Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 December	19 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Sexuality Scale[edit]

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

no indication of this scales use anywhere. IP editor states on talk page that he has access to the journals cited, and this scale does not appear in them. delete as OR or something made up one day. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a variant of the Kinsey scale, but isn't supported by the references supplied. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, allow user to improve further upon the page and its complementary sourcing standards through additional research. — Cirt (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends IMO, userfying is never a good idea. Generally the articles get forgotten about and never touched again. How about we look on the internet, and work out how encyclopedic the topic is? If it is encyclopedic, either leave it as it is, or delete everything and replace it with a short verifiable stub. If the topic is inherently not suitable for an encyclopedia, then delete.--Coin945 (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V. It really does sound like a WP:OR derivation from Kinsey scale. If I see published scholarship to the contrary, I will reconsider.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (A7: Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). JamesBWatson (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Club China[edit]

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

This article claims no notability - Has no sources, therefore constituting to original research, without sources to verify it's content. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 23:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There seems to be enough to show notability , though considerable editing is needed. I urge PPdd to continue doing this, and keep their eye on it. ,. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Michael Paul[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article is self-serving/advertising in nature. The only references I can find pertain to the production company; however, these are just a credit that the company produced a show. Article fails WP:BIO. Article created by an editor associated with the production organization and with a prior working relationship with the "subject" of the article.reddogsix (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vanity piece with extra mustard on the side, please. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<<Please Retain this article>> It is true that I work for JMP productions, yet if you read the Bio and did any research you would find that JMP has contributed significantly to the world of Video Game Music concerts. Please consider leaving this article as a part of Wikipedia as I feel it is important that he is recognized for his contributions to bringing attention to the fantastic world of Video Game Music composition and performance. Thank-you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobattersby (talk • contribs)

Strong Delete - Clearly self-serving and COI author. As a side note, why is this at AfD with a current PROD? Salvidrim! 07:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Topic notability is ultimately based upon the availability of reliable sources, not who wrote an article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP - Clear notability, as pioneer producer of new art form being performed in major venues, attracting significant media attention,Here are a pile of news stories. and attracting major players in two industries his work combines. I was unaware of this new art form until this article. There is COI but that is irrelevant to notability. COI also does not block a new editor from editing. I assume most new editors come in with COI on their first article, and many experts contributing to an article have COI, which is the basis of their expertise. The article needs to be toned down and Wikified, but otherwise is an interesting article about a notable person producting a new art form that without the article, I would not have known about. PPdd (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears the "ton of articles" are about the event and only mention the individual in passing. As the experienced editor knows WP:NOTABILITY is not inherited, so the event might be WP:NOTABILITY, but the individual probably is not. BTW - If PPdd wishes to edit the article to include articles that I have not seen feel free. I am sure we would all welcome a keep outcome. reddogsix (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The producer of a significant new art form is not inheriting notability from the art form he or she produced. This is not the meaning of "inheritied". In the same way that a scientist and their significant discovery are each notable, a producer or a significant thing and the thing are each notable. PPdd (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new editor making his first edit in utter good faith, and the article is interesting and informative. It needs to be Wikified, and remove a little WP:Peacock, but is a good article, especially for a first one by a new editor.

I have not mentored an editor before, but I volunteered to do so with this editor. If he can't handle bringing this article up to snuff, I will come back and do it when I have time. But deletion for lack of notability as the basis is not rational. And as of the last time I checked, COI does not rule out writing an article. In fact, most truly expert editors have COI in the articles they write. PPdd (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment did the prod and AfD at the same time mean that you really wanted to delete it? 198.24.31.118 (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I added another reliable source reference to this article:

• Turtle, Michael (June 20, 2007). "Symphony of video games". Australian Broadcasting Network. Retrieved December 20, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He passes 1 and possible 3 of WP:ENTERTAINER. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable stage performances, or other productions." Search for his name and that of one of his plays, I found ample coverage of his work. Gamezone's news section has an article about one of his productions. [1] The Sydney Morning Herald covers his other play. [2] More out there, of course, but that's enough to prove notability. Dream Focus 12:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Méiliene Elizabeth[edit]

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

A horrid little collection of BLP violations that should have been expunged long ago. A person by this name (or at least a similar one) appears to exist, but who is not on the list of Penthouse Pets, has never been a porn performer, has no known connection to Paris Hilton, has no connection to a controversial iPhone app, and has never been arrested for attacking members of the notorious Westboro Baptist Church -- although this fabricated article has lingered undeleted for a year and is now mirrored around the Net. Time to eradicate this one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom as a blatant hoax. The sole reference makes no mention of her, and none of the other claims pan out either. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Take away the bogus reference, this is an unsourced negative BLP. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax and negative biography of a living person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Judicial activism. --MuZemike 03:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial tyranny[edit]

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

Essay. The list of largely primary sources is a good tip-off, but further examination of the text likewise reveals that this is someone's original attempt to draw together disparate sources and/or to write paragraphs and paragraphs of original material with no citations at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as an original essay on a topic which is inherently POV in nature. Carrite (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I restored the version that survived the first AFD, who was cursory but not horrid, and located the source quote. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Judicial activism; this seems to be merely a more strident slogan for the same behavior. bd2412 T 00:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kritarchy. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see anything suggesting that historical systems involving rule by judges are equated with tyranny by judges. bd2412 T 00:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  - I don't expect to win many people over, but the phrase "Judicial tyranny" suggests to me something more akin to the Islamic Courts Union than the 9th Circuit court of appeals. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The question is not necessarily what it "suggests" to any of us as editors, but what it is actually used to mean to the public. A quick Google search indicates that the term is addressed overwhelmingly towards views of the American judiciary. bd2412 T 19:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment - This is pretty much a POV fork of Judicial activism, is it not? There is so much here that needs to be surgically removed with a chainsaw that it's hard to say "merge" rather than "delete" or "redirect" is the solution... Carrite (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The content of the article has changed more than once during the course of this debate, and has tended towards NPOV synthesis. However, I think it is appropriate to at least retain references to the fact that the phrase "judicial tyranny" has been used to mean the same thing that "judicial activism". bd2412 T 14:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
merge the useful contents of the carious versions into judicial activism. This particular term is non-neutral, though I agree with bd2412 that the term has to be recognized. The other concerns expressed van be met by proper editing of the merged article. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion are stronger than the arguments for retention given. --MuZemike 03:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Po Sum On[edit]

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

Seems to me to be a nonnotable product. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of liniments available. Maybe this could be replaced with a redirect or merge with a Chinese medicine page. The page was previously PRODed by me, but there was an objection. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 21:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are hundreds of liniments available, but few have been in production for over 100 years. Not surprisingly we also have the similar Tiger balm, Vicks VapoRub & Bag Balm too. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you want to get it merged, propose merging, and no deletion. pluma Ø 22:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not established by third-party sources; age ≠ notability.Novangelis (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This product is not notable, and in fact I'm stunned that this page, which is essentially an advertisement for the product, has managed to survive on Wikipedia for this long - if this was a new page I'd consider tagging it for G11. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constituent grammatical evolution[edit]

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

Delete. Original research lacking notability established through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. PROD arbitrarily removed. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG. This proposed algorithm was presented for first time the last summer in one of the most credible AI conferences. All references are included for further investigation by the reader. There is a strong research activity in Grammatical Evolution area with a lot of proposed variations and improvements. One of them is CGE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aragorngr (talk • contribs) 21:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:ACADEMIC pertains to persons and seems inapplicable here. The most relevant guideline seems to be WP:GNG. JFHJr (㊟) 22:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, corrected.

Comment. The general notability guidelines require significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. The sources are self-published, rather than independent. Accordingly, the threshold for notability is not met. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources. Topic may well become notable but, until then, delete without prejudice for creation at a later date. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Note How about we look on the internet, and work out how encyclopedic the topic is? If it is encyclopedic, either leave it as it is, or delete everything and replace it with a short verifiable stub. If the topic is inherently not suitable for an encyclopedia, then delete.--Coin945 (talk) 12:58 pm, Today (UTC+8)
- Comment. Before we present articles for community discussion or participate therein, the process calls for looking for sources to ascertain whether or not the topic is notable. Lacking notability established through significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, the article is clearly inappropriate (regardless of the size). If you have questions about the process, you can find more information about contributing to deletion discussions here, or feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 08:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do know how the deletion process works. I was merely pointing out that none of the discussion (by the time i wrote that comment) actually tried to find sources, and instead were only talking theoretically about what sources there may or may not be. All I meant was, don't just talk about it, go and find them..--Coin945 (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are no theories made by others here, outside of the article creator's theories about the subject. You have assumed that other editors have failed due diligence in participating in this discussion. Prior to commenting here, did you perform due diligence and look for significant reliable and secondary sources that would support notability? If so, could you please list the sources that you found? If you have not made a search, why not? And why are you participating in this discussion without following the process, while finding fault with others, hypothetically doing the same? If you did run a search and came up empty, why make a comment that implies that sources exist, but others have failed to follow through in presenting them? Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ WP:GNG. CGE is a new algorithm. Therefore, is not yet widely known. But, the article points to resources hosted by IJCAI (paper and presentation) where a full description of the algorithm is provided as well as detailed experiments setup (full configuration) and results which allow everyone to rerun the experiments and reproduce the results. I don't see the reason of why such an endeavour of new researchers should be not included in wikipedia in order to be accessible by other researchers interested in the same topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aragorngr (talk • contribs) 17:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC) — Aragorngr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Wikipedia is not a forum for publishing original research. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Second recommendation added by the article creator has been stricken. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Grammatical Evolution, from which it is derived. It can be broken out when and if more papers are published. The Steve 06:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Merging would be inappropriate. The content is based solely on original research. No independent "papers" have been published. The article and subject lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. It neither belongs as a standalone article or as a part of another from which it is derived. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this is accepted by a credible conference with a strict review process why doesn't merit a wiki page? Spread knowledge! That's Internet about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.132.70.12 (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of established knowledge: hence the need for multiple reliable secondary sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete – I didn't find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Maybe someday it'll be reviewed and discussed among linguists, but it doesn't seem to be now. JFHJr (㊟) 23:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every new scientific concept is notable. A presentation at a single AI conference is not nearly enough. From the keep arguments, I at first thought they were saying it had been the subject of a major conference, which is the sort of coverage that does show notability. At this point, asking for coverage is like asking for coverage of anything else that has been newly published but not reviewed or referred to in a substantial way: too soon--and the arguments for keeping show in fact that the intention of the article here is primarily to promote the concept. DGG ( talk ) 15:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC) .[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. --MuZemike 03:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eurostazioni[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Could be redirected to Grandi Stazioni. Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nomination. This article is about a holding company with no particular claim to an encyclopedia entry. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why redirect? Grandi Stazioni and Eurostazioni are two different companies with different shareholders.User:Lucifero4
Keep The company owns 40% of the company that manages Italy's 12 busiest railway stations. Its shareholders are member companies of some of Italy's most prominent groups of companies and the French national railway company. Its directors include some of Italy's best known business people. It is mentioned in numerous Italian language independent sources. Its position in the Italian economy is also a good example of the links between Italian business and government. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate documentation available for major transportation company. This is the sort of subject where we need much more coverage. Our existing coverage in commercial subject is very unbalanced, with a emphasis of those companies who insert promotional articles. We can best deal with such promotionalism by pre-empting it, ourselves writing articles systematically on all major companies and commercial consortia of various sorts, such as this one. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The issue of promotional articles is just an example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and, although I agree with your view on that, is not a justification for this article. How does this article satisfy notability guidelines? Are we going to have articles on all the holding companies, parents, sisters, and subsidiaries in a corporate chain just because one of them is notable and the work they do is important? To the extent it's even noteworthy, it can be handled in one article and doesn't justify a separate article for each legal entity.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

El Cenit[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a student magazine that does not yet exist. Too soon and fails to show how this magazine is notable. Prod was contested stating "The magazine is under the compilation process", confirming this magazine does not yet exist. Bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Good luck but unsurprusingly, I cannot find coverage about this student magazine that is just starting out. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 03:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of coverage. --Muhandes (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logging truck[edit]

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

Essentially a dictionary entry - More appropriate for wiktionary. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that this is only a {{stub}} and therefor a starter article. All it needs is fleshing out, so it is just as appropriate as, say, tow truck. Peter Horn User talk 23:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not in any way a dictionary entry. It is not about a word; there is no etymology, grammar, pronunciation, spelling, or usage examples. The nomination is perhaps confused by the shortness of this stub. As WP:DICDEF explains, "Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent.". Warden (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This is a stub article, like so many others on Wikipedia. Stubs are not bad. They are the seeds from which featured articles grow. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not confusing this. The text of the article was essentially "A logging truck is a truck used for logging", when we have an article on trucks and on logging. That meets the criteria for a dictionary entry. We also have WP:DEADLINE which means we are not in any rush; one sentence articles without sources can be created in user space, fleshed out, and posted when there is some sort of notable content. Just my opinion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of other related articles is an other stuff argument which does not seem to have anything to do with dictionary nature. Please cite and quote the criteria to which you refer. Warden (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't... use.. other stuff... as my rationale?.. Clearly no point in addressing your comments, because you just do as you please and make what you want out of a situation. We know you vote to keep everything, no point in convincing you otherwise. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the articles truck and logging is an other stuff argument because you're saying that the existence of those articles is a reason to delete this one. It isn't and, in any case, it has no bearing on your original dictionary argument. The deletion argument is riddled with holes and so now you're resorting to personal attacks. That's false too as I routinely !vote to delete articles which have serious issues. This isn't one of them. Warden (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some revealing images which show what the "beast" is. Peter Horn User talk 02:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For now it is User:Peter Horn/logging truck. Any one can feel free to flesh it out so it can become a proper article. Peter Horn User talk 02:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once an article has been tagged for AFD, such a radical move should not be made until the discussion is closed. Your work is much appreciated but you do not own the article and so it's best to leave it where all editors can find it. The discussion will probably be closed as a snow keep soon and then you can continue without any fear of deletion.Warden (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're wrong. An article creator can move his creation that nobody else has made edits to back to his userspace without you sticking your nose in Colonel. As much as you like to pretend you run AfD, you don't. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The move into userspace has been reverted and the page has been move-locked for the duration of the discussion to prevent repetition. Warden (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because every two hours you moved it to a new title and I had to move it back over and over, so it was locked to prevent further edit warring. The history was merged because you caused two separate articles to be created. This is in NO way a validation of your incorrect belief that a user cannot move their own content back into userspace even during an AfD. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article and this one provide a nice history and other information. There's at least one study of truck configurations, an Alberta government guide, specific regulations, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those external links, very and most useful! Peter Horn User talk 21:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I note that the artiel has been userified. This provides hisotry and is considerably more than a dictionary entry: Keep and restore to article space. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall restore it to article space as soon as I'll have time. Peter Horn User talk 21:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peter Horn/logging truck has been turned into a redirect to an existing Logging truck article which was a move from "Timber lorry"! The one who did this thereby lost all the images that I had found. "brilliant"! Peter Horn User talk 22:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion is now moot as we are no longer discussing my {{stub}}, but a complete already existing article. Peter Horn User talk 23:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can find it here, which was my mistake when I tried to undo Colonel Wardens disregard for your userspace but accidentally capitalized the L in the process. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article subject is definitely encyclopedically notable and can find adequate sources. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 02:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is definitely an important topic and surely gets enough coverage for WP:N. Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Housekeeping close - article has been speedily deleted - 20:14, 18 December 2011 Fastily (Talk | contribs) deleted "What is dreamviewer" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is dreamviewer[edit]

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

It is not written in wiki format, isn't encyclopedic, title doesn't make sense, it is a list of Easter eggs, and is hard, almost impossible to understand. pluma Ø 19:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Michig (talk) 08:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiya Lynn[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, and the GNG. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits, just PR/presskit pieces and a tiny number of castlists. No reliably sourced biographical information, just fansites and retailer promo pages. By repeated AFD and DRV consensus, an Urban X award nomination does not count toward PORNBIO requirements or otherwise demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point me to the consensus that says this, please. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Here are a few prior discussions indicating a consensus to that effect: 1 – clearest explanation, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. JFHJr (㊟) 20:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - But Urban X isn't the only nomination she has; there's also a F.A.M.E. nomination. That isn't accepted either? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 20:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - In your estimation, does that approach (WP:PORNBIO) "Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years" or some other notability standard? It doesn't in mine. JFHJr (㊟) 20:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - 2006 and 2010 aren't multiple years? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per rationale and consensus above regarding WP:PORNBIO and Urban X. Otherwise, this subject doesn't pass WP:BASIC requirements. JFHJr (㊟) 20:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass PORNBIO. FAME nomination is not a final round nomination (finalist). Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Before everyone decides that this article I created should be deleted because the Urban X and F.A.M.E. nominations apparently don't count as valid nominations, you should all look at this. To say there's no consensus there would be an understatement, and since people can't decide there which awards are considered notable, it doesn't seem right to say the nominations I listed are without merit. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As JFHJr pointed out, the consensus regarding the Urban X/Urban Spice Awards has been establish by multiple prior community discussions. As Morbidthoughts pointed out, early-round nominations for the FAME Awards don't satisfy PORNBIO requirements, and PORNBIO says so quite clearly in footnote 11: "For awards with multiple rounds of nominations such as the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award, only final round nominations are considered." Morbidthoughts' comment is right on target (I'd missed that in reviewing the article) and is alone sufficient to show the subject fails the relevant criterion in PORNBIO. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's interesting that you're tagging onto my comment as though you evaluated my point, but instead you're just reinstating your point without even mentioning the discussion I just pointed out (although I'm not really surprised). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Morbidthoughts. Fails PORNBIO. Also fails GNG without non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all, really. And what's with the sourcing--are we really adding details about who someone takes it up the butt with based on the fansite? Drmies (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Morbidthoughts. Epbr123 (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Central (Call Center)[edit]

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

I found zero sources for this film. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep in that it screened at a festival 5 years after initial release [3]. I was able to find sources by searching for its title in conjunction with its director.[4] The 18 minute short film exists, and the title is sometimes translated as El Central or Telephone Station.[5] [6][7] It did receive some commentary and review in English-language Egyptian sources such as What Women Want (magazine),[8] but I do not have access to Egyptian-language sources. IF ever we have an article on Mohammed Hamad (filmmaker), we can certainly then include some sourced information about this there. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MQS. The language barrier precludes extensive researches, but the article's subject appears to pass more than one criterium of WP:NOTFILM. Cavarrone (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SNOW, A7, any applies Tone 08:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dražen stojanović[edit]

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

Totally unreferenced BLP. BLP Prod removed twice by article author. On the face this would seem to be a notable person, however I can find no coverage in any RSes, news, web, or other. Submitted for consensus. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I almost flagged this as a hoax. It certainly reads like one, especially the bits about multiple diplomas and forgetting what school he was attending. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - taking this purely at face value, it is a biography of a living person with no references of any kind. Searching on ("Dražen stojanović" "procter and gamble") turns up nothing usable though the claim of being a manager of P&G seems to be true. Simplest conclusion: not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable person. A search in Croatian gave me verification that the person exists because they represented their company in a publicized humanitarian drive, but nothing else of any relevance. Even the title is misspelled. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I couldn't find multiple reliable sources giving this subject significant coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 22:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling suggests they don't exist. Msnicki (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as BLP with no credible claims of notability - no references offered in the article. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oazis FC[edit]

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

Not notable or even hoax. The village of Szernye really has a football club playing in Mukachevo Raion league (7th national level, only top 3 are professional, the 4th is National amateur league and 5th anf 6th are oblast-level tournaments), but it's name is FC Szernye (ФК Сернє). However, most of the facts are unsourced: Ukrainian Regional League (Zakarpattia Championship) in 1981 was won by Kolos Nove Davydkovo, in 1994 it was forced to play in the Ukrainian Regional First League → Ukraine does not have such league, But next year (2004) they were the 2nd in Transcarpathian Cup., in fact this year Aval Mukacheve were runners-up. Finally, no reports on the match against Dynamo Kyiv exist, they lost only once in 1978 cup, but to Chornomorets Odesa. Thus, there is a lot of doubts concerning the achievements of this team. As they are not playing at professional level and have never played there before, this club is not notable — NickK (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability provided. Argyle 4 Life^talk 09:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear enough. Creator is encouraged to ask for userfication; I'll leave them a note. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Social Terms[edit]

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

This seems to be an unencyclopedic list. "List of concepts related to Russian history, culture and society"? Partially it could be merged to List of English words of Russian origin but overall it is too broad, why not include all the entries from Category:Russia in it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Short list of dictionary definitions of terms from imperial Russian history, Russian phrases that are usually untranslated in English. Kudos for the effort, but this remains in essence a set of dictionary definitions — and borrowed from a single copyrighted source at that. Not sure if it's straight copyvio or not, I'l assume that's not an issue for the purposes of argument, but that remains an additional matter of concern in the event this does close keep. I will note for the content creator that a number of these entries DO need wikipedia pages of their own State peasants, etc. and I would encourage them to get involved in researching and writing these one by one. Some may have multi-national applications — monastic lands comes to mind, that having both Russian and English application, at a minimum. Others showing here simply need to be redirects: obrok to quit-rent, for example — actually, I'll just install that one now. The point is that there may be existing pages for some of the Russian-specific terms — so if you do start writing pages on these topics, be sure to investigate whether there are any such pages already up to avoid merge issues down the road. Closing administrator, please be sure to write the content creator and offer to userfy if this closes as a delete. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. This is useful research, but not really in the form useful for an encyclopedia. I do hope the creator will consider your suggestions in the future; stubbing individual articles (with proper categories and redirects) would be much more helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of Russian social terms. Many of the entries in this article provide historical context and detailed descriptions well beyond what dictionary definitions would provide, and are hence, encyclopedic. This article would benefit from more references. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, there is absolutely no way to provide inclusion parameters here. This page actually, in essence Glossary of Russian-language terms not generally translated into English but often found in college textbooks dealing with the history of imperial Russia. It is good material, to be sure, and fills blank spots, to be sure... But it needs to be done encyclopedically, with item-by-item pages established. At THAT point it might be useful to have a page listing such Russian Imperial History bluelinks, or not. But this approach needs to be abandoned here and the content recomposed by subject. Carrite (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is here to help educate people. If this page helps people understand something they might look up, then it belongs here. Dream Focus 00:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We are not an indiscriminate collection of otherwise useful information. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This can easier be handled via a category. There is some added value to having a list, sure, but this particular list does not transcend WP:NOTDICT, nor do I see how it can.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 21, 2011; 19:50 (UTC)
Keep If it will make a category it will make a list also, and our recent practice is to keep both except in special cases. Even one of the delete !voters agrees there is added value in having a list; if it needs further work to have more added value, it should be edited to do so, not deleted. . It will serve a purpose, because the list can also say at least something identifying about them. Havin these brief definitions together is helpful, because they are best understood in context. the details of usage, can then be filled in by separate articles on each of them. Given the impoertance of Russian literature of that period, list list is highly useful to readers, and usefulness is one of the criteria for lists. DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about you (or somebody else) first suggests the category in question? We cannot even come up with a category; it would be as unwieldy as the alt names for the article suggested above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Michig (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Triple Helix[edit]

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

Non-notable non-governmental organization. Does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability because it has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (The reference to OnlineCollege.org is not a reliable source.) Does not satisfy WP:ORG, either.

In terms of content, this article is seriously messed up. I read it twice and I have no idea what this organization does: publishes journals, has supposed chapters, and "bridge[s] the archaic divide between ... various fields of study." It was clearly written by someone from the organization as a puff piece. GrapedApe (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If kept, the page would indeed need a rewrite to make it less promotional, more encyclopedic, but it's certainly reparable. The problem is notability: aside from the one not-so-useful, non-primary link mentioned by the nominator, there seems to be no secondary coverage to be found in web searches, just primary sources and false positives. If substantial, independent coverage from WP:RS sources can be found, I would be happy to look again. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, and also as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing wp:gng and wp:org due to lack of sources that establish notability. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 20:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The keeps have the stronger arguments, though this is hardly a textbook case for a keeper. Still, it is hard to deny the number of references, even if not all of them seem ideally reliable; there are at least three good ones.. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Brudenell-Bruce[edit]

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

Unnotable model; has news coverage, but solely as a result of her relationships with Jenson Button and Prince Harry. As we know, notability is not inherited. Last AFD closed as no consensus, largely due to the small number of !votes. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not WP:INHERITED by virtue of her relationship with Prince Harry, which is all that's made the news. Msnicki (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to provided sources, she dated a race car driver for two years and has dated a royal on and off for a bit. Plus, she's an underwear model, so she gets a little picture-heavy tabloid coverage. And that is pretty much it. Fails WP:N. And I don't think it's worth merging to the articles of either of her beaus. WP ≠ whosdatedwho.com.--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning when I nominated the first time. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What should be discussed here is applicability of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Do provided refs indicate notability? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response. No, they do not. And the fact that you pose this question shortly after a SPA IP address added a boatload of crap new references to this article--"HAIR COLOUR I get highlights done at Neville's on Pont Street. My colourist, Etna, is brilliant because you walk out feeling like you've spent a couple of months in the sun."..."Underwear model Florence Brudenell-Bruce attempted to show her intellectual side on a raunchy photoshoot in Primrose Hill..."--is, um, assuming good faith, unfortunate timing, I guess. But just in case, please be aware that Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, Hobbes. I'm still on the fence reviewing the references, some of which are poor quality. However other refs might appear as valid for the topic area of model/acting/fashion related, so I'm not expecting to see academic scholar works on the subject. The article definitely needs some work. A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published (what constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad), which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other. While trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability, multiple independent sources, which mention the person may be combined to demonstrate notability. Prima facie the person discussed does enjoy a reflection of multiple WP:RSs around the world, see for instance:

The Times of India source which cover the subject in depth: I've become a true fan of the Bollywood movies: Florence Brudenell Bruce.
Vogue UK source Style File - Florence Brudenell-Bruce
London Evening Standard source, in depth coverage: Florence Brudenell-Bruce is on a fast track to fame

Would those sources and others present in the article indicate notability? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that if the lede sentence says the individual is a model and an actress, then the sources offered in support of notability should be about her work as a model or an actress, not about who she might be dating. A review of her performance by Roger Ebert is one thing, a mention in a gossip column is something else. Right now, all I see here is the something else. Msnicki (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lede sentence is sourced to "Style File - Florence Brudenell-Bruce". Vogue UK. 14 December 2011. Retrieved 19 December 2011. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone actually go read sources? Here's what that one says: "ONE of London's most stylist girls about town, Florence Brudenell-Bruce is a regular on the capital's social circuit and, recently, the model and former Bollywood actress has been linked to Prince Harry - with rumours of a romance doing the rounds." That's a gossip column mention. 01:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If you continue to read the source, the source expands on model and actress: " Her acting career lead to a role in Bollywood film Love Aaj Kal, while her modelling work has seen her appear in the pages of Vogue and Tatler, as well as in campaigns for Avon, Brora and sporting lingerie for Knickerbox and La Senza. ", though generally agree British press is contaminated by gossips, especially relating to their royal family. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a gossip column. No one thinks gossip columns are reliable, never mind here on Wikipedia, where we have very clear ideas about what constitutes a reliable source. The whole point of these things is to pass along salacious rumors along with lots of pictures of pretty women and cool guys. (Did you click the links? They're all just galleries of pictures.)
Going back to the 60s, even Playboy had it figured out that even if all you're really selling is pictures of beautiful people, it helps to add in a lot of silly, irrelevant, largely ridiculous "insight" into the subjects' lives so you'll "know them". Miss August enjoys making her own cottage cheese while pursuing a Ph.D. in particle physics; left unsaid is that she hasn't heard back yet on her application to the local community college and no one has been willing to taste the cheese, just based on the smell. It's no different here. Yes, we can verify she had a role in a movie. But the reporting of any details about her acting and modeling in a gossip column are likely being passed along uncritically, simply repeating whatever she or her agent gave them. Msnicki (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The amount of hits from gossip sites is really overwhelming, but that doesn't detract from the coverage she has received in terms of her professional work. While she may not meet the WP:GNG with flying colors, the sources noted by AgadaUrbanit are indeed what is expected by it, and there a couple of others [9] [10] [11] — Frankie (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first new link is to a blog and is also primary, as she blogs there (as the piece itself notes). The second link begins "Until now, she has been known for disrobing as a lingerie model and being the ex-girlfriend of Formula 1 champion Jenson Button." Perhaps she wants to change this image? Anyway, she's gone out and bought some art (her family are rich), hired an art dealer to display it, and now she and/or the dealer are promoting the display. The third item is a couple of lines of fluff, although it is in The Telegraph, from their "Celebrity News" section.

While not notable for any specific areas of accomplishment, as Frankie suggests the gossip sites reference, this person is on the path to becoming notable on famous-for-being-famous grounds. I don't think she's there yet, but as AgadaUrbanit and other editors have observed, there is at least a case to consider here. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first link I gave has been moved here. I agree that that source is weak given the stated connection, although her contribution [12] is a one time entry for a monthly photo blog, and the other entries seem to be contributed by subjects that would have no relation with the publisher otherwise. The second link goes on to say "For since graduating from Bristol University in history of art three years ago she has been busily building her own art collection. Now the 23-year-old, who is known as Flee, is ready to display her pieces of modern British art in a salon she is holding next week at the Old Bond Street gallery of Robin Katz - son of millionaire art dealer Daniel Katz. Stowe-educated Flee, daughter of Old Etonian wine merchant Andrew Brudenell-Bruce, tells me: 'Modelling and acting are what I do, but they can be such a rollercoaster, whereas art is lovely to have in my life as a constant." Regardless of whether this is a significant achievement or it is just due to her connections, the article itself represents third-party coverage as expected by the GNG. The same goes for the third link, even though it's short. Personally, I think the material available is already enough to satisfy our inclusion criteria, and given the circumstances it is reasonable to expect coverage of similar quality to continue to emerge — Frankie (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have an article on Famous for being famous with a great link to a Washington Post article: "The truly famesque possess the seeming gravitas that comes with a title and the suggestion of a job -- actor, singer, pro athlete. It's just that . . . you've never seen them act, or heard them sing, or watched them play." This is my point, above: Gossip columns can say what they like. No one expects them to be reliable sources. But if we're going to have an article claiming the individual is a notable actor and model here on Wikipedia, our standards are higher, there should be reliable sources to support that claim. In this case, they don't exist. Msnicki (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not go that far, Bollywood film Love Aaj Kal and modelling work which appear in the pages of Vogue and Tatler, or campaigns for Avon, Brora and sporting lingerie for Knickerbox and La Senza appear preaty solid to me. Those are not gossips. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go that far either. Reliable sources do exist, they're just being overshadowed by the rest. If we could imagine this AfD without the connection to Prince Harry and James Button, as if only the six links above existed, we would have a borderline notable subject, maybe a model/actress/curator, maybe just a celebrity. It wouldn't be a slum dunk delete, and even if it was deleted there is enough indication of possible future coverage to note that the usual caveats would apply (as it actually does in the event this article gets deleted) — Frankie (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Johnny Squeaky !voted delete and continuing to remove refs and material, while the AfD is still ongoing. He did it three times so far: December 18, December 19 and December 20. There is a good chance that the page would be deleted soon, so I am not sure why to rush and WP:EW. I'm discussing this here, since the editor ignores talk page discussion. Reviewing admin should examine page history carefully. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominal Keep - just reverted the biased and unhelpful edit of Johnny Squeaky again, and I fully agree with the logic of AgadaUrbanit that his edits where highly unhelpful to this debate. This is the second debate on this article, both of which have been subjected to unhelpful in debate edits. Does she pass WP:NOTABILITY? Whether the extensive press and media coverage started or came from, there are presently 17 references, of which 3 support her private life. After that, around two thirds are from sources which pass WP:RS, and the rest are mainly specialist fashion sources. You can't judge her as a passing fade with a 5+ year career, so its a question of whether she passes the criteria? For me hence on balance its a nominal keep. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RS sources produce slurry as well as ore. The fact that you are pointing to numbers rather than actual items seems to me a concession that the actual citations are trivial or otherwise garbage. Please, which actual items should we look at, and judge? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I would normally say that Notability has to be notability for something, but an exception needs to be made for people who are essentially society figures, whom the public considers notable for merely existing. These cases must be judged individually, and in my opinion, we should judge them very critically, to avoid the danger of falling into NOT TABLOID. Whether this particular person passes that bar will always be a matter of opinion. Famous for being famous, yes, when it's a matter of being famous, but I don't think she reaches that level. I'm not particularly impressed with the nature of most of these sources--some are in a sense reliable without their world, but I would have said weak delete were it not for the CBS News article, which is a mainstream source not given to tabloid coverage. (I'm a little diffident, though, at judging UK sources in this respect--I'd be more confident if this was NYC, not London.) DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to Boil a Frog[edit]

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

declined speedy. I don't think there are any redeeming merits of this spam, even from its earliest version.. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I took an instant dislike to this article, based on the marketing-speak of the lede. However, as there does seem to be some coverage out there (which I have not yet evaluated), I've had a go at editing it into something more neutral, so that hopefully it can be judged here just on notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - there are 30 inline citations but these do not appear to make a claim to notability. 1-10 are videos on YouTube. 11 explains what relocalization is. 12, 13 are to the movie's own website. 14-30 are to people in the article, or their organizations. So where's the notability? It could be in Movie Reviews on the web: there are some, e.g. Energy Bulletin; the movie won a "Special Mention Angel Film Award" in 2011, according to MovieScope Magazine. Article will need rewriting - nearly everything there could go - but there is probably a place for an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be in agreement that this is "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." So why don't we delete and start from scratch without the baggage? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rewritten and expandable portion of the article that deals with the film. Like User:Hobbes Goodyear, I went and did some work on it. The film has received numerous awards and received enough attention and recognition to meet WP:NF and WP:GNG. And in considering what CAN go after a keep... after more work and sourcing ABOUT the film, the extraneous information about the film's official website can be removed per WP:PROMOTION, as a decent article about a notable film is not to be about the film's website. The film is notable enough, but the website stuff belongs in its own article, if at all.. and in the film article we can offer our readers enough about the film so if they want to visit its website, they can do so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (nomination withdrawn). Subject seems to be notable, and there are editors who have completely revamped the article. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Michig (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paladin: Dawn of the Dragonslayer[edit]

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

Only hint/suggestion of notability is weak and not viably sourced. As of this point it's a non-notable film by an as-of-yet non-notable director, added by WP:COI-wielding editor. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I reviewed the notability criteria for films, and wasn't able to find any specific part of those criteria that this film meets: it isn't in wide release, hasn't been reviewed by multiple nationally-known critics, hasn't won any significant awards, been selected for preservation in a national archive, or been the subject of a university class. The only cited source appears to be a press release; the only additional source I found was an interview on a blacklisted site which doesn't support a claim to notability anyway. I am, of course, open to the possibility that after the film's release, it will become notable, and that Wikipedia will then need an article about it- but that article should be written by someone who was not involved in the production or distribution of the film. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I only found non-reliable sources and press releases. SL93 (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per WP:TOSOON. The film has only recently been released and is just starting to get coverage in non-rs genre sources,[13][14][15][16][17] We can wait for it to be covered by reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Michig (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winx Powers (Winx Club)[edit]

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

Looks like an in-universe description of an animated TV series. Doesn't appear to require its own article. The Evil IP address (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to where this is especially notable in and of itself. It seems to fall along the lines of WP:FANCRUFT. At most this should be condensed down into a few sentences or a paragraph and added to the main article. There's no need for this much detail outside of a fansite. If it was just "Winx Powers" in the title, I'd suggest a merge to the main article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another "Type what I see on-screen and call it an article about this show's mythology" article of interest to only a select few, which has transformations par for the course for a kid's cartoon that aren't unique. Definite fancruft. Nate • (chatter) 23:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. the consensus seems to be delete, and there's no point in continuing after 2 relistings. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imedia entertainment[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage at multiple reliable sources which are independent of the subject. This is almost an advert for a production and a singer/EP - not about the company. I see no evidence that the company (or the production or singer) meet the notability criteria. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to be involved in some interesting projects, but very much WP:TOOSOON. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. None of the referencing in the article establishes notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack (CD ripping software)[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, software is notable. I found one reference, but suppose many of them are to be found by results from Google Search. Alex^{discussion ★} 23:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable CD ripping software in a crowded field. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rip_(software) --Northernhenge (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable software product with vaguely spammy article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter DiFronzo[edit]

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

Contested prod. No significant claims of notability, outside one conviction. A lot of questionable language in this one - "reputed", "supposedly"; some references appear dubious as well - user-submitted "iReports", blogs. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor criminal that fails WP:CRIME, information can be added to John DiFronzo. - DonCalo (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A person who appears on any list of the FBI is in my opinion not a minor criminal. FBI dont handle minor criminals. He passes WP:CRIME just barely but still.--BabbaQ (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to John DiFronzo – Fails WP:CRIME. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I agree he just about appears to pass WP:CRIME. Barely. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google News indicates substantial coverage over a long time period. However I disagree with the suggestion that being mentioned by the FBI implies notability. Pburka (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gearheaddeals[edit]

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

I don't really see notability here. It's a new web site, and the only sources given are effectively just reports of press releases - I can find no reliable 3rd party coverage. I originally deleted it as A7, and have had a discussion of it on my Talk page, where the creator has been unable to find any better sources either. Also, the creator has been working on a new and less promotional version in user space at User:Bmwm3guy/Gearheaddeals, so I don't know why this older and more promotional version would be preferred anyway. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that I may have made the wrong link, but per the recommendation of Boing! I have created a less "promotional" sounding page. This is in my userspace and is the the one I meant to be discussed here as being the one that is published. I also disagree, but the main source I listed is reliable 3rd party source. It would be like the Washinton Post or CNN writing an opinion story on the website. This "autoblog" is a huge news website that is equivalent to those two other news sites, but for the automotive news community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmwm3guy (talk • contribs) 16:07, 18 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]
- To my knowledge, neither the Washington Post nor CNN regurgitate completely unedited press releases, like this "autoblog" does. [18]. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed the public version to match my draft version that is less "promotional" sounding. Could you all pelase help me fix the article so that it is acceptable to you all? I've read the opinions that others have written that they think there is something here. How do I add enough information that, or what kind of information, will convince you all of this? I can try to contact the site owners for any more intimate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmwm3guy (talk • contribs) 16:19, 18 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've had a look around, myself, but as I tried to explain on my Talk page, the problem isn't that you are not writing the article properly with sufficient information, it is that you are not providing the kind of sources we need for the site to satisfy Wikipedia's WP:NWEB requirements - have a read of the "Criteria" section specifically. All of the references given are just press releases, and there isn't a single piece of genuine 3rd party editorial material there. If the necessary sources don't exist, then no rewriting will make it better. Getting more intimate info from the site owners won't help, as that would be primary sourced information and not the third party sources that we need. I think the only thing that will help is if you can find genuine third party sources that satisfy WP:RS and which provide actual independent coverage of the site. I couldn't find any when I looked (during our earlier conversation), and I have to doubt they are there. But that doesn't mean the site will be forever non-notable - if it succeeds in making the mark it hopes for, then other people will surely sit up and take notice and actually write about it, and when that happens there will be a much better chance of justifying an article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a start-up website that gives users daily deals related to automotive parts and accessories. It was created in May 2011. References all seem to be to blogs or unreliable business buzz ("trendhunter.something") sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete lack of WP:RS sources. If the blogs were doing major review or something, that would count, but as is, its just PR repeat. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can someone please explain to me why the autoblog.com article is not counting as one of these sources. What information is missing from that article? What information is required to be in an article for it to be valid. Sorry but I am new to all of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmwm3guy (talk • contribs) 14:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, redirect, and protect. If we're going to. protect the redirect it doesn't make all that much difference if it is deleted or not. Since there is also a desire to send a message, deletion seems appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zhonghua Primary School (Singapore)[edit]

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

Delete Notability has not been established in accordance with WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Recommend deletion due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Article previously redirected, in accordance with common AFD outcomes, yet followed by the creator reinstating the article, so I'm bringing it here for community consensus. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 09:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and then redirect to List of schools in Singapore. No sources have been provided other than the school's official site and Facebook. By the way, I notice that there are over 70 schools in Category:Primary schools in Singapore, which seems unusual given that most primary schools are usually considered non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. What Metro said. And ... it might make sense for someone to do a complete sweep of primary schools and AfD those that should be AfD'd (I've AfD'd a number today).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects do not necessarily require physical deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, no. However, the article creator refuses to honor the redirect, continually removing it to restore the article. That's why it was brought here to discuss deletion and then redirecting, as appropriate. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 11:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cindy, I missed that. See below.

Redirect to article about school district or locality according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Delete the article before creating redirect and Full-protect the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to closer. If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per standard practice. Carrite (talk) 07:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect and protect; we have sometimes deleted articles altogether when people prevent a neutral article or a redirect from being written, but there are almost always better ways to deal with the problem. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Starbucks Rewards[edit]

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

Non notable program, possibly advertising Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Starbucks or just to loyalty card. This is already mentioned on the main article for Starbucks and I don't see where it really needs a separate article of its own. At most it might be worth redirecting to just plain loyalty card since the general premise is there.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Starbucks per Tokyogirl. This article looks more like advertising for Starbucks than an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please quote where it is even mentioned in Starbucks? Because a lookthrough and a ctrl+F found no mentions of the rewards program, "card rewards" or simply "rewards" anywhere in the article. I don't think it should be a redirect to a page that doesn't provide the information. If someone wants to add all this into the Starbucks article then fine, but I believe that it's almost a bit too complicated to be fit into the article in a way that wouldn't make people wonder why it didn't have its own article. gwickwire ^(talktome) _(contribs!) 18:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very slight merge to Starbucks. I understand your point that the rewards program is not mentioned in the main Starbucks article, but I don't think anything needs to be said about it there beyond "Starbucks has a loyalty card program called My Starbucks Rewards". If people want to know the details about the rewards program, they would be much better off looking at the Starbucks web site than expecting to find the details here in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned, but only a brief sentence as a loyalty card. [Starbucks#Recent_changes] It's in the third or fourth paragraph in this section. Really, that brief sentence is all that's really needed.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete because there's nothing in this article that's not available on the Starbucks website. The only references are to two blogs and the Starbucks website itself. – Majora4 (leave a message) 05:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Starbucks - Not enough in-depth coverage to justify a separate article (see wp:gng). Chris (talk | contribs) 00:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ido not think there need be even a redirect, because this is not really a likely search term--anyone looking for information would look for the Startbucks article--or their web site. We shouldn;'t encourage this sort of article by routinely making a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Helal Islami Academy School[edit]

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. Tagged for notability in June. Zero refs. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately. Article fails test for Wikipedia:Verifiability. In a world where a Bangladeshi secondary school had the resources of a first world secondary school, this would pass that test. This, sadly, is not that world. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The school can be verified to exist, but is unclear whether it is a primary or a secondary school. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only has no sources, but also has very little info. Very much like a directory entry.Stedrick (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There are clearly sufficient sources. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya Kun Kaya Toast[edit]

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

this business does not seem notable Pergi Mampos (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2011 (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/2011 December 18. Snotbot t • c » 07:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of countering systemic bias. The article mentions that Ya Kun has outlets in multiple countries. Give me some time to dig up references about awards that the company have won. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A restaurant chain with locations in six countries would seem to be notable. The chain has been mentioned in the media: see The Telegraph, Channel News Asia, New Zealand Herald, El Universal (Mexico), Aftenposten (Norway). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Dickson[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, only mentioned in two sources(see external links) about a hidden iOS feature he discovered. WP:1E at best. Also the creator (and thusfar only editor) may have WP:COI (username).) Animusv3^{Talk to me! Contribs} 06:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent sources providing the substantial coverage needed to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Getting your name mentioned in a tech blog for having hacked an iPhone isn't sufficient. Wikipedia is not a hosting service for autobiographies and self-promotion. Msnicki (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:1E. SL93 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Not a trace of notability. Vincelord (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) as a blatant hoax under WP:CSD#G3. (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 11:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petter aaser[edit]

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

I am unable to locate any sources indicating that this person can pass muster under WP:ATHLETE. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. As Dennisthe2 rightly points out, searching finds no evidence that a player of this name ever existed. Every transfer of a player in British soccer attracts significant newspaper coverage. Take a look at SoccerBase's QPR transfer page, which shows all transfers into the club in 2010. No such player is listed. Clearly this is an attempt to create a false history. Please expunge. Sparthorse (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Speedy deleted as blatant hoax -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by by Michig (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD#G4, as a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 12:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.muhammad ishaq khan langah[edit]

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

Author refuses to acknowledge sources need to be added, entire page is copied from http://wikibin.org/articles/muhammad-ishaq-khan.html. Also using good-article and semi-protect templates in page despite not being admin or having put article through review. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 05:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it under speedy deletion of criteria G12 as unambigous copyright infringement.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 06:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the tag of G4 as the same deleted material is in the new article.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 06:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G12 removed as the source is a fork of Wikipedia.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 07:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Under criteria G4.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 06:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete but only as restoration of deleted content under WP:CSD#G4, not as copyvio. The claimed source was Wikibin, which is a fork of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz#Wikibin. However, much of this article is identical to Muhammad Ishaq Khan which was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Ishaq Khan earlier this year. No attempt appears to have been made to improve the article compared to how it was when it was deleted before. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as reconstruction of deleted content. No sources (using Wikibin, a Wikipedia fork, as a source is similar to using Wikipedia itself as a source). JIP | Talk 08:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold your horses Does anyone even know if this guy is notable or not? If he is deserving of an article, then just replace the article with a short stub. Theres no reason to delete the article of a encyclopedic topic. If he is not notable, by all means delete.--Coin945 (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Olympia, Washington#Geography and climate. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weather of Olympia, Washington[edit]

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

Delete. WP is not a meteorological service. I would want to draw a line at climate by state. Weather by location is just too specific. I would also draw your attention to Category:Climate of the United States by state. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Olympia, Washington#Geography and climate which contains a summary of the most relevant data in a more readable form. The last half of the article, with statistics like "First average 20 °F (−7 °C)" (and 24, 28, 32 and 36 F as well) is far too trivial to be of interest. However, some statistics like "highest recorded" temperatures may be of relevance (for instance, The World Almanac's table "Normal High and Low Temperatures, Precipitation, U.S. Cities", for the 2011 edition on page 309) contains this kind of information for several cities), so keep the history in case something should be merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agree with nom that standalone weather articles for cities should be cleaned up. "Weather of.." articles can be redirected to "Climate of.." articles or to the Climate section in the main article about the place. Any useful content can be merged over where appropriate. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the only two that exist are being dealt with. See "Weather+of". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Sjakkalle. Wikipedia is not a weather service. JIP | Talk 08:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing fuselage Section 41[edit]

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

This article describes...well, what Boeing calls the cockpit section of its aircraft. I PRODded this in the past, and it was removed with the comment that "the cockpit section is a critical part of any aircraft". This is true, but the fact Boeing calls it "Fuselage Section 41" is not. There is no notability to Section 41; the fact certain models share a similar/identical cockpit section can be included in the relevant model articles. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a historic term and well known in the Boeing aircraft community. --rogerd (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "historic", and how does it being "well-known in the Boeing aicraft community" make it notable? Being used by a specialist group =/= notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not really notable as a stand-alone article the common cockpits thing could be mentioned in the related aircraft articles. Now a well-referenced article on Section and Station numbering on Boeing products might be notable - but not just one part of what is a complex system. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Section 41 is internal company jargon and hardly noteworthy as a stand-alone article. Mariepr (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in my opinion, it is random information - how is this block more notable than the many other blocks that don't have articles? It is undue weight to give it an article to itself, maybe a Boeing Commerical Aircraft Manufacturing article dedicated to the manufacturing process, stages, and key components of a Boeing civil aircraft might just be justifiable, and this is where this info would belong, if at all. Kyteto (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I accept the judgement of OParalyzerx, whom I consider the expert here for this subject. The keep !vote is essentially saying, it will be notable some day, but a keep for that reason is not based on policy. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkler (ride)[edit]

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

Non-notable amusement park ride. All existing references are self-published by the park. Google News search produces only one relevant source (COASTER-net), but I'm not sure how reliable it is. jcgoble3 (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This may be one of those cases where self-published information is acceptable but the fact that self-published information is in there is concerning. The ride is still under construction which means this page can wait until proper reviews placed in reliable secondary sources are available. The images used are copyrighted as well and the images should be tagged for deletion as well. There is not enough information at this time to give a thorough breakdown of the ride.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 02:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no need to delete this article since it has all the information correct for this ride and it is up-to-date. When construction starts more information will come in... Since there are lots of new rides opening in 2012 (including this one) there is no need to delete because it is not opened yet and nothing has happened yet!--Jpp858 (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I have been heavily involved in editing Holiday World articles over the past couple months, there is really no notability to Sparkler, especially long-term. The ride should be referenced in a list of swing rides, which it has been, just as other non-notable rides of the same type are listed together. Beyond that there is nothing significant about Sparkler that sets it apart from other swing rides of that type. For that reason alone, I am in favor of deleting this article. I do not believe sources to be an issue, especially considering the ride has not opened yet and information used from the park's website is factual and statistical in nature. I do not believe the images to be an issue either. They can both be claimed under fair use: the logo and the concept art, which is considered promotional material. Although the images themselves I do not believe to be a problem, the fact they would not be used in any article is, and they should therefore be deleted as well. OParalyzerx (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of EINECS substances 200-xxx-x[edit]

...

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

This seems a clear violation of NOT DIRECTORY--it's a list of all chemicals commercially available in Europe. The numbers are not meaningful, they're simply arbitrary ID's, exactly like CAS numbers. There should be a field for these in the chemicals infobox, which is all that's appropriate for an encyclopedia. There's a good public search page for the database at [19]. I am unsure of copyright status. The database pages give no indication of copyright. Whether such a database would be subject to copyright in the US is also unclear. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- U.S. copyright issue would seem to be covered by Feist v. Rural, that is, facts cannot be copyrighted, but presentation can be. A copy of the information is permitted, but not the display program (a screen shot from the source database would need permission). Dru of Id (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite so simple. Chemical Abstracts Registry Numbers are arguably protected by copyright, because of the creative elements of the way they are assigned to distinguish the different structures. Whether it would hold up in a court case has never been determined. There are long discussions, e.g. [20] and [21] with respect to their use in Wikipedia. These numbers have much less intellectual input, and so are probably not copyright in the US, whatever may be the state in Europe. I see no obvious copyright statements or stated license restrictions on the relevant db access pages, but I haven't't studied them in detail. But, as I was saying, I don't think it's relevant: our use of them in the descriptions of a chemical is fair use, & this sort of direct reproduction of their downloaded table serves no encyclopedic purpose. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the EC number system itself is notable, being used Europe-wide, and so adding EC numbers alongside CAS numbers to infoboxes of notable chemicals seems reasonable. However, a listing of all substances by EC number seems to me to be fairly useless... and as DGG has noted, a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I have no idea why the Europeans couldn't just use CAS numbers, but I suppose that's a topic for somewhere else. EdChem (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of the copyright situation, this violates WP:NOTADIRECTORY. In addition, it seems evident to me that WP does not need to duplicate existing databases. Please note that since this AfD was started, the lists 211-xxx-x to 220-xxx-x have been created... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've just added 211-220 to the AfD. I would suggest that the author refrain from wasting time creating more articles until this discussion is over. —SW— ^express 23:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The author has been ~~temporarily~~ indefinitely blocked after creating 31 of these articles and refusing to stop. Toddst1 (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't know much about the subject, but it does seem to be a complete exposition of all possible details. A gargantuan, poorly-formatted, redlink-laden table of every chemical compound known to mankind is not helpful. —SW— ^comment 23:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I am in favor of having more articles about chemical compounds, I don't see any value in a directory of the chemical compounds which have EINECS numbers. There is a field for EINECS number in {{chembox}}, so we can already incorporate EINECS numbers for all chemicals that we have an article about, but I don't see the need for anything more than that. ChemNerd (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I haven't finished yet. Nor have I written EINECS Directory yet. How can you possibly decide whether to delte it if it isn't finished? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggg phew (talk • contribs) 21:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all anticipate the nature of the content of List of EINECS substances 271-xxx-x. ChemNerd (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOTDIR. Toddst1 (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Loughmiller[edit]

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

Unremarkable horror movie director. Although he participated in an award-winning "30-second Local TV Commercial", it was one of several given the same award and it was the commercial which won, not the BLP subject. Clear conflict of interest by article creator. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't really find anything to show that this director is notable at this point in time. I was only able to find one article, but not really anything else to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

It's just a case of WP:TOOSOON.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Lhakthong (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, nor do most of the links mention him anywhere. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 04:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This may be of interest: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benhx. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Subject passes General Notability Guidelines, as PBurka correctly points out--which renders moot all discussion of WP:SONGS. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme All Your Luvin (Madonna song)[edit]

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

Song has no chart positions or accolades. It is also a blatant duplicate of a sandbox article started earlier by a respected editor. If kept, it would conflict with attribution rules stated in Wikipedia's copyright. | ^help _dןǝɥ | 00:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons above. This is WAY too soon. — Status {^talk_contribs 00:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete premature creation. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 03:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – this song is being released next month, it hardly premature! It has been officially confirmed and is a good starting point for a good article.This article has already established itself with quite a lot of information and sources. It would be ridiculous to delete it now and have to re-create it again in a month. There is information on the title change, controversy of the song, music video etc. Lady Gaga's "You and I" had a page months before it was even announced as a single and there was no problems with that. JWAD ^{Communicate|Nicely} 08:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nearly all info is about the leaked demo, which fails notability. JKW111 (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. Agree with reasoning above.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 14:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May not have been officially released yet, but it leaked and, more importantly, was the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, such as MTV and Billboard. Pburka (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Getting sick and tired of these stans and bloody users create every damn page under WP:N. Bite me. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG, has been confirmed, so there are no WP:CRYSTAL issues, and any attribution issues can be fixed through its own process.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 14:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this the finalized version of the song? It's posed for a release in January, so I have doubts about the leaked version being the final one. —DAP388 (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaked versions are almost never final. It is best to always use officially released material so reliability won't be an issue. If there are users that wish to keep this article, I propose we move it to the creator's userspace so they may edit and fix it as well as other users fixing it.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 20:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the reasons explained above. ---- Digital1 (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Premature article, the current article is just about the leaked demo. Bluesatellite (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What's wrong with that? The leaked demo is notable per WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of this information is on a DEMO. The final version is confirmed to be very different. The only useable information here for when the song comes out is the background info. — Status {^talk_contribs 04:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is like saying we should delete The Trial because Kafka didn't complete it. This might not be the version Madonna wants us to hear, but it's still a notable song, per WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - That literally makes NO SENSE. Madonna didn't die before she finished the song, did she? Nothing about a demo is notable if there is a finished version completed. It fails WP:NSONG simple as that. That's what we use to denote SONGS for. — Status {^talk_contribs 03:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        What policy are you basing that on? A demo can be notable if it has received coverage in reliable sources. I trust that the closing admin will take into account that few of the delete arguments are based on any sort of policy. The subject satisfies the WP:General notability guidelines and should not be deleted. Pburka (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Moot point, as explained below by CK, WP:NSONGS is the governing policy here, not GNG. And this one fails it on all accounts. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        CK is wrong. "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." (my bold) 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Fails WP:NSONG in all forms. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but it passes WP:GNG, which trumps every other notability guideline. Pburka (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it doesn't. GNG is a guideline for articles as a whole. If you look at GNG at the very top of the page it directs you to "Subject-specific guidelines" which deal in depth with articles related to certain subjects - with music being one of them. Specific article guidelines to dealing with music >> GNG. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That just means that this isn't notable as a song, but, per WP:GNG it's still generally notable as a "thing". The only case for deleting articles which satisfy WP:GNG is if they fall under WP:NOT, which this article doesn't. Pburka (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - "This page provides a guideline of how the concept of notability applies to topics related to music, including artists and bands, albums, and songs." <--- This means how N. (aka. GNG) applies specifically to music related articles. Again, GNG is an overview of an idea of what is notable; NSONG deals specifically with music notability and what is needed for an article to get created. Consensus with editors has established NSONG as the governing guideline, not GNG. Music articles need to pass GNG AND NSONG. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I suggest you review the second paragraph of WP:Notability. Pburka (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." Simply meeting GNG if it does not meet its subject-specific guideline is a weak rationale for notability. Furthermore, this article is asusming that a demo version is the actual "Gimme All Your Luvin". That falls under WP:CRYSTAL. In other words, this article is excluded under WP:NOT. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Let's face it... Isn't this lined up for a release? I don't want to bring WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here but this page is better than so many of the craps I see daily here. But I know rules are rules. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or Delete Fails WP:NSONGS, WP:GNG. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 22:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: too early, fails WP:NSONGS ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 15:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Confirmed future single with significant independent coverage in reliable sources. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage already and a confirmed release date a few weeks away. Deletion would seem rather pointless.--Michig (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Michig (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hicks[edit]

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

Autobiography of unremarkable amateur horror movie director. Claims to be "widely known" for movie that has yet to be made. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything to show that this director is notable at this point in time. The IP's claim is that Hicks has been a guest lecturer and in several newspapers, but I was unable to find anything that would be considered a reliable source other than one sole newspaper entry. [22] Other than a few interviews on non-notable blogs, there's nothing else out there. This is just a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. There's also concerns of a potential conflict of interest and puffery due to the similarity between the name of the original editor as well as the name of the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete: Per above.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 14:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ditto.--Lhakthong (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An IP address has posted listing links and I'd like to address some of the things they've posted. First off, one of the links was to the director's website and a profile he keeps on another site. That is not a reliable source since it's from the directors themselves and they can claim whatever they want. Several of the links were to routine listings that merely show times and locations of events. That does not make something notable in and of themselves. Even a news listing for an Ozzy Osborne concert is not considered to be a reliable source and he's someone that's obviously quite notable. Secondly, many of the links went to pages where Hicks was listed as an employee or someone who ran something. That does not give notability either. As far as IMDb goes, I know that you can create your own profile on there. People can get added by IMDb or through other people, but the fact remains that if I wanted to pay, I could get myself listed on IMDb even though I haven't really done any onscreen acting. This is part of the reason why IMDb is not considered to be a reliable source as far as notability goes, although there are other reasons as well. As far as the two news stories, one of them is good but another one only mentions Ben briefly and in order to be a reliable source the article must focus on him. Another big thing that's important as far as sources go is that the source must be considered notable. For example, if my local paper (a small press that only makes about 100 papers a week) were to do a story on me, it wouldn't count towards my notability because the paper wouldn't be considered reliable enough as a source. I also have to mention that anything that's a press release or similar cannot be a reliable source either since it was released by the Hicks or one of their representatives. Also be aware that youtube is generally not considered to be a reliable source because it's all user generated. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

So basically you are voting to delete this page.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 18:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already did. I'm just posting this on behalf of an IP address that had been altering comments and leaving links to what they saw as reliable sources proving Hick's notability. It got removed by another user, but if you look in the edit history of this discussion you'll see it. I'm just leaing the comment in case s/he comes back to post more items.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment: This may be of interest: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benhx. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to note- I knew that someone had altered the votes, but not that there were people with a name so similar to mine.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete Not notable. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 04:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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