled? How about back annotation? Many design systems (even low cost ones) have error checking abilities, but many designers (and even library parts) don't use those abilities. What error checking is done? Secondary sources are needed to show that this project has either significance or acceptance.

Second, there are unfounded and dubious implications. Only text files can have version control? VC is important; the particular form of VC may not matter. Why the limitation to just PC board industry? Why different tools for similar problems? PCB layout issues involve a lot more than just circuit topology; how is that addressed?

Third, the examples seem logic-centric; are analog designers going to give up schematics? Writing RTL instead of a logic schematic is one thing, but the schematic for a switching supply is something else.

Glrx (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. No independent sources cited. Not exactly spam, but essentially written to publicise the software. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:56, 2 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl-Adolf Deubler[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Gsingh (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not really even asserted. He was the president of a football team for 8 years back in the 1920s and 1930s. I know that sports figures get some kind of automatic notability, but I don't think we have to import minor ones from outside the English-speaking world. The one notable fact, his presidency, should already be in the article on the club. Borock (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Delete. Robsy1849 (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment the fact that he was German (and hence sources may be in German) has no bearing on whether it is encyclopedic or not. Anglophone-centricism is not policy. I say nominate the German language version for deletion at their AFD, and if that goes, this one should too. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying he wasn't an important person. But he doesn't seem to meet WP's general standards of notability. He might meet some special standard for sports figures, but that doesn't compel us to have an article on him. Nor does the fact that German WP has one. I don't think they have to have one on every NFL and MLB team president just because we do. Besides that the readers don't need an article just to tell them he held that job, the presidents can just be listed on the team article. Borock (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Article creator, Robsy1849 has indicated support for Delete. Gsingh (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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