Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 December	23 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 17:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Googlepedia[edit]

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

This article describes a Firefox add-on (the term "Googlepedia" also has other unrelated meanings). The article has been tagged for primary sources and notability since August 2011, and the article's original author (Rio) is no longer active here. I've not been able to find reliable independent sources to assess notability. According to its Mozilla add-ons listing page the product itself was last updated in July 2010. Pointillist (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Pointillist (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now discovered that the original author is still active on the Korean-language wikipedia, so I've left a message in case s/he would like to take part in this discussion. - Pointillist (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I found four mentions in 2009 (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10135589-2.html, http://www.pandia.com/sew/291-top-5-extensions.html, http://www.computeractive.co.uk/ca/step-by-step/1907077/add-wikipedia-entries-google-search-results, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/27/AR2009052703653.html). It apparently broke in Fall 2010 when Google came out with Instant Previews. Question is whether a no-longer-available add-on is sufficiently notable. - Pointillist (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability is not temporary, so we must consider the amount of coverage and perhaps its span, but not its age or lack of current availability. Will we care about this defunct add-on in 2014 or 2019? Seems unlikely to me. When I see a topic like this I wish we would set the bar a little higher. – Pnm (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way of predicting what people will want information on in the future. That's why, when we have sufficient sources to show that something every did attract attention to be notable, we include it. encyclopedias are works of record, designed to provide what might be wanted. I'd estimate that 10 years from now nobody will care about 90% of the currently notable people in Wikipedia--though they might care a generation later. Nobody in the 1930s or 40s thought people would ever care about the current comic strips. People always say with respect to new music, that though it may be popular for a year, nobody will care later on. The subsequent generation usually proves both of these wrong. Coming closer to home, people dismantled the early computers, assuming that nobody would ever be interested. Coming even closer to home, most libraries discarded old encyclopedias when the newer ones came out, and they still tend to do that with printed books of all sorts. It's a good thing we're not paper. As for this topic, nobody has written a book on the history of firefox add-ons yet; if the past history of technology is any predictor, it's almost certain that someone someday will--preservation of information on ephemeral things is one of the justifications for our existence. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In light of the references presented in this AFD, it would appear that it is verified to be notable. Would be nice if someone worked those references in, so the tags can be removed as well. Whether or not it is being maintained or still exists is not relevant for inclusion, as has been pointed out above. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references listed by Pointillist. It was notable in 2009 when those were written (barely over the bar, but it clearly made it). And once notable, always notable. We don't want to consciously bias Wikipedia toward contemporary subjects, do we? --Qwerty0 (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:RECENTISM is bad enough without us making a conscious effort towards it. Regardless, notability is achieved with multiple decently comprehensive sources, somewhat surprising for an internet add-on. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 04:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dete. withdrawing, redirecting to town per convention (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detema Secondary School[edit]

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

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. This single sentence lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. Google news search brings up no relavant hits, Google web search brings up only directories and the wiki article itself. RadioFan (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although we generally accord some latitude to schools in developing countries where records or Internet resources are limited, without more details or proof this school exists, it is not possible to argue for this article to be kept or redirected. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 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 Redirect to StarKid Productions. Whenaxis about talk contribs 01:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Non-admin closure.[reply]

Little White Lie (web series)[edit]

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

no real notability shown for this youtube series. sourced by own page and passing mentions. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:WEB. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to note that this series was part of the Team StarKid Productions. If this page isn't notable, why is StarKid notable? --Muppet321 (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This series is not by StarKid and their notability is not the question here. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This series may not have been written when StarKid was StarKid, but it was released under the StarKid banner. --Muppet321 (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

putting aside who made it, making one thing that is not notable does not make a group not notable if they are notable for something else. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 15 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, –MuZemike 23:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to throw my 2 cents in, notability of the creator does not automatically transfer to everything that he or she has created or had a hand in creating. (WP:NOTINHERITED) The biggie here is that to keep LWL, someone has to show that it is notable in and of itself, apart from the people who starred in or created it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Redirect to StarKid Productions. This does seem to be a very popular series but right now there just aren't enough sources to show that it's notable. I recommend merging the most important information about the series and redirecting, but I do think that it might be worth it for someone to userfy the information until enough reliable sources can be found. Really, it's the lack of reliable sources that really kill the article. There's definitely stuff out there, but it's all considered to be non-reliable because it's either put out by the creator of the series or by fans via blogs and their own websites. The two sources on the article that mentions LWL only does so briefly and predominantly focus on the series' creator rather than on the series, so they're really only trivial sources. (And facebook can't be used as a source at all, unfortunately.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Redirect as above, seeing as it's a potentially useful search term. Beyond that, whatever the alleged popularity of the series, YouTube hits aren't any more part of notability criteria as any other web hit. No reliable sources have been proffered discussing the subject (not the creator, the production company or any other entity, but the subject) in the "significant detail" required by the GNG. Ravenswing 10:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a citation in the description on the top of the page that links to a comment on StarKid's website about Little White Lie. --Muppet321 (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: ... which is irrelevant, since that site doesn't constitute an independent source. No one's suggesting that these web videos don't exist. They just aren't notable. Ravenswing 04:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to StarKid Productions per the above rationales. Pol430 talk to me 16:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Myron Primes[edit]

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

No notability based on WP:NACTOR. Nageh (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:RS coverage in GNews results nor regular results; GBooks has no substantial coverage either. I'm not sure WP:1E would apply here as this individual was filmed for numerous roles in movies, but it still fails conditions given at WP:ENT, as given above. HurricaneFan 25 — 23:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This actor has not yet achieved notability. If this situation changes, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this actor's career is verifiable, there is not much of it. There are reliable sources showing him in cast lists, but none speaking about the individaul himself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources, and subject does not appear to meet WP:ENT at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 07:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that the uncertainties that exist about these plantets can be addressed in the article and are not a reason to delete it. Sandstein 17:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of nearest terrestrial exoplanets[edit]

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

For none of these exoplanets sufficient evidence exists that they are in fact terrestial. If one checks the individual sources, there are at most plausability evaluations from the calculated density. The list contains no confirmed cases and only speculation, which makes it misleading. Hekerui (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is normal for astronomical theories about objects to be built upon such tenuous evidence. Until we have better instruments or can visit these places, we must present what we have. Ensuring that the data is presented objectively rather than hyped is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of planetary systems. Article is speculative of whether/not these are terrestrial, and hence the name is somewhat misleading. In addition, this may also fail WP:LSC; FWIW, it could grow forever into a indiscriminate list of possibly terrestrial exoplanets. HurricaneFan 25 — 23:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of course information on exoplanets should be included, but listing them by their distance from us is a bit OR, and maybe even "how to guide" if the purpose is to plan future (or speculative) interstellar expansion. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Perfectly valid list using objective, measurable criteria. There seems to be some serious confusion as to what WP:NOR actually prohibits, which is not data attributable to a reliable, published source, but that articles not proffer "new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." Beyond that, it's positively baroque to claim that this might be an impermissible "how to guide" based on nothing beyond unfounded speculation as to the article creator's purpose. Ravenswing 11:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My speculation that the list is based on an interest in interstellar expansion is very well founded, on my years of observation of human nature. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Stipulating that is actually true, even were you a notable authority in the field, neither Wikipedia nor AfD can operate on speculation. Either you have proof of the creator's purpose or - as apparently in this case - you do not. Ravenswing 05:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)\[reply]

I agree that speculation should not be used in writing article, I do think it is okay in AfD discussions. I would also consider myself to be a bit dishonest if I were to say that humans are not interested in expanding to other planets.Steve Dufour (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hekerui: Two of the ten planets are terrestrial planets according to reliable sources (see ref.s in their corresponding articles). But since the majority of planets listed is not, and in fact there are only (to my knowledge) six exoplanets known to be terrestrial at whatever distance, the article should be renamed to "List of nearest super-Earths" (since that's what it de facto is currently), or it should be edited to contain all known terrestrial planets (i.e. remove all the unref'ed cases, and add the more distant terrestrials known (55Cnc e, Kepler-10b and -20e, f)) and be renamed "List of [all] terrestrial exoplanets". I'd prefer the second option, and would be happy to edit the article accordingly. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Give all the information on all known planets, but don't make their distance from us the primary factor. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That could very well be a very good (and separate) list. Presence of this list does not ban the creation of that. :) -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep - agree with Warden. Confirmations are rare in this field; it is standard practice in astronomy to go by likelihood supported by measurements, and the sources provided in this article adhere to this practice. Owen× ☎ 02:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't. There is a difference between a planet possibly being terrestial and scientists being certain/having consensus that it is, which we call confirmation, and which is based on more than a bit of speculation. Hekerui (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is IMHO one of the worst atronomy articles on wikipedia. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Confirmation" is a scientific process, to be honest it does not mean all that much as far as we should be concerned. This is not a scientific journal, it is an encyclopedia. It is not like "unconfirmed" equals "lie" it just means the margin of error is higher than usual prompting a level of "uncertainty" among some parameters. Astronomy is all about such estimations. There is verifiable and reliable secondary sources that document these exoplanets' existence so what is the problem? It is only natural to present Exoplanets "near us" as these are going to get better obesrvation with technological improvements so we will always have more information about them when compared to more distant planets. Also nearby exoplanets are candidates of first inter-stellar visits. What counts as "near"? 10 light years? 50 light years? That is an editorial decision not involving AfD. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Rename and Reformat to List of terrestrial extrasolar planets A list of exoplanets is inherently notable. Having a list of exoplanets which are terrestrial is inherently notable (although you might have multiple lists within that article for terrestrial size-wise vs. terrestrial habitability-wise) However, it is not our place to decide that the distance is inherently notable. Having a sortable table allows our users to sort by any criteria they choose and I think steers well clear of WP:OR and WP:SYN which I feel the "nearest" part is skirting the edges of. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing "inherently notable" about a list of planets, but this list is cited with multiple in-depth sources and thereby satisfies WP:NASTRO. I can't say I care for the images as they are pure speculation. The problem with building a "List of terrestrial extrasolar planets" is that it would be essentially unconstrained: it may include billions of objects. This list at least has the decency to include a distance constraint. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any planet is backed by secondary sources establishing notability. Of COURSE they are notable for that reason alone. There however is far too many exoplants and we will not have detailed information about the more distant ones. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    - You're making a broad claim based on the novelty of planetary discovery. When the count reaches 100,000 or 1,000,000 it will no longer be true. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It will still be notable as there will be secondary sources to comply with the notability policy. Each species of Bird (extinct or not), each species of dinosaur, each country has an article as they are inherently notable. Articles on exoplanets will probably read more like the article Pluto which has so far been only observed remotely through telescopes. More information will be available on exoplanets with new technologic developments as well. Article count is irrelevant to notability and I do not see why you brought it up. Why shouldn't Wikipedia document detailed information on every exoplanet, star, pulsar, black hole in the Milky Way as information becomes available? Is that not the purpose of an Encyclopedia? We even have articles like Sagittarius A* that covers objects we cannot even "see" so I do not see the problem here. That said, a graveyard of stub articles is something that should be avoided as if we do not have anything interesting to say about an exoplanet we can do without an article this however does not mean they shouldn't appear on lists. Nearest terrestrial exoplanets however is of great interest and is a field where great amount of information will be available compared to more distant ones. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Kubigula (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Queen[edit]

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

Non-notable aircraft. PROD was declined based on the addition of a reference, but minor mentions do not notability make. Thousands of aircraft participated in strategic bombing raids during World War II; hundreds, if not thousands, received names, etc. from their crews. While great for morale (and often with artwork easy on the eyes), and while we should never forget what was sacrifced by their crews, very, very few of these aircraft were, or are, notable, and this is not one of them. The main claim to notability appears to be its association with George McGovern, but notability is not inherited, and there is no evidence of this aircraft meeting the WP:GNG in any other way. Worth a mention in McGovern's article, perhaps, but not an article of its own. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a very clear and succinct summary of the situation, there is insufficient establishment of the notability from sources. One cited is taken from the comments section of an online article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG - Ahunt (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~Delete ~~to George McGovern, most likely as a one-liner with a citation or two.~~ Too little notability for an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The aircraft's pilot is very notable for his post-war activities. The planes he flew during the war aren't. Nick-D (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication that the aircraft is notable enough for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worth having its own article, can be covered just as well in the far-more notable pilot's article. Kyteto (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to the article George McGovern. Although the subject independently does not meet WP:NN, as part of the subject George McGonvern the content passes WP:VER and thus should be moved there. Since the content would be moved a redirect should be left in this namespaces place. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Except there's no content to merge. George McGovern#Military service actually has more detail already than this article does. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps then, it should be redirected to the section George McGovern#Military service with the content deleted? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 01:11, 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 Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas and Friends: the Magical Adventures[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL - supposed to be in the future (at least 6/7 months away, but cannot find any references to this series or its voice cast on the net, outside of ones which appear to have been mentioned or added by the person who (I think) wrote this article - most of them seem to be on blogs. No references included in the article, so nominating per Crystal Ball-ism. No proof of existence or planning of this series. BarkingFish 21:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Actually, if anything, this should probably just be nominated as a Speedy Deletion as a Hoax, rather than bother going through the deletion discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorshacma (talk • contribs)
Delete - I'm not prepared to speedily delete, as T&F was at one point on CN, but it seems WP:CRYSTAL. It's not an unquestionable hoax, in my opinion. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:10, 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 redirect to Epidermal growth factor. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epidermal growth[edit]

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

DAB page seems to be just a dicdef describing dissimilar words (no terms needing disambiguation. It is also an orphaned disambiguation page. Seemed to meet Db-disambig but was contested[1]. Noaccountaccount (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Epidermal growth factor as a possible search term.--Lenticel ^(talk) 15:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the subject matter is covered in the article Epidermal Growth Factor. Mariepr (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kasey Shirk[edit]

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

This article is about a television producer with no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, and I can find no reliable sources about her. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a trace of any notability. Vincelord (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Nayea[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested procedurally, as it had been previously BLPPROD'ed. The delete rationale remains valid. I should also point out that according WP:PROD#Sticky prod, contested BLPPROD's may still be PROD'ed regularly. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If he's not played in a professional league, then he does not meet WP:FOOTBALL. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and ItsZippy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:32, 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 keep. If the creator would still like the article to be deleted, xe can request deletion under CSD G7 as the most substantive contributor. (non-admin closure) →Σ τ c. 00:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umberto Calvello[edit]

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

I am the creator of this article. As I learned more about the subject, I realized that, by the Aerial victory standards of World War I, Umberto Calvello lacked notability. I am now requesting deletion. Georgejdorner (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 19:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well this is certainly an interesting AfD-- someone nominating their own article! I had some suspicions that he might be notable based on the fact that his infobox says he was awarded two silver and one bronze award for valor (though this was unsourced). I checked around to see if I could find any contrary evidence pointing to the individual's notability as a fighter pilot. Calvello was a Sottotenente di Vascello, which is a position just below Lieutenant, so that doesn't qualify him under WP:SOLDIER #3,4, or 6. This Italian page suggests that some of the aces involved in that war were awarded Silver and Gold medals for military valor, but doesn't indicate who they were awarded to. However, this book about Italian aces seems to confirm that he was awarded two Silver medals for valor by the Italian military, and this seems to fulfill WP:SOLDIER #2. The individual is further given some biographical coverage in this book in addition to the significant coverage in the Italian aces book, which would also support the general notability guideline. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sourcing cited by Jethrobot. Carrite (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the Italian aces of World War I. The article can be expanded.User:Lucifero4

Keep Fighter aces are inherently notable; also per I, Jethrobot. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note It was the lack of details for his fifth victory, plus the arbitrary way in which Italian aerial victories were adjudged after World War I, that made me doubt his acedom and thus led to my listing this article for deletion.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of popular music acts that incorporate the accordion[edit]

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

Prodded with reasoning "Unsourced trivia. This article says nothing about the relevance of the accordion. Compare to the long-deleted List of songs featuring vibraslap etc." Back when the vibraslap article was deleted, we had several other "List of songs featuring X" articles that were deleted because they all failed WP:V and WP:SALAT — it's just a willy nilly association with no relevance. Accordions are so commonplace that such a list would be miles long. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query. Surely the fact that this is a list of groups and not of songs makes a difference? Could you comment on that specifically? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep – This article is a logical offshoot from the Accordion article, which links to this article in its "Use in popular music" section. The accordion article is extensive; therefore this article acts to supplement the main article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the entries are hardly verifiable outside the album's liner notes or inherent OR (I hear an accordion in such and such song). Tell me how any particular example is verifiable besides using your ears. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here's an example of verification, for the "Yuri Lemeshev" entry in the article, a reference I added:

"Eugene Hutz, Gogol Bordello's Gypsy Punk Hero", NPR Music, August 15, 2007, retrieved 2010-01-26. Quote: "Yuri Lemeshev, our 53-year-old accordion player, is from Sakhalin in Russia."

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – And another:

Danny Federici AP (April 18, 2008). "Danny Federici of E Street Band dies at 58". 2009 The Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-07-24. Quote: "Federici played accordion on the wistful “4th Of July, Asbury Park (Sandy)” from Springsteen’s second album, and his organ solo was a highlight of Springsteen’s first top 10 hit, “Hungry Heart.”"

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the list would be very long (but finite--there are only a finite number of notable songs in Wikipedia after all, most of which do not include an accordion) , this shows the importance and notability of the subject. List of songs featuring vibraslap was deleted only by Prod, and therefore could be restored on request--even if it were an AfD, a 2007 deletion is no precedent. We deleted a lot of good article then that we would not delete today (in the other direction, we seem to have back then been much more tolerant of promotionalism and less vigilant about copyvio--should we use those as precedents also?) DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMO, this is too trivial, failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Some of the artists listed used the accordion only once or just a few times, making the inclusion criteria far too inclusive. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a logical offshoot. I don't believe it is so trivial as to warrant deletion. Pol430 talk to me 16:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OleOle[edit]

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

I can't find any references to this site aside from press releases. —Chowbok ☠ 17:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication that this article meets WP:N. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IFFHS World's Top Goal Scorer of the Year[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Violates copyright, listcruft, OR...need I go on? Giant Snowman 17:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds provided above. I can't see any other way with the article in its current state. Jared Preston (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the above. Zero notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:29, 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 Deleted by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) under CSD G3. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bais Shebbes[edit]

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

Seems like a hoax. The sources are completely irrelevant and there isn't a single source even mentioning this yeshiva. Even if it does exist, notability is far from being demonstrated. Muhandes (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While i do not know who posted the "irrelevant" sources, i do know that like many Religious institutions (particularly, non-anglophone institutions) it most likely has a particular community in which it is well-known and does not engage in self-promoting or spectacle simply to gather publicity. I do not consider it conclusive that this article lacks an internet paper trail and see no reason to delete it on that basis. Furthermore it seems like a perfectly legitimate instition and you have not given reason to believe otherwise. KEEP --*Merkin* 17:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab merkin (talk • contribs)

Comment I am unable to view the sources. They are in Hebrew and google translate doesn't appear to translate Hebrew text. If there are no sources to establish notability (assuming that these do indeed not mention the yeshiva), and no other supporting sources are available to support the WP:GNG then the article should be deleted. Syrthiss (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is indeed clearly a hoax. Bais Shebbes is supposedly the Ashkenazi pronunciation of Hebrew בית שבת‎, meaning "House of the Sabbath". While the separate words occur in the given sources – so they mention houses and the Sabbath – the combination does not occur. The first source is supposed to reference the current rabbinate of one Abi Jakubovic, but again, his name does not occur at all in the source; it is instead devoted to the first-century rabbi Simeon bar Yochai (שמעון בר יוחאי‎). --Lambiam 20:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know for a fact that this page is a hoax. It's primary purpose is to mock the supposed Rosh Yeshiva, Abi Jakubovic. I personally know Abi Jakubovic, and he is not the Rosh Yeshiva of any institution. This page is completely illegitimate and it is unfair for it to remain as it is a fictional mockery of Abi Jakubovic. --Soncino — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.117.101.175 (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is impossible for this article to be true. According to beenstyle2000 Abi Jakubovic was born in 2011, as is indicated by his adding Abi Jakubovic to the category 2011 births. On the other hand beenstyle2000 also has stated that Abi Jakubovic is the author of A Treatise on the True Testament which was supposedly released in 1999. There is no proof that this book even exists. Beenstyle2000 is clearly playing a hoax on Abi Jakubovic. I suggest deleting this article and perhaps even suspending his account. --Soncino —Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per the seemingly compelling arguments of Simeon bar Yochai and Soncino above. Carrite (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments of Simeon bar Yochai? A voice from beyond the grave. In any case, the article has already been speedy-deleted, so this can be closed. --Lambiam 08:11, 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 keep. However, this should not be used as an argument against merging the article at a later date, if it is deemed appropriate, once we have a historical perspective on the Occupy movement. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Windsor[edit]

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

Though personally I believe the entire occupy event was non-notable in Canada, I think in this particular case we could all agree - Occupy Windsor is not notable, except in Windsor. All of the references are local media. I would have simply redirected this, but in light of a previous AfD I have brought it here for community discussion - ~~Redirect~~ merge to Occupy Canada ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CBC ran multiple stories([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) about occupy Windsor and there were stories about it in news publications across the country (like this Vancouver newspaper [7]). The article is woefully short at the moment given the number of available references, but it was pretty clearly notable via WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE. I don't really think that the 'occupy movement' accomplished anything, but it was notable.--Stvfetterly (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of those CBC links is a local Windsor source, not indicative of the wider relevance of the Windsor protests with regard to the overall occupy protests. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the geographic range of notability is relevant. If something is locally important, it's still important and belongs in Wikipedia. Wouldn't you agree?--Nowa (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The fact that some remote village in Africa just got a water pump might be absolutely important for that village, but that does not mean it should be in wikipedia. --Jerebin (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what about the Vancouver article? Also, any article that primarily takes place in a major city in Canada is listed on CBC that way for easy reference by readers. It's still a nationally reported story.--Stvfetterly (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not a water pump for a village in Africa, but Windsor is not a village in Africa. It’s important in its own right with many separate articles on items that are only important to people who live in, or otherwise have an interest in, Windsor. See Parks in Windsor, Ontario, List of roads in Windsor, Ontario, and Media in Windsor, Ontario.--Nowa (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notion here is that we already have articles on the Occupy movement in general, as well as on Occupy Canada, which covers the protests in every city (including Windsor). Unless there is a particular abundance of information specific to just Occupy Windsor in comparison with the other local Occupy events world-wide (many of which have had violence or some significant presence), why split the information across two separate articles, requiring updates of both? Why not include that information in Occupy Canada, and work towards making that a very comprehensive article? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of reliable sources appear to discuss Occupy Windsor distinctly from the Occupy movement as a whole. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've finished formatting and adding references to the article now. THe sources clearly show and discuss the independence of the Occupy Windsor movement, with coverage from a number of different places. Silver seren^C 22:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is well sourced and clearly passes GNG. Somewhere down the road I have a hunch that many of these "Occupy (Your Locality Here)" articles will be merged into long regional or national pieces. There will be books written about this phenomenon, trust me. At that point, we may be looking to merge some of these things to rationalize the presentation. Blowing up well-sourced material now is not a good way to get us to that point, however. Patience, grasshoppers! Carrite (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does every single Occupy event require its own article? I looked at the sources, well not much in-depth coverage, a heart warming story about a drunk drug addict turning his life around. Sorry but I don't think it meets WP:GNG and somehow I think people are going to embarassed in future at the fervour with which they defended these articles. Wee Curry Monster talk 02:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Each protest is unique, with unique events. Why just "delete" the information? -Kai445 (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I said delete the article, if there is relevant material it can be merged into an article on the Occupy protests. Wikipedia doesn't exist to document current events. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article appears to pass GNG. Carrite has the right idea, and I think that as time passes and the fervor dies down, the articles can be redirected and condensed into larger articles if necessary. It's simply too early right yet for that. -Kai445 (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or redirect and up merge to a primary location (like one major article with a list of minor protests such as this) - we are being spammed with this news pollution by activists. Absolute spam. Youreallycan (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is not an end-all-be-all, and it states quite explicitly that just because a topic is notable does not mean it merits its own stand-alone article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references support the independent notability of Occupy Windsor. See for example, the coverage related to the homeless residents.--Nowa (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Occupy Canada. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Program Executive Office Command Control Communications Tactical, closing AfD as moot. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special Projects Office-Program Executive Office Command Control Communications Tactical[edit]

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

Article that duplicates an existing topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilyGee52 (talk • contribs) 22 December 2011

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question. And that would be? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect the article in question is Program Executive Office Command Control Communications Tactical. However I propose this AfD be subject to a procedural close and keep on the basis that the nominator fails to provide a valid deletion rationaile. A dupliclate article can be boldly merged or redirected, neither of which is within the remit of AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. The text of this article is not informative, and canonically bad prose: The SPO has developed an acquisition framework which insures that individual acquisitions, carried out over time, result in a fully integrated and interoperable information infrastructure. That framework consists of standards governing the acquisition of computer software and an enterprise-wide approach to acquisition that supports such standards. It is a framework which also ensures the compatibility of data that is shared between locations and computer systems. The SPO’s approach to acquisition is based on dependent entities and harmonized acquisition activities. This approach places greater emphasis on early support to a customer, including system architectures. Doesn't it make you feel dirty? Unless someone objects quickly, I'd say do it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 07:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article has no redeeming features whatsoever. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:24, 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 redirect to Hamilton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey#Education. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Sorrows School[edit]

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

K-8 school with no sources. Notability isn't established; certainly not to the level of keeping the article Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because all schools are notable, especially secondary schools such as those that provide high and junior high, and the fact that this user has a pattern of mass nominating articles that are all kept. Like most restaurants schools have sources on the that cover them in depth but they are hard to find as per WP:NRVE we should wait on them to come together or merge with the diocese but that would prevent organic growth.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three points:

Precedent says that not all schools are notable; most K-8 schools ain't (this school, like many Catholic schools, is a K-8 school)
(the most important one) How can something be notable if it has no sources?
This user's vote, accusing me of mass nominating articles, is inaccurate, irrelevant, and borderline PA

Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 22:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This use has in fact mass nominated articles and it is very accurate, it is not an accusation it is a plain fact that can be seen here Many things have no sources in the article itself but that does not mean that they do not exist.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hamilton Township or the Diocese of Trenton (not sure which of those is standing on WP currently) per standard policy for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Carrite. Nothing here to show this school satisfies WP:ORG. It is not the consensus at AFD, at WP:N or at WP:ORG that every grade school is notable. Edison (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (ec)- Okay, PBP and LWC, I know where you're both coming from. Let's just give this feud a miss, shall we? PBP jumped into life at AfD with a blast of nominations of minor politicians a couple weeks ago. Some of the pieces failed to meet GNG, some did not, it was a mixed bag. I objected to the process, PBP and I bumped heads, hopefully that's done. LWC invested time in the defenses. Both of you felt too much "ownership" about the process. Let it go. I think in retrospect that PBP made a few newbie mistakes in terms of procedure and that I phrased my objection too harshly; he took offense to my taking offense, hopefully that's done. Making every single move of the other a mini battleground is not going to resolve anything. It's factionalizing and disruptive. Knock it off. There is a long history of school nominations at AfD. A rough working consensus has emerged: elementary schools have two strikes against them and a big strikezone coming to the plate; they must be truly exceptional to make the cut. Secondary schools are, more or less, presumed to be notable if their existence can be verified on the principle that (a) reliable sources are undoubtedly out there; (b) it is undesirable to have a bunch of redlinks for high schools showing in biographies. A properly-written and exhaustive biography is apt to include detail about the high school down to its name, while there is no such expectation for primary schools. Further (c) high school sports, drama, band activities, etc. are generally covered in the press. There is more sourcing available and more to write about. Elementary school pieces are nothing more than lists of teachers and school buildings and maybe the Thursday lunch menu. This big "rule of thumb" — that 98% or so of elementary school pieces are going to be redirected, while close to 100% of secondary school pieces are kept — HELPS Wikipedia. There are probably hundreds of thousands of schools around the world. We don't want to endlessly wage deletionist v. inclusionist wars over this, with crap articles about elementary schools springing up like mushrooms on the one hand, with lengthy, draining, time wasting struggles to find extant sources for legit pieces about high schools on the other. Those who want a focused encyclopedia can take solace that the multitude of crap articles on elementary schools sourced to the Smalltown Crier are gone; those who want an expansive and comprehensive encyclopedia can take solace that they won't have to invest four hours every day fighting to defend mass nominations of stub articles about high schools. It's a compromise that works, no matter what Jimmy Wales thinks about it. I hope you understand this consensus that has emerged over the years and come to accept and support it, both of you. Now, this is a K though 8 — so redirect! Carrite (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you've said is pretty much OK, Carrite, except for the newbie business. I've been active here for over 3 yrs, and have 8K edits to my name. The reason the Richmond City Council AfDs were a tad slapdash is I expected them to be quite uncontroversial (much as I excepted this to be, non-sourced article about generally non-notable topic seems low-hanging fruit), not because I'm a n00b Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a noob to the project, obviously, but first AfDs (unless I missed something in your history). Peace. Carrite (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hamilton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey#Education according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the diocese. No indication here of any particular notability. I dont think Luciferwc understands the way we use the term "notability" to refer to schools. Of course this school exists, and is notable for all the families whose children attend. for that reason, the school undoubtedly deserves a full write up on a web page (not here) devoted to that school district or county or parish. Carrite is correct, we drew the line a while back, for a whole load of reasons, and this is the consensus. Most k-8 dont make it. I have redirected or AFD'd k-8 schools in my area to actually IMPROVE overall education coverage, as their existence shows a lack of attention to proper sourcing, and makes the county/cities article groups smack of boosterism, which pulls the whole suite of articles down. the redirect article can have a fair amount added if editors are bold enough, as long as its not promotional and is not ephemeral (we really dont need lots of sections of school district articles with out of date principal names, which are not that important anyway)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:29, 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) 02:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect -- as we generally do with schools junior to high schools.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Somewhat notable institution, but cannot warrant its own article without reliable sources. If kept, make sure we disambiguate Hamilton Twp, Mercer County, NJ (actually put in Mercer County) in the lead sentence. Tinton5 (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be "somewhat notable" if it has no sources at all? Furthermore, a "keep" vote amounts to ignoring precedent on elementary schools Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:55, 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrenaline MMA: Guida vs. Russow[edit]

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

Mixed martial arts event for a defunct lower-tier promotion that does not pass GNG. No lasting historical significance. No independent sourcing. Primarily results listing. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also listing:

Adrenaline MMA 2: Miletich vs. Denny
Adrenaline MMA 3: Bragging Rights
Adrenaline MMA 4: Sylvia vs. Riley

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Three of these articles have no sources, while one has routine results reporting. None of the events pass the event notability criteria or have significant independent coverage. Jakejr (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Jakejr.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable find much in the way of coverage of these events. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ROUTINE. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. What few sources can be found are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Not all sporting events are notable. BusterD (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Total Fight Night[edit]

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

Non-notable sporting event. Only one notable competitor (who happens to also be the event promoter, see Lee Hasdell). Only sources are a broken link and a reference to an article that appears to be about the event promoter (I was unable to verify the reference as it does not appear to be archived online). Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing to show this event passes WP:SPORTSEVENT. Appears to be another case of routine sports reporting. Jakejr (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no sources to support the notability of this single event. Due to the date, more coverage would likely exist in print media, of which the article cites only one source (the external link in the article is also broken). Without someone coming forward with additional sources, event appears to fail WP:GNG and certainly fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. No sourcing which meets any section of EVENT. WP:ROUTINE coverage. Not all sporting events are notable (and this one's not even close). BusterD (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RINGS Holland-Free Fight[edit]

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

Mixed martial arts event that does not pass GNG. No lasting historical significance. No independent sourcing. Primarily results listing. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also listing:

RINGS Holland-Kings of Martial Arts
RINGS Holland-The Final Challenge
RINGS-Battle Dimensions Tournament 1995 Opening Round
RINGS-Battle Dimensions Tournament 1996 Final
RINGS-Battle Dimensions Tournament 1996 Opening Round
RINGS-Battle Genesis Vol. 6
RINGS-Budokan Hall 1995
RINGS-Budokan Hall 1996
RINGS-Budokan Hall 1997
RINGS: Maelstrom 6

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The articles are just routine sports reporting. They lack good sources and give no reasons why the events are notable, clearly failing WP:SPORTSEVENT. Jakejr (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the articles cite any sources, probably because no sources can be found online other than the usual fight results. Due to the years the events were held, more coverage would likely be found in print media. Unless someone can find such sources, all articles appear to fail WP:GNG and WP:ROUTINE. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and WP:EVENT. If these events were significant enough for inclusion, one would think that sources better than Sherdog could be found. No resonance in sources, so no WP:PERSISTENCE. No WP:DIVERSITY, no WP:GEOSCOPE, no WP:INDEPTH, and no WP:EFFECT. Most sporting events which meet GNG per WP:ROUTINE sourcing have no business in an encyclopedia. BusterD (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hero's 4[edit]

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

Mixed martial arts event that does not pass GNG. No lasting historical significance. No independent sourcing. Primarily results listing. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also listing:

Hero's 5
Hero's 6
Hero's 7
Hero's 8
Hero's Lithuania 2006

See similar AfD discussions:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hero's Lithuania 2005 The result was delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hero's 2007 in Korea The result was delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hero's 10 The result was delete

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There may be sources available in the Japanese media for some of these Hero's events. However, the translations from the Google few news hits I found weren't enough for me to understand exactly which event(s) was being discussed. English language reports appears to only be match results combined with the current state of the articles, it seems the coverage is all just WP:ROUTINE. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The articles are merely routine sports reporting. They lack good sources and give no reasons why the events are notable. Jakejr (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:EVENT. These sporting events with some notable participants meet no section of WP:EVENT. Sourcing is WP:ROUTINE and wholly inadequate to support retention. I have no difficulty with some of this material being merged with Hero's, which badly needs the citation, even if only from semi-promotional site Sherdog (which is at least marginally independent). BusterD (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 17:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Group Freudenberg[edit]

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs in the article. Tagged for notability since October. Epeefleche (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be guessing that this is the same company as this on German Wikipedia, but there is so little content that one couldn't confidently add an interwiki link. AllyD (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting -- that article also suffers from a paucity of independent RS refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is a decent article from Die Zeit. But, for the current context, we lack solid linkage that it relates to the same firm. AllyD (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redo to be about the company headquartered in Weinheim that the German Wikipedia article is about. It's not unusual for articles on other-language Wikipedias to lack references; en.wikipedia is unusually strict in its requirements. I've communicated with the new editor who created the article and they have big English problems and haven't yet confirmed that it's the same company, but the company in the German article meets the notability standard. Not only is there the article in Die Zeit that AllyD found (for which thanks!) but there are at least 3 articles on it in Der Spiegel: archive search result. That's good coverage on a national level, so I'll go ahead and rewrite it using those sources and anything else I can find, unless someone else does first. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've now extensively rewritten and expanded the article; I did find other sources; and it should be moved to Freudenberg Group, which is what the company calls itself on its website. The article creator now realizes the de.wikipedia article is about the same company [8]; they were unaware of it, presumably because they don't read German. They have almost 200 edits on zh.wikipedia but their only edits on en.wikipedia concern this article, so they are at a newbie disadvantage here. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep substantial new page (and the maintenance tags can go too, as inappropriate for Yngvadottir's rewrite). AllyD (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with kudos to Yngvadottir for his rewrite. Do note that I'm not getting anything from the one source in the "brands" section, so AFAICT that is unsourced. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 04:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pull-down menu on their main page (identical content in German and English versions); see tab to right of center. Hence I used the > symbol. And thanks :-)Yngvadottir (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see it. Thanks! Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 05:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The European Network of Innovation Agencies[edit]

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

Though this organization exists, it lacks substantial RS coverage. Tagged for notability since August. Zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hey, they exist! They're European! They have notable members. They're important! But there are also zero independent sources as the nom states. Does not meet WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a book chapter based heavily on TAFTIE. But it is not fully independent. AllyD (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ...works on establishing collaborations in the field of business led innovation and enterprise led R&D programmes in each country. Through TAFTIE, the national organizations can learn best practices from an analysis of each others affairs. Well, that's specific and informative. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:33, 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autochase[edit]

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

The subject of this article lacks RS coverage of substance. And the article has zero refs. Tagged for notability since May. Epeefleche (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found only unreliable sources. SL93 (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 21:15, 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. If someone wants this to be userfied then please leave me a message. Hut 8.5 17:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiz Muhammad Shariq[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Written by the subject. No reliable sources. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found nothing that would make the article pass WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (userify if not kept): What about the books cited? Did any one give them a check? The claim in the infobox, "Award for Youngest academic author of the World" is notable (though it is not cited); might have some info in the publications? The page should be moved to creator's userpage if not kept --lTopGunl (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From which book should biographical information be derived? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two listed in references. One is only ISBN though. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: From which book should biographical information be derived? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not telling of a book, rather asking... there are two books given in the references and asked for them to be checked (for biographical or any related information). Just that. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep recently I've uploaded his books on scribd and I add their references, I know him personally, I am not sure that he is a youngest author of world, but I haven't found nay writer younger than him who wrote on the Religion and non-fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shibansaleem (talk • contribs)
— Shibansaleem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have searched the google but I have not found any one reliable source which can be added to save the article.There are very clear WP:Policies and guidelines about WP:Notability and WP:reliable sources.Just a author of books does not make notable till third party has not recognized.I appreciate the work of that young author,but we just can not go beyond the wiki policies.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see any independent, reliable sources. Notability is asserted but not established. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self promotion, résumé, and likely Conflict of interest. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela Hersham[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient indicia of notability of this actress. Created by SPA. Tagged for notability since April. Epeefleche (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find reliable sources indicating notability. Fails [WP:NACTOR]. ManicSpider (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENT. Truthsort (talk) 16:30, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nosratossadat Razavi Nikkhou[edit]

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

I am having trouble finding sufficient indicia of notability of this person. Tagged for notability for nearly two years. Epeefleche (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only claim for notability would be the books but I can find no independent references to them, or to the subject for that matter, on a gsearch. Not notable. asnac (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sign of notability, unsourced. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baobab (software)[edit]

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

Mailing Lists do not meet WP:RS, there is no indication of notability in the references provided. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 15:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Baobab is a part of GNOME desktop. It should be considered as a separated part of GNOME article, rather then a separate page. It is kept separate only to avoid making GNOME article a way too big. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It needs its own notability to have its own article, otherwise give it a a hidden table under GNOME. Now that you mention it, it appears many of the articles under List of GNOME applications are non-notable, and have only primary sources. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 17:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hell no! We shouldn't spoil the good articles just because You don't like the per-component structure. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The notability guidelines certainly apply to components of GNOME. Topics need to satisfy WP:N to have their own article, whether or not they're components of some larger thing. I could also see having an article like List of GNOME components which could cover the material without making the main article too long. I'd think it would meet WP:LISTN. – Pnm (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you even try looking for sources? I get quite a few relevant hits typing this into Google Books. —Ruud 15:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Desktop application that is installed by default on several major Linux distribution, notable. No need to merge. —Ruud 22:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N for lack of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Being installed by default in several distributions is a relevant factor when considering notability, but the same is true of man pages, print drivers, and config files. To keep there should be at least one secondary source which covers the software in detail. – Pnm (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody mentions "being installed by default". This article should be regarded as an integral part of GNOME article and follow it fate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed as per Czarkoff. Notability is not inherited. If an individual topic can't stand on its own per WP:N, then it shouldn't have its own article. Individual editor's opinion as to exceptions to policy do not outweigh consensus. Almost the entire article reads as an unsourced how-to, which Wikipedia is not. If it is notable software, then passing WP:GNG and/or WP:NSOFT should be easy. If not, the course of action is clear. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 18:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of independent sources mentioning this application: [9] [10]. —Ruud 13:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1 is only a few sentences and says very little. I don't think it's significant coverage. In 2 I found 3 which is two sentences. The others I found were even shorter. – Pnm (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Significant enough IMO. —Ruud 17:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know if these Google Books results are changing, or what, but these sources 4 and 5 actually say something about the software. Enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, I'm finally satisfied. Article needs renaming, too. – Pnm (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but.... it seems to me that readers would be better served by a general article on GnomeUtils than by this slight and not very informative stub about a relatively unremarkable tool included in the package. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:39, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael G. Manning[edit]

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

Contested prod. Self-published author of questionable notability. No indications of notability for the person or the books. Google news search on "Michael G. Manning" Mageborn shows zero results. Standard search shows a lot of sales links and social media pages by the author, but no significant coverage from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not approach notability. One blog review. That's it. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:22, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coke Eid and Diwali Commercial 2010[edit]

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

Light on refs, this appears to be non-notable and OR. Epeefleche (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is written journalistically rather than encyclopedically, and seems to consist mostly of original research and speculation. Despite its title, it is not so much about a specific commercial, but rather about how Coca Cola plans its advertising directed at consumers in Islamic countries. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:31, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Bergstrand[edit]

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

A promotional article for a person from Brand Velocity made from original research combined with false and misleading references. Article was created by people (with SPAs) from Brand Velocity as one of multiple spammy articles around their company. Article contains many references but many are primary sources, articles written by Bergstrand (eg 3,4,5,7,15). Others do not verify the statement they follow (eg 27, 28, 30, 31, 32). An example of the problem, the statement "The book builds upon work from Peter F. Drucker" is followed by 3 references, which show Drucker did some work but can not verify the claim made. Article lacks independent coverage of Jack Bergstrand and due to this and the spammy and misleading nature of the article it should be deleted. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinvent Your Enterprise (2nd nomination) for his book). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was willing to give this the benefit of the doubt, but none of the links provided in the article can be considered reliable sources that prove notability. Almost all of them are put out by Bergstrand or Brand Velocity. The ones that aren't are not considered to be reliable sources, being non-notable blogs, business entries, or links that show up with "page not found". A search did not bring up anything independent of Bergstrand or his company. He's just not notable at this point in time. At most this would be a redirect to Brand Velocity.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Swatches of promotional but deliberately evasive text (led and restructured the global information technology function? What the hell is this supposed to mean? That he headed their IT department? Or something vaguer and grander, because your imagination will fill in the blanks in the absence of actual facts?). FWIW I retagged scrubbed a lot of similarly evasive gunk out of Brand Velocity, but I rather doubt that it's a notable business either. All of the articles revolving around this rat's nest of spam are constructed so misleadingly that I'd be inclined to ban all the SPA's involved in making them as vandals inserting nonsense. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Autarch (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge work productivity[edit]

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

A personal essay made up of original research promoting the work of Brand Velocity employees (such as Reinvent Your Enterprise, by Jack Bergstrand). Article was created by people (with SPAs) from Brand Velocity as one of multiple spammy articles around their company. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Original research and hyperinflated patent nonsense that's selling something. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay that's trying to sell something. Those tables that are apparently from the CEOs book might be copyright infringement, too (?) OSborn^arf_contribs. 17:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is referenced to many different authors, and there's nothing wrong with the subject. From the lead, Knowledge work productivity is the measure of the efficiency and effectiveness of the output generated by workers who mainly rely on knowledge, rather than labor, during the production process. A search also brings a lot of results [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Only a couple of them actually use "knowledge work productivity" as a term, but they all talk about the same thing as the article: the development of strategies and tools to enhance and measure the productivity of knowledge workers — Frankie (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An article discussing the topic that may be called "knowledge work productivity" or something else may be appropriate for an encyclopedia article, this one is not it. It is too irredemiably spam, a personal essay selling Reinvent Your Enterprise and Strategic Profiling. Someone independant maybe able to create a good article but wikipedia is best served by such a person starting from scratch. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree that this is pure spam. The advertising manner the book is being used as a reference doesn't turn the actual content into spam, nor does it automatically disqualify the book from being a reliable source. I definitely disagree that it would be best for the next editor to start from scratch. The article contains valuable material and it seems to be well referenced, and it's unreasonable to ask that this content not to be considered simply because it is "suspicious". Lastly, it is not the best for our readers to find just a red link on what is a reasonably valid topic. At the very least this should be merged and redirected to knowledge worker or knowledge management — Frankie (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Autarch (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Profiling[edit]

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

An advert for a product from Brand Velocity made from a mass of original research combined with false and misleading references. Article was created by people (with SPAs) from Brand Velocity as one of multiple spammy articles around their company. Article contains many references but most are published prior to Strategic Profiling's development and have nothing to do with this product. Many others are used to verify related products and have nothing to do with Strategic Profiling. An example of the problem, the statement "Strategic Profiling was developed" is followed by 10 references, all published prior to the development of this product, that can not verify the claim made. Article lacks independent coverage of Strategic Profiling and due to this and the spammy and misleading nature of the article it should be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising, patent nonsense, and most imnportantly, complete and total bullshit:

The Strategic Profiling tool is designed to help individuals and project teams make individual-functional-organizational knowledge work characteristics more visible and, as a result, help organizations accelerate Enterprise projects more productively.
Strategic Profiling, and its use in "Action Planning" workshops for large enterprises was designed to accelerate the individual, functional, and organizational nature of knowledge work to help project teams systematically accelerate large enterprise projects
The invisible nature of knowledge work needs to be made more visible for Enterprises to accelerate their projects and reinvent themselves better and faster.

Of course you're not going to learn the amazing secret to revolutionize your business and Make Money Fast from the article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear advertising. OSborn^arf_contribs. 17:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, spam, and misleading "references". SL93 (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Autarch (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reinvent Your Enterprise[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Large spam article on a book. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Article was created by people (with SPAs) from Brand Velocity as one of multiple spammy articles around their company. Recreation after the last afd closed merge has involved adding a lot of unsourced info and a lot of misleading references that do not support claims made. Some verify info not related to the book and appear to be there to pad out the reference list. Others are unrelated articles by Jack Bergstrand, author of the book, with a byline stating he wrote the book but saying nothing else about it. others are original research synthesis. below is a look at the sourcing at time of nomination.

1 dead link
2 dead link, blog
3 not in source
4 not in source
5 CIO for the Cola-Cola Co only, others not in source, nothing about book
6 other CIO "What We're Reading," sections do not provide significant coverage, can't tell wether or not the book is mentioned.
7 not in source, by Bergstrand
8 not in source, by Bergstrand
9 not in source, by Bergstrand
10 not in source, by Bergstrand
11 not in source, excert of book, link to copyright violation?
12 not in source, no mention of the book, Bergstrand or Drucker
13 not in source, no mention of the book or Drucker. contains quote from Bergstrand unrelated to the book.
14 ref 9 repeated, not in source, by Bergstrand
15 ref 10 repeated, not in source, by Bergstrand
16 ref 11 repeated, not in source, by Bergstrand
17 unrelated to the book, work prior to books publication
18 unrelated to the book, work prior to books publication
19 unrelated to the book, work prior to books publication
20 unrelated to the book, work prior to books publication
21 not in source, by Bergstrand
22 not in source, image of another book with side commentry by Bergstrand
23 not independent, not about book
24 unrelated to the book, contains unrelated quote from a Brand Velocity colleague
25 unrelated to the book, contains unrelated quote from Bergstrand
26 ref 9 repeated, unrelated to the book, by Bergstrand
27 unrelated to the book
28 not in source, not significant coverage of the book, mostly excert of book
29 not in source, not about book, product anouncement
30 not in source, Bergstrand talking about various things, book is mentioned, not significant coverage

Given the deceptive nature of the sourcing, the blatant coi promotion and the lack of coverage about the book, this article should be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Props to the nominator for taking the time to check the sources. The deadlinks don't provide any evidence of significant coverage either: This dedicates a couple of sentences to the book and this article only gives the book a mention in reference to its author, who is discussed a bit more. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Link 3 did have a mention of the book, but it was just that- a mention. Link 11 appears to be a newsletter put out by Brand Velocity itself and is only an excerpt of the book, so obviously that's not something that can be used as a reliable source. I did find a few sources, but I'm not sure how reliable they really are. [20], [21]. There are a lot of reviews from non-notable blogs, but the majority of stuff I've seen when I was searching appear to be put out by the company itself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Comment - I have no preference for or against deletion, but:
- 1 ~~dead link~~ - available on archive.org
- 3 ~~not in source~~ - source generally supports citation
- 5 ~~CIO for the Cola-Cola Co only, others not in source, nothing about book~~ - pertinent citation for author description
- 6 ~~other CIO "What We're Reading," sections do not provide significant coverage~~, can't tell wether or not the book is mentioned. - no other editions of the "What We're Reading" column are cited
- 11 ~~not in source, excert of book, link to copyright violation?~~ - source generally supports citation; no apparent indication of copyright issues
- 17 ~~unrelated to the book,~~ work prior to books publication - prior work is intrinsically related to subsequent derivatives; relevant to article if cited differently
- 18 ~~unrelated to the book,~~ work prior to books publication - see 17
- 19 ~~unrelated to the book,~~ work prior to books publication - see 17
- 20 ~~unrelated to the book,~~ work prior to books publication - see 17
- 23 not independent, ~~not about book~~ - there's definitely some conflation going on, but the article and video interview both address the book directly: "Bergstrand writes in his newly published book..." / "In your book, you write..."
- 25 ~~unrelated to the book, contains unrelated quote from Bergstrand~~ - see 23
- 30 ~~not in source, Bergstrand talking about various things, book is mentioned,~~ not significant coverage - source generally supports citation

I'm semi-sure there's at least one more inaccuracy in the list (ironically, the one that I first sampled at random) but I can't seem to figure out which it was. — C M B J 12:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest issue with most of the links was that the vast majority of them were written by Bergstrand or put out by the company he works for, which doesn't make them very reliable sources since it's in Bergstrand and his company's best interest to highlight his book and portray it in the best light possible. They're all primary sources for the most part.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I'm with you (and duff) on that point, but it's still important to evaluate the veracity of each claim individually. — C M B J 23:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your staements of inaccuracy:

3 page states "Reinvent Your Enterprise builds upon the “knowledge work” insights from Peter F. Drucker, among others, to help improve business results better and faster". source makes no mention of Drucker, source does not support the claim made, ie not in source

5 pertinent citation for author description but only supports part of the claims made and does not count to the notability of this book.

6 no other editions of the "What We're Reading" column are cited but other editions are available on CIO's website and these do not provide significant coverage of any of the books they mention. It is a reasonable assumption that the one cited is similar.

11 Whether it supports the claim or not is open to interpretation. questions of copyvio are based on the fact this is part of a publication not by Brand Velocity but is hosted on Brand Velocity's website with no indication of permission.

17-20 citing prior work in this fashion is WP:OR WP:SYNTH. saying it is unrelated to the book is relevent to the amount of coverage which counts to the notability of this book.

23 does not amount to significant coverage of the book. does not count to the notability of this book.

25 does not even mention the book. citing it in this fashion is WP:OR WP:SYNTH and does not count to the notability of this book.

30 page states "While other tools like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator help individuals identify their personality type, the Strategic Profiling tool was developed to help the individual, project team, and company improve knowledge work productivity". source does not mention the Strategic Profiling tool so does not support the claim made, ie not in source.

If you remember the other percieved problem please let me know and I will address that too. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Individually:

3) The description 'generally' was selected with care. A discrepancy does exist, but it's nothing outlandish or outside the scope of general cleanup.

5) Nothing was expressed to suggest that this conferred notability.

11) Regardless, there's no apparent issues with the publication itself and it can be cited with or without a link.

17-20) A wide variety of claims can be cited to a prior work without crossing over into WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. For instance, Bergstrand may unambiguously quote Drucker and draw upon a common idea, in which case it could be useful to the reader for us to also cite the original material. Other possibilities could be more general in nature, such as substantiating a shared reference or obscure definition. These examples are not exhaustive and are all hypothetical, of course, because the article currently does not go into this level of detail.

23) This source does not solely confer notability, but it is related.

25) This appears to have been a mistake on my part, because I distinctly noted 23 and 25 as being the same link. Sorry.

30) The source actually does describe the tool, but a more thorough reading suggests that (like several of the other citations) it's conflated with deployment by the consultancy firm.

I recall that the other one was something about a second page, but aside that detail it's likely to remain a mystery at this point. — C M B J 23:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A business book about a vague "knowledge management" theory, where the task set before an author is to come up with a new, catchy buzzword for the same old platitudes. Whatever else this is, it's promotional but meaningless: Following five years of dedicated research, the book integrates insights and examples from more than 200 business executives and scholars to provide a systematic approach to improve sustainable corporate performance in today’s globally competitive environment. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albeit relatively new, knowledge management is actually an established scientific discipline, complete with namesake journals and academic courses. The article's content is definitely promotional in some areas, but I honestly don't see how that particular quote is tantamount to patent nonsense. — C M B J 00:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jack Bergstrand if that article survives AfD, or otherwise delete. While I contest some specific points being made here, it's agreeable that there's simply not enough pure coverage to warrant an independent article at this time. I don't doubt the possibility that this could change in the foreseeable future, but for now, it is what it is. — C M B J 00:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Autarch (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete - Author blanked the page (WP:CSD#G7). An optimist on the run! 08:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XOXO DAY[edit]

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

Unreferenced. No assertion of notability. Unencyclopedic in tone. Google shows no mention except this article. Sperril (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add. Author notified [22] contested PROD. Sperril (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, made up at school one day. JIP | Talk 07:11, 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 redirect to Bekasi. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Fajar Elementary School[edit]

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

Elementary school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district per established precedent.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:30, 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) 00:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bekasi per Carrite. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bekasi as is standard practice with elementary schools. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 15:59, 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 as the nomination was withdrawn with no dissenting voices. TerriersFan (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jumeirah English Speaking School[edit]

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - School appears to include secondary students, per their website. Carrite (talk) 06:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All-grade school with Grade 12 and sixth form.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a high school. No reason why it doesn't meet WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this includes a high school, I have no problem withdrawing, as we keep all high schools. I cannot divine that from the article. Nor can I tell -- but from the above, perhaps I am missing it -- whether the post-primary school education goes beyond the middle school secondary level.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article may not be clear, but it's obvious on the school's website (here, here and here) that the school has secondary and sixth form sections. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect -- I now see that this includes the highest two levels of secondary education, so I withdraw my nom. Thanks, Gene.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to St. Albert, Alberta#Education. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William D. Cuts Junior High School[edit]

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

Junior high school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Non-notable school. Normally we would redirect to the relavant school Board, but there's no article for it in this case (it would be St. Albert Protestant Schools, see this link). That being the case, let's redirect to St. Albert, Alberta#K-12 education. PK T(alk) 21:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to article about school district or locality according to established precedent.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:34, 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) 00:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to St. Albert, Alberta#Education. A Gnews search gets RS coverage for one recent incident at the school. Its school board is not in Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 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 redirect to Edmonton Public Schools. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ottewell Junior High School[edit]

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

Junior high school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to article about school district or locality according to established precedent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

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) 00:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the school district, Edmonton Public Schools. My search for sources got one non-trivial hit in the local newspaper. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 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 redirect to Rocky View Schools Division. Redirected to the district. Merger, if desired, can be done from history (don't forget attribution). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mitford Middle School[edit]

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

Middle school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete Not notable. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to article about school district or locality according to established precedent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

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) 00:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge. Two possible targets: Either merge with the school board, Rocky View Schools Division, where the primary schools are not listed, or redirect to Cochrane, Alberta#Education, where it is already mentioned. This school lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 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 redirect to Grande Yellowhead Public School Division No. 77. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

École Pine Grove Middle School[edit]

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

Middle school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete Not notable. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to article about school district or locality according to established precedent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

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) 00:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school board, Grande Yellowhead Public School Division No. 77. The reliable source coverage I found was routine and trivial. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - as above. Neutrality^talk 22:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wetaskiwin Regional Division No. 11. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Vista Elementary Junior High School (Wetaskiwin, Alberta)[edit]

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

Elementary/junior high school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wetaskiwin Regional Division No. 11. The Mark of the Beast (talk)`

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to article about school district or locality according to established precedent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

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) 00:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school board per The Mark of the Beast. This school lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 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 redirect to Kuala Lumpur#Education. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SJK (C) Lai Meng[edit]

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

Primary school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable. Tagged for zero refs and for being an orphan for 2 years. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kuala Lumpur#Education according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Being an 'orphan' article ha no impact on notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:47, 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) 00:47, 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 redirect to Kuala Lumpur#Education. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Kebangsaan Danau Kota[edit]

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

Primary school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kuala Lumpur#Education according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:49, 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) 00:49, 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 redirect to Bangsar#Education. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Kebangsaan Bukit Pantai[edit]

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

Primary school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bangsar#Education according to established procedure for non-notable primary/elementary/middle schools to the article about the locality (where this school is already mentioned). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:53, 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) 00:53, 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 redirect to Johor Bahru. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Kebangsaan Taman Suria[edit]

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

Elementary school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable, despite article's claim that it is "famous". Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Johor Bahru according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools the article about the locallity (where this school is already mentioned). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:58, 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) 00:58, 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 redirect to Kepala Batas, Penang. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (Cina) Chin Hwa[edit]

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

Primary school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kepala Batas, Penang according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:03, 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) 01:03, 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 redirect to Sola. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Røyneberg skole[edit]

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

Primary school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not sure a redirect makes sense on English wikipedia. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sola according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. The English Wikipedia is not restricted to articles about subjects in English speaking regions-Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:07, 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) 01:07, 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 redirect to Stockholm#Education. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British International Primary School of Stockholm[edit]

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stockholm#Education according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:10, 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) 01:10, 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 redirect to Shepley. WP:ROUTINE report does not prove notability. If merger is desired it can be done from history (don't forget attribution). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shepley First School[edit]

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shepley as nn. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shepley according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 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) 01:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shepley, where it is. This is the best solution for Primary Schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Shepley. No assertion as to why this school is notable Pit-yacker (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable per the WP:GNG because it is documented in detail in independent, reliable sources such as this. Our editing policy is to retain such content not to delete it. Warden (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warden's routine Ofsted inspection report clearly demonstrates that the school is a non notable institution for children aged 5 - 10. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The age of the pupils has nothing to do with notability. If you suppose that it does, please cite the relevant policy. Warden (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one. GNG is just a guideline as its name implies and it does not specifically address schools either. The Ofsted report is just a routine government paper that all schools get roughly every three years, putting it basically, saying little more than 'This school has classrooms, pupils, and teachers, and needs to do better at...' and more than establishing existence, does little to assert, as a multiple source, notability. There is however, a clear precedent (not to be confused with WP:OSE and WP:OCE) demonstrated by 100s (or 1,000s) of AfDs for redirecting non notable primary schools (generally attended by pupils aged 5 - 10). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so we've established that your argument is not policy-based and instead you're pointing to an essay page which therefore carries little weight. The attempt to dismiss a valid source by claiming that it is "just routine" has no basis in the notability guideline. It seems to be a purely ad hoc argument intended to dismiss a substantial source in a hand-waving way for lack of any better reason. If you look at the reasons why we require such sources you will find that they fit perfectly, being substantial, independent and accurate so that they provide suitable material upon which we may write an article. Given we have satisfactory material upon which to write, my position is based upon this guideline and our editing policy which make it quite clear that this topic is suitable for us. Warden (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Run of the mill; routine report from government agency is not "significant coverage." Neutrality^talk 22:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bracknell#Education. Simple data infodumps do not establish notability, regardless of the reliability or "big name" of the source. No evidence of anything beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage = failure to pass WP:GNG. Merging content if desired can be done from history (don't forget attribution). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St Joseph's Catholic Primary School, Bracknell[edit]

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to Bracknell Fmph (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The school is notable per the WP:GNG, being covered in detail by reliable sources such as the BBC. Our editing policy is to retain sourced information, not to delete it. Warden (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires significant coverage. A listing on the BBC school performance tables does not constitute significant coverage. Fmph (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. WP:GNG defines what is meant by significant coverage in WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.. The BBC page about this school addresses the subject directly in detail and the school is the main topic of that page. As an example, the page tells us that 32.3% of the pupils had special educational needs. This means that we can repeat this fact in our article without original research. And the BBC is just one example. There are multiple Ofsted reports on the school and the most recent one is a comprehensive report which is 10 pages long. The claim that detailed sources are lacking is blatantly false. Warden (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ofsted reports do not count as significant coverage by any sense of even a vivid imagination. neither does a BBC print dump from a DfE database. Fmph (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you say so? The BBC and Ofted are independent professionals. If they determine that facts about a school are worthy of publication then who are you to say otherwise? This is not a vote and policy-based arguments are preferred. Subjective dislike of a topic is not sufficient grounds for deletion. Warden (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC doesn't determine any facts about the school. They just publish the DfE stats. WP:CONSENSUS is that primary schools are inherently non-notable. Is that policy based enough for you? Fmph (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (schools) is a failed proposal because it failed to establish a consensus view. The idea of inherent non-notability is a nonsense because the WP:GNG will trump it if detailed sources can be found, as in this case. Warden (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it has consensus here, doesn't it? Fmph (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there is consensus. Just about everybody, including the nominator, thinks that this should be a blue link not a red link. This means that the motion to delete the article has no support and we will be keeping this content. What happens to it is then a matter of ordinary editing. Some editors favour merger into Bracknell but they don't seem to realise that the LEA is Bracknell Forest and so that's the next tier up for education purposes, not Bracknell. But, if you go further back to the founding of the school, the LEA would have been Berkshire. That's the trouble with such mergers - they take no account of the changing structures and organisations over time and so fail to provide the historical perspective which is expected of an encyclopedia. It is simplest to keep the content at the most appropriate level; the one which is most constant and which has the most sensible title. As the BBC presents information about this school at this title, then this demonstrates that this is the appropriate level in the judgement of professionals. Warden (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its very simple actually. No need to get confused or upset about LEAs or anything. Just merge anything encyclopaedic into the locale article, in this case Bracknell. Works every time. Fmph (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete or possibly redirect. The BBC article is not in depth coverage of the school from which anything can be taken without having to crunch some numbers. It's proof it exists, but I don't see it as meeting the GNG. Ofsted reports I think can certainly support a school article, but, by themselves, I don't believe they contribute to the breadth of coverage required by the GNG. For that I'd want to see a couple of articles in regional or better press with meaningful coverage of the school in them. So I go for delete in this case. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG does not require "breadth of coverage" or anything like it. What it wants to see is detail and we have that. Warden (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It wants to see "significant" coverage - which it takes to mean sources which "address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content" (from WP:GNG). I would suggest that BBC league tables do require work to extract meaningful content. That leaves us with Ofsted. The GNG also says that "multiple sources are generally expected", from which I take to mean that some form of breadth if generally considered helpful when determining if something meets the GNG. That means I'm doubtful whether this primary school meets the GNG. It certainly doesn't meet the general consensus that primary school articles need something more than an Ofsted report and something in the very local press to make them notable. I appreciate entirely what you're saying, but I think you need something a bit more solid to make your case on here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple Ofsted reports written by different authors at different times. They are comprehensive and detailed and so amply satisfy the WP:GNG. Refusal to accept these sources seems to be blatant prejudice contrary to policy. When you see what pathetic sources are accepted for athletes, musicians and porn actors, it is quite incredible that an educational project like Wikipedia should be so disparaging of reputable educational establishments. It's not clear what causes this prejudice but I suppose it's that there are many young people editing Wikipedia who are still in education and familiarity breeds contempt. Warden (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accept them as sources, but argue that there are not representative, by themselves, of significant coverage that would meet WP:ORG and so on. Whilst I sympathise with a pov which argues that standards of notability for, say, football players is rather lower, that doesn't mean that our standards for schools is necessarily wrong. I'd love to see a well written, properly sourced primary school article which makes claims for notability (hey, I'd love to see a few more secondary school ones for that matter). Where they exist I'll support them if I think they're notable. I don't think we have notability here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bracknell#Education where the school is already mentioned, according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 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) 01:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Blue Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per warden, it is sourced and therefore meets GN.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bracknell#Education, where it is. This is the best solution for Primary Schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim made as to why this school is notable. Ofsted reports are a statutory requirement for all schools. They are thus created by virtue of a schools existence and not notability. Similarly, multiple Ofsted reports cannot be taken to "amplify" notability as the law requires inspections (and thus reports) to be carried out on a basis of typically every 3 years. In reality as reports are a "snapshot in time", a new inspection report should be taken as replacing an old one for the purposes of notability (and for that matter most content in the article).

"Outstanding" is one of 4 Ofsted ratings and equates to some 10-20% of schools. The introduction copied from the Ofsted report is almost meaningless, are these auto-generated? - they certainly could be - size "average" (what is average?) Special educational needs "above average" (what is average and what are the figures for this school? - report doesn't say), English as second language "well above average" (ditto),etc, etc. Equally the article could do with a good clean down, Are the builders really still there after 3.5 years? What is a "medium sized hall"? I'm taking Westminster Hall as my frame of reference. Remove all that and we have 2 or 3 sentences. As for talk about athletes, musician and porn stars WP:OTHERCRAP is not a reason to keep. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Newtown, Reading. Merging, if desired, can be done from history (don't forget attribution). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St John's CE Primary School[edit]

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

Primary school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to Bracknell Fmph (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2011

I think you mean Newtown, Reading. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now, let's see - how common do we think St John might be in the name of a school? Especially a CE school? Sorry, but there's no redirect here without more in the article title. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newtown, Reading according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. The lack of disambiguation is not a criteria for deletion.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:25, 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) 01:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Newtown, Reading, where it is. This is the best solution for Primary Schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Outstanding is one of four Ofsted ratings. Roughly 10%-20% of schools (or 4 others in the same town) are rated at this level. Redirect is not suitable for reasons outlined by User:Blue Square Thing - this is a probably a very common name for a school. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Swaffham. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weasenham school[edit]

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

Primary school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there seem to be two Weasenhams in the area each of which the school might apply to. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swaffham according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. The lack of dsiambiguation is not a criterion for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:28, 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) 01:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Swaffham, where it is. This is the best solution for Primary Schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. No assertion is made as to why this school is notable. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stoke Ferry. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Bradfield Primary School[edit]

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stoke Ferry I suppose. The name doesn't appear to be in use elsewhere. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stoke Ferry according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 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) 01:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stoke Ferry, where it is. This is the best solution for Primary Schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of why subject is notable. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Great Massingham. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great Massingham School[edit]

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect to Great Massingham as quick as you like please unless any form of notability can be shown. None is asserted just now. The Great Massingham article could use some work as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Great Massingham according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:37, 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) 01:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Great Masingham, where it is. This is the best solution for Primary Schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Woodlands Park. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlands Park School[edit]

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect to Woodlands Park as quickly as possible unless notability can be shown. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Woodlands Park according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 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) 01:39, 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 redirect to Bubwith. Reccomend against merger per Pit-yacker's comment regarding possible close paraphrasing - if information is desired in the city article, it should be written from scratch. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bubwith Community Primary School[edit]

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

Primary school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Add modified text as a sub-section of Bubwith article. --Harkey (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect - whilst there's more than there often is for primary schools, there's nothing notable here. Cut it down to what can be cited from the most recent Ofsted reports and then merge it into Bubwith as quickly as possible please. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bubwith according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:43, 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) 01:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bubwith, where it is. This is the best solution for Primary Schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bubwith. Acabashi (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Article is more or less a cut and paste (with a few words changed - the result of a copyedit at some point?) of the description of the school in its 2010 Ofsted inspection report. Having read a few of those descriptions on recent AfD, they themselves have a template feel to them. That is, they list a set of properties of the school, each of which is described as being average/above average or below average. I could well imagine that the descriptions are actually generated by a computer. Pit-yacker (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Other primary schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley. Given the lack of references, I'm not sure there's anything to merge, but it can be done from the article history if desired (don't forget to properly attribute the content if this is done). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milking Bank Primary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Primary school, which does not appear to meet our notability requirements. Zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dudley#Primary schools. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dudley#Primary schools, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above (but see later). Certainly more complete than is normal, but, frankly, non-notable. The article Other primary schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley also exists and seems to have been a merging pot for all the other primary school articles, although some don't appear in the Dudley article but link from elsewhere or to other articles as well (or from Template:Schools in Dudley to various places). Frankly it looks like it's going to take some sorting out of this one - it'd be useful to get some thoughts on a more general approach in this case. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dudley#Primary schools according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality or its school sub-list. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 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) 01:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Other primary schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley to which various other local Primary Scholls are redirected (e.g. Kates Hill). The article suggested by Kudpung needs to have a "main" link to that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Other primary schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley (and move that to primary schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley). Existence is not the same as notability. To survive, this article need to demonstrate why the subject is notable. At present it fails to do this. The article has barely changed since its last AfD over 5 years ago. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs) under CSD G12. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Dhabi Grammar School[edit]

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

Non-notable grammar school. Epeefleche (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Education in Abu Dhabi. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one isn't an elementary school. According to the article it includes a High School, with accredited High School Graduation Diplomas through Nova Scotia's international school partnerships (http://internationalprograms.ednet.ns.ca/content/international-school-partnerships]). It needs refs, but can't be presumed to fail notability. AllyD (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Missed that, given the name of the school and the intro describing it as a grammar school. And when I click on the official web site, though, I get a message that says "The site at www.agsgrmmr.sch.ae has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences." Can you read the official site? In any event, this also appears to be a massive copyvio, for which I've flagged it.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was getting the Attack Site warning too and not going any further (life's too short). Good point about the likely copyvio; maybe best to reduce to a stub? Staying on the safe sources, there is this speech by the Nova Scotia premier, but possibly as an interested party. AllyD (talk) 11:34, 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 speedy (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: International Islamic Grammar School . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Islamic Grammar School, Islamabad[edit]

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

Non-notable grammar school, with zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of educational institutions in Islamabad. Note that this is a duplicate article to International Islamic Grammar School. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 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 redirect to List of educational institutions in Islamabad. No prejustice against recreation if and when it reaches high school level. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Islamic Grammar School[edit]

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

Non-notable grammar school, with zero refs. Tagged for zero refs since September. Created by an spa. Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of educational institutions in Islamabad. Note that this is a duplicate article to International Islamic Grammar School, Islamabad. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Islamic Grammar School, Islamabad has been speedy deleted per WP:A10 (duplicate). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of educational institutions in Islamabad according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality or related list of schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This school is not a primary school. If you look at the school's website it is clear that they will eventually take children right through to the age of 18: http://www.iigs.edu.pk/. Pakistan is a country with a population of some 170 million people, yet we have just a handful of articles on schools in Pakistan. See Category:Schools in Pakistan by administrative unit. In order to counter the inherent systemic bias on Wikipedia it is important to keep articles such as this to encourage local editors to contribute. Dahliarose (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The school is currently not a high school, though it has plans to at a future point in time accept students up to the age of 18. That falls under "NOTYET".--Epeefleche (talk) 23:34, 24 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) 01:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not a high school Junior highs and middle schools do not get a blanket assumption of notability as do high schools. Sources have not been presented to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colonnade at State College[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Non-notable outdoor shopping center. Google has few relevant results from outside sources. Dough 48 72 03:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. Seems to be a notable shopping center for the State College area, although there is a limited number of sources to establish notability. Tinton5 (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - seems the most relevent source of Cites is paywalled; [23] (perhaps the wayback machine could help, I haven't tried that yet). Cites do exist[24] in major industry publications but claim to notability could be better. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is decently notable for a shopping center. Cocoaguy ここがいい 22:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many shopping centers similar to this throughout the country with a bunch of big-box stores, what makes this one so special? Dough 48 72 19:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inclusion of article is due to the center’s noteworthy proposed/planned/expected/etc. size and scope for the region. More notable than many other “lesser” (newer, smaller, etc.) open-air shopping centers on Wiki. PSF1 (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several similar-sized shopping centers like this in the Philadelphia area and other cities, and none of them have articles. Just because this is the only center in the State College area does not make it special. Dough 48 72 18:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They will be created eventually. Tinton5 (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability is a threshold, not a competition. (That's why we have articles on both North and South Dakota, for example.) - Dravecky (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seyyed Abolhassan Hafezian[edit]

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

he was deleted in the German wikipedia, so he is not notable. Däädaa (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Book House Institute is a non-governmental, non-profit and cultural organization"http://www.ibna.ir/vsdg!0940r5aev151ak4.rj.q9xzaz.html --Däädaa (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The decision-making at the various Wikipedias is independent from each other. Are there particular reasons why the nominator feels this subject is "not notable"? Carrite (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign of notability, sources are not reliable. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Poorly written article on non-notable person. Vincelord (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Seocho-dong. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seoun Middle School[edit]

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

This middle school has zero refs. Appears to be non-notable. Epeefleche (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Seocho-dong, the neighborhood where it is located. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Seocho-dong according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:59, 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) 01:59, 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 redirect to Suji-gu#Education. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeongpyeong Middle School[edit]

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

This middle school has zero refs, and has been tagged as an orphan for over 2 years. Appears to be non-notable. Epeefleche (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Suji-gu#Education, in the article for the district where it is located. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Suji-gu according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:03, 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) 02:03, 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 redirect to SM Prime Holdings. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 16:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SM City Olongapo[edit]

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

Insufficient notability. Lacks sources. GrayFullbuster (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A city deserves an entry. But needs citations per notability.Drjames1 (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't about a city. It's about a shopping mall. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I only found passing RS coverage for this mall. Coverage was focused on SM Prime. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SM Prime Holdings. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but more suitable target would be SM Supermalls where this mall is already listed. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SM Supermalls, would seem the most appropriate place. Pol430 talk to me 16:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Galway, Kilmacduagh and Kilfenora. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Francis National School[edit]

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

This primary school has zero refs, and has been tagged for that and for lack of notability for over 3 years. Appears to be non-notable, per wp standards. Epeefleche (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Galway, Kilmacduagh and Kilfenora per established consensus that the vast majority of primary schools are not notable, with the exception of a very few of genuine architectural or historical significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to article about school district or locality according to established procedure for non-notable primary/elementary/middle schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:23, 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) 02:23, 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 redirect to Wood Green. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nightingale Primary School[edit]

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

Thisprimary school has zero refs, and has been tagged for that and for lack of notability for nearly 3 years. Appears to be non-notable, per wp standards. Epeefleche (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Haringey per established consensus that the vast majority of primary schools are not notable, with the exception of a very few of genuine architectural or historical significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect either to the education section of Wood Green where it is already listed, or to List of schools in Haringey. Either way, there is no need to delete it (as per Cullen) - non notable primary schools are generally redirected unless there is no proof they exist. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not unreasonable that other schools may have the same name and a mass redirect to Haringey might cause some confusion over at the search engines. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having the same name is not a criterion for deletion. For such cases, Wikipedia has WP:Disambiguation pages and/or WP:Hatnote that are for this purpose. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the list in Wood Green, where it is. This is the best solution for Primary Schools and preserves the limited information in this sub article. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No useful content and no assertion of notability. Pit-yacker (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Little Rock School District. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Middle School (Little Rock)[edit]

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

This middle school has zero refs, and has been tagged for that and for lack of notability for over 2 years. Appears to be non-notable, per wp standards. Epeefleche (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect article about this closed middle school to Little Rock School District per established consensus that the vast majority of middle schools are not notable, with the exception of a very few of genuine architectural or historical significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district or locality according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 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) 02:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Little Rock School District. This school lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Little Rock School District for all the reasons already provided. Allecher (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Seoul#Education. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sangwon Middle School (Seoul)[edit]

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

This middle school has zero refs, and has been tagged for that and for notability for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Education in South Korea until there is a better target, per established consensus that the vast majority of middle schools are not notable, with the exception of a very few of genuine architectural or historical significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the neighborhood where this school is located, if anyone can identify it. If not, redirect to Seoul#Education. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to article about school district or locality according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 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) 02:06, 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 redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland. (non-admin closure) →Σ τ c. 00:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. David School (Richmond, California)[edit]

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

I've been mulling over this for awhile, and have decided to go through with it. This school has been to AfD once before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. David School; it was several years ago and "No consensus" was the result. Since then, we've gotten tougher on verifibility, and a firmer consensus has emerged about the notability of schools. This is a non-secondary school (K-8), and it's generally held that only secondary schools are notable. The only exceptions are if a school is award-winning or has a wide depth of coverage. This has neither. It lacks reliable sources; the only sources it has are from its own website, and a fleeting mention of the school in a book that pays mention to the school's janitor (there is a chapter devoted to the janitor, but almost all of it focuses on his contributions aside of St. David). Bottom line: This article's in a gots-to-go situation Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland per established consensus that the vast majority of primary schools are not notable, with the exception of a very few of genuine architectural or historical significance. I live near Richmond, a city of wonderful people and a very sad economic climate, but standards are standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact is that this user has been mass nominating articles related to Richmond, California and has a persistent habit of following me to other articles and hassling editors every comment and edit with a new thread of unnecessary discussion.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep precedent is clear that all schools are notable. Just out of the Catholic Elementary schools in the United States there are 94 with articles at this time[25] So any deletion debate should be withheld until a strong policy has been developed on all of these and not just this one singled out from an editor that has appeared to follow my edits. It should also be kept because the school is notable on its own as it is also a junior high school and has been mentioned in a book and also in USA today.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this article is for some reason not kept then it should be merged with the diocese article.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rescue This article deserves to be rescued because it forms an important part of the history of Richmond, California and the neighborhood of Richmond Heights, Richmond, California and adjacent East Richmond Heights, California. The school won awards in excellence in the 90s and is the only catholic junior high in Richmond. It is a parish, day care center, former housing village for nuns, former convent, elementary school, neighborhood park for its playground and field and gardens, church, and event center. Schools are an important part of regional history and the school's existence is verified. Most elementary school's don't have their own websites but this one does. Also there are hundreds of articles about elementary and middle schools around the world, including 94 similar articles on Catholic primary schools so this one should not be singled out because one editor is on his nearly 20th nomination of a Richmond, California related article. Richmond is a poor community with social justice and criminal issues and is overlooked in its coverage elsewhere. There is no good history of this school anywhere else but all the sources come together here and are beneficial to Richmondites and all wikipedians.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this editor has !voted three different ways. Secondly, there is no precedent that "all schools are notable"...schools that don't go higher than the 8th grade are generally deleted. And there is a strong policy that K-8 schools don't need articles...consider that there are 94 articles on Catholic schools even though there are thousands of them in this country...and if you look, many of the articles tagged as "schools" are about the parish in general. I think rescue is completely inappropriate in this case...the article has been around for years, and hadn't been improved. The number of Richmond-related articles I have nominated is a) miscounted, and b) irrelevant. Richmond happens to have a lot of non-notable or borderline-notable articles that needed to be deleted. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article is verified indeed by the US Geological Survey citation, and USA Today, Hard Ridin' and the school's website are all reliable sources for the school itself.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't actually. USA Today and USGS offer data for things regardless of notability; they cannot be used to determine it. Hard Timin' only mentions the school fleetingly. And by definition, the school's website is a primary source; notability must be established with secondary sources Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The school is verified by the USGS, VERIFIED. USA Today and Hard Ridin' are reliable sources of the content which they cite, and also for the purposes of verification. Furthermore non-high schools are hardly ever noted in published works, something that makes this school notable.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please using all that bold text and repeating the word "verified". You are misusing the term. Just because USGS is a reliable source for geocoordinate data does not under any circumstance attest to its notability. You can be listed on USGS and not be notable; there are geocoordinates on USGS for places that have been deleted on Wikipedia; or could never be created because of NOTE and NOT concerns. There is an ongoing discussion about USA Today on the talk page, but a consensus is emerging that the page you link to can't be used to determine notability. And one fleeting mention in a published work does not make the school notable (and FYI, your statement about non-high schools hardly being mentioned is inaccurate) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify, the grammar used in your comments is riddled with split infinitives, fragments, false dichotomies and odd modifiers that make it painful to read. It remains a reliable source within the article for the schools existence. A point you have contradicted in the past.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No infinitives were split there. There is a difference between a reliable source and one that establishes notability Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland. There is absolutely no precedent that all schools are notable, despite the claim above. Unless there is something unique about this school, it fails school notability issues. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, delete: Simply put we don't need to work ourselves into a tizzy over the abstraction of "notability". There are NO SIGNIFICANT SECONDARY SOURCES - and that after 6 years - since we don't want an article that's no more than a summation of the organisation's website, remove it.--Scott Mac 09:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me take a few points from the above contributions. The nom says "it's generally held that only secondary schools are notable", yet elsewhere we read that this school includes a junior high. Now, I'm no expert in US education, but it seems to me that a junior high is secondary. Therefore, the answer must be Keep on those grounds alone. OK, so there are issues with the independence of the sources and this may be an argument for editing here and there. Other contributors have commented on the importance of the school to the present and past of its locaality, but this is a somewhat nebulous argument and, without sourcing in the article, should not be part of this debate - the same could be said of just about any school, village hall, scout hut or bus shelter, but that does not in itself confer the notability we would want to justify an article. And I seriously question the statement that "Most elementary school's don't have their own websites but this one does." If that is true in the US it reflects a serious failing in the education system there but, that apart, having a web site is not and never has been a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Quite simply, if this school provides secondary education as a junior high, it's in. If not, it's out. Emeraude (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is a secondary and primary school for those purposes. And there is precedent for keeping as there are hundreds of articles about junior highs and elementary schools. It may be a "failure" of the education system from your perspective but in the US most schools simply have a short information page on the school district's website and that's all. A school with it's own website even a high school is not that common and often unheard of for junior highs/elementary schools here. I am not saying that it makes it meet any criteria but I am saying it makes this school rather unique.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing unique about being a K-8 school. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Almost every Catholic elementary school in the country is K-8, to say nothing of thousands of non-Catholic schools. And having a website doesn't matter in the least. The only thing unique about this school is that you keep whining and ignoring Wikipedia policy and precedent in a attempt to save it. Let it go. Two editors (one of whom is a strong keepist) have said that the article is probably going to be deleted. Please, stop wasting community time and throw in the towel on this! Oh, and FYI, your "there are hundreds of other schools" a) is a false WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and b) ignores the fact that they might have different circumstances than this Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not really. Secondary education is grades 9-12, a junior high is grades 6-8 or 7-8. I don't think this school counts as secondary education; junior highs seem to be deleted or merged along with elementary schools Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Secondary education#United States which states that: "As part of education in the United States, secondary education comprises grades 6, 7, 8, and 9 through 12." It goes on to say that "Grades 9 through 12 is the most common grade structure for high school", but I am suggesting that the debate hinges on whether or not the school provides secondary education, not whether it is called a high school. Emeraude (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of that; it appears that middle schools generally have the same outcomes as elementary ones. Quoting from Common AfD outcomes, "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD" (emphasis mine). I think the "secondary" thing is more semantic than anything. Outcomes uses elementary, middle, and high rather than primary or secondary Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And FYI, "middle school" and "junior high" generally refer to the same grades. Both include 7 and 8; middle also contains 6 Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary education#United States is wrong. The phrasing of that article tells me it wasn't written by an expert on educational systems, and I believe it is pretty much universal usage in the US that secondary is high school and junior high school is primary. I did a quick web search to make sure I'm not totally confused, and I'm not. High school is 9-12 or (not much anymore) 10-12. Junior high is 7-9, but not many exist anymore. Middle school is 6-8 or 7-8. The middle and junior high terms get interchanged a lot, probably because they're part of a school's name when the district reshuffles grades and they don't want to change the name of the school.Bryan Henderson (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National importance[edit]

As an encyclopedia history is very important and this is a nationally recognized school winning the "National Award for Excellence in Education" in 1985. Furthermore per WP:NRVE it should be kept as it has been mentioned numerous times in newspapers that I have seen framed in the school's main office. I believe the content is too old to easily find online but it is there.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NRVE isn't necessarily applicable in that schools' coverage is fleeting and routine; not the kind of thing you need to establish notability Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NRVE is always applicable if the sources establish notability. Articles about the school itself are not routine passing mentions. Notwithstanding the school is of national importance due to its national award.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NRVE says "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest". I submit that the attention paid to the "National Award for Excellence in Education" now commonly called the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, is inadequate to demonstrate notability, as it is exactly "mere short term interest". Well over 5000 schools have won this award at one time or another, and it is the sort of thing that is mentioned in local newspapers at the time, and then promptly forgotten by everyone except those connected with the school, who probably display a nice plaque or a framed certificate on the wall near the principal's office. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the locality or the diocese if necessary. The sources being cited come nowhere near to meeting the GNG criteria for sourcing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland. The sources listed in the article currently are absolute garbage; half of them are the school's own website and the other half are nonsense like a USGS listing and the school's USA Today environmental profile. I'm surprised that I didn't see a source that started with www.facebook.com/...." Chillllls (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richmond Heights, Richmond, California#Education where the school is already mentioned, according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland. Only indication of having notability towards inclusion in WP is its national award for excellence (blue ribbon school). I am not of the opinion that every school which wins an award like this should be included, and WP seems to agree in general, per Cullen 328. multiple awards for a middle school, maybe. any editors strongly desiring that this school have a listing should create their own website for the city of richmond to promote this and other less notable subjects. No one thinks that Richmond doesnt deserve to be completely documented and described for all to read, just not here. PS i dont think this article should be userfied, as it has been here, as its simply not notable, and if it becomes notable anytime soon, it would have to start off as a stub, not with all the content sourced from the schools site. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:55, 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) 02:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Richmond Heights, Richmond, California[reply]

Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland education section per standard practice. I'd note that this diocese has enough educational institutions that its possible a breakout article could be created on Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland Schools, but no individual articles for middle or elementary schools are warranted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the diocese as above. There has been a lot of misquoting and misinformation above, regarding Wikipedia "policy" about schools. There actually isn't an official policy, but there is a long-established consensus which is stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education, as follows: "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia. Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." In other words, the only schools given a "pass" as automatically notable are high schools (i.e., diploma-granting institutions serving students through 12th grade). The school under discussion here does not fall into that group. It appears to be a run of the mill school, not distinctive in any way and not having received unusual news coverage, and so it should be redirected. --MelanieN (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- my understanding is that while high schools are generally kept automatically, that is not the case for middle schools/junior high schools, grade schools, primary schools, and kindergartens.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland - don't see any convincing arguments above not to redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Davis, California. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine School[edit]

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

Zero refs, in this article about an elementary school. No indication of notability. Tagged for notability since October. Epeefleche (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not all schools are notable Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Davis, California according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 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) 02:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect to Davis. This is a promotional article about a small 3-year-old private school with no indication of notability. I prefer delete because the name "Peregrine School" is not unique; there are other, unrelated schools named Peregrine School all over the world, from Idaho to Tasmania. If redirected, maybe the name should be changed to "Peregrine School (Davis, California)" without leaving a redirect from Peregrine School. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 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 redirect to Benin City. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emotan Preparatory School[edit]

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

Zero refs, in this article about an elementary school. No indication of notability. Tagged for notability since October. Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to [[Benin City] according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 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) 02:32, 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 redirect to Cape Girardeau, Missouri#Health and education. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Vincent de Paul Parish School[edit]

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

Zero refs, in this article about an elementary school. No indication of notability. Tagged for notability for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cape Girardeau according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:36, 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) 02:36, 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 Move to Saint Damian School (Oak Forest, Illinois) and redirect to Oak Forest, Illinois#Education. Creation of a dab page can be WP:BOLDly done. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Damian School[edit]

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

Zero refs, in this article about an elementary school. No indication of notability. Tagged for notability for well over 3 years. Created by 1-edit-only spa. Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oak Forest, Illinois according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with disambiguation page. I see at least 7 of these right off the bat, 6 of which appear to be grade schools, probably in that twilight area where people might need to know an ambiguous wikilink refers to one of them (and therefore should probably be unlinked), but not notable enough to get their own articles:
- St Damian's Primary School (Bundoora, Victoria in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne)
- St. Damian's National School (Beechfield Close, Walkinstown, Dublin)
- St. Damian's School (Quarry Drive, Perrystown, County Dublin) — not sure if this is the same as the one in Walkinstown
- St. Damian School (Oak Forest, Illinois in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago)
- St. Damian School (Westland, Michigan in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit)
- St. Damian's School (Walkinstown, Dublin)
- Damien High School (La Verne, California in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles) --Closeapple (talk) 05:34, 24 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) 02:37, 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 redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Barnabas Catholic School, Philadelphia[edit]

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

Zero refs, in this article about an elementary school. No indication of notability. Tagged for notability for well over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to locality or school district according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:40, 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) 02:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia per above, as the archdiocese functions as the school district in this case. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 08:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia#Educational institutions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Mother of Peace Area Catholic School[edit]

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

Zero refs, in this article about an elementary school. No indication of notability. Tagged for notability for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to article about school district or locality according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:41, 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) 02:41, 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 redirect to Dublin, Ohio. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Run Elementary[edit]

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

Zero refs, in this article about an elementary school. No indication of notability. Tagged for notability for nearly 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, zero claim of notability. Nothing more than a single sentence containing the name and the town it is in. RadioFan (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A7 does not apply to schools. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as usual. I remind RadioFan that school articles are not subject to A7, for the reason that, at worst, they can be redirected. WP:Deletion policy holds for all articles whatsoever, and deletion is the last resort, with merging or redirection preferred. We therefore don't actually need a specific policy for elementary schools, as they are located in a fixed place, redirection/merging is always possible. The single sentence present is quite sufficient to specify the redirect. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A7 doesn't apply to schools but it should and this is a good example. Schools aren't magic, they aren't inherently notable. Latitude is given to schools because generally sources can be found. Sources have been searched for by multiple editors here and apparently dont exist. Redirect is what the outcome here will be but it's a bit silly since statistics on this article indicate that it only came to light when it was AFD'd.--RadioFan (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to article about school district or locality according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 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) 02:43, 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 redirect to Chilliwack, British Columbia#Education. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greendale Elementary School[edit]

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

Zero refs, in this article about an elementary school. No indication of notability. Tagged for notability for well over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chilliwack, British Columbia#Education according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools, to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:45, 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) 02:45, 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 redirect to Wuxi County#Education. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chenxiang Elementary School[edit]

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

Zero refs, in this article about an elementary school. No indication of notability. Tagged for notability for well over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to city or school district, per the well-established general consensus here for the vast majority of K-8 educational institutions. Since it seems there are a fairly vast number of AfD challenges of elementary schools today, I'm going to copy-and-paste this where appropriate, with apologies. The rule of thumb to redirect elementary schools and keep secondary schools is a necessary thing, a good compromise between those wanting a narrow, focused encyclopedia and those wanting a vast, expansive one. Rather than going to war over the notability or lack thereof of dozens or scores or hundreds of schools each day, we have a streamlined and ultimately effective process that most everyone can live with. Apologies to the creators of affected pages, but it really does need to be this way, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to article about school district or locality according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 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) 02:46, 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 deleted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B&M megashifter[edit]

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

I found a bunch of trivial mentions, but they don't show notability for this product. SL93 (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it was just "megashifter", I'd suggest redirecting it to gear stick. What makes this different is that this article is about a specific name-brand product put out by a company that just doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP. (Otherwise I'd suggest redirecting it to the company.) I did a search but none of the sources that came back would be considered reliable. Popularity does not guarantee notability, after all. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Obvious delete - It's a nonnotable product. Shadowjams (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't imagine this product is notable enough to have its own article. JIP | Talk 07:13, 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.