Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 December	27 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etiotropic Trauma Management (ETM)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG: The only source germane to the topic is a link to the author's own website. A good-faith effort to establish notability and verifiability (WP:BEGIN) failed to find sources that were independent of the subject. WP:SOAP: The creator and main contributor of the article invented the therapy in question, and is its main certifying authority. The author states on his talk page: "...I will add references to whatever is needed as I deem meritable."; and that he will cite others' work only "if I think it adds to the value of the best presentation." WP:NOT#JARGON It reads like a scientific journal, and uses a good deal of jargon. I don't think this can be fixed without first wiping the slate clean. Braincricket (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have attempted independently to locate reliable sources and have found none. I searched JAMA and PubMed without result. The usual suspects only turn up a mention and book by the article's author. The book of the same name is published by the author's website and is apparently sent when someone registers for the author's online training course. There is also the issue that the article reads as near word salad.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Deleted large portion of copyvio text. Author self-identifies themselves as the same author who owns http://etiotropic.com/ and their attempted ownership of the article ensures that any COI that they may have is perpetuated. 7 05:01, 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 redirect to List of typefaces. I've unlinked the wikilink to Year Supply of Fairy Cakes from the target article. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Year Supply of Fairy Cakes[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this font. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of typefaces. I couldn't find anything to show that this particular type of font is especially notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:31, 28 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of typefaces The only possible notability criterion that could be applied to this article, WP:GNG, is failed because none of the web pages mentioning this font even remotely qualify as reliable. Magister Scienta ^talk 01:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close -- withdrawn by proposer — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Anome (talk • contribs) 21:38, 26 December 2011‎

Vollan prison[edit]

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

I can't find a clear source for this. The source given, which appears now to be at http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_country.php?country=158 , rather curiously only contains the word "Vollan" as the surname of the modern director-general of prisons in Norway, which is either a surprising coincidence or a sign that something is wrong with the sourcing. I propose this article for deletion as unverifiable, and lacking WP:RS.

I have similar misgivings about the redirect Vollan concentration camp, which redirects here, and which therefore also has the same problems. Given that numerous other articles link to "Vollan concentration camp", I think a thorough dig for sources is in order, as otherwise this may also indicate problems with those other articles. -- The Anome (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can find some contemporary New York Times report of a WWII Vollan prison as a concentration camp via http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Vollan+prison%22&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1 , so I'm removing this AfD: the surname match appears only to be a weird coincidence. -- The Anome (talk) 21:38, 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. --MuZemike 03:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi St. Blaque[edit]

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

Non-notable short-term glamour model with one minor film role. No GNews or nontrivial GBooks hits. Article created by repeatedly blocked sockpuppeteer including falsified claim that subject was a porn performer. No reliable sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NotJustYet. Minimal film career fails WP:ENT.[1] Lack of coverage fails WP:GNG.[2][3] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slightly concerning the blocked sock-puppeteers can put potentially libellous material up and we have to crawl through the AfD process. --Legis (talk - contribs) 21:41, 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 G3'ed Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed teens[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a supposed forthcoming TV series. Could be something made up one day or may simply be non-notable; the lack of references makes it impossible for the reader to tell. Assuming its a real TV series, this article has been created too soon. The "channel" Quizilla" on which this will "appear" is a fan forum on TeenNick.com [4] so there seems to be little chance this is real. Prod was removed without explanation, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the show is real, the article is very poorly written. Probably a good idea to get rid of this Zzaffuto118 (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not real. Borock (talk) 00:29, 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. postdlf (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flump (popular usage, slang)[edit]

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

An obvious neologism and something made up one day to amuse some friends. Clearly inappropriate subject for a Wikipedia article - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary of non-notable slang. Endorsed Prod removed without explanation, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM and the other good points made by Sparthorse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete fails on all terms; nor is Wikipedia a dictionary. Whenaxis (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding reliable sources to qualify this topic's inclusion. Here's one I did find, though...Brown’s a flump over MP chumps. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. It's December, so it must be snowing. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:20, 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 speedy deleted as A10. Non-admin closure. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of blade materials (mobile edition)[edit]

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

Couldn't find a speedy criteria that fits, but this is an improper copy of List of blade materials without the histories, designed to be a "mobile edition". My understanding is that the mobile edition is the same as the regular edition, and the converting is done on the servers. Making two of every article would be ridiculous anyway. No need to change to a redirect either, would only be more confusing. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:21, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Guidici[edit]

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

MMA fighter that fails WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT. Article gives no significant coverage from an independent source. Jakejr (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete First a comment that the article title is spelled incorrectly; the subject's name is "Marcelo Giudici". He is not notable as an MMA fighter. However, depending on interpretation of WP:ATHLETE he may be notable for having won a bronze medal at the Pan American Championship [5]. I'm not convinced that is enough to be notable, but may be convinced otherwise. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think to get your own article it would be a margin call if they won a single bronze at the Olympic, Commonwealth or Worlds. But to my mind the Pan-American is a bit too niche to justify an article alone without more. --Legis (talk - contribs) 21:43, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Travers[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a fighter who fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:MMANOT. Jakejr (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He may be an "up and coming prospect" but currently fails WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, following the comments above. Janggeom (talk) 14:17, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romie Aram[edit]

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

MMA fighter that doesn't meet notability criteria. The article also fails to show any significant independent coverage.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one fight for a top tier organization, little other information can be found. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, following the comments above. Janggeom (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability.--Phospheros (talk) 03:51, 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 merge to Triotech Amusement. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XD Theater[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. No independent WP:reliable sources. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with this article. Whenaxis (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article being discussed has been tagged for rescue. Whenaxis (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Modified my opinion. See below. Smerge and redirect to Century Theatres#XD where it is spoken of in detail and context to this media being created by that company in response to IMAX. While Triotech Amusement may take advantage of the techonolgy (their article may be at AFD soon), we can send readers to that of the creator of the technology. IF the article's advert tone is addresed and it umakes use available sources, I'll reconsider. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Triotech Amusement, the company that appears to have created the technology. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Modified my opinion. See below. The Triotech Amusement article has little content and seems itself ready for AFD. While they used this technology to create "their motion simulators such as XD Theater and Jett Rider", it appears that Century Theatres actually created the tecnology. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Modified my opinion. See below. To clarify... my thought here is that while a redirect to Triotech Amusement as creator of the amusement ride is reasonable, THAT article itself appears to fail WP:CORP and if or when deleted we'd have left a redirect hanging which would itself likely be deleted through cleanup. IF the Triotech Amusement article were stronger and better sourced, I would tend to agree. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we can take the time to TRY to improve the article. If that's not possible, then we would need to redirect Triotech and XD Theater to Century Theatres. Whenaxis (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to adminstrator: Please leave this AfD open until the edit revamp is complete. Whenaxis (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Triotech Amusement as the proposed target article is being improved and sourced.[6] I am now okay with a smerge to Triotech. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From the Triotech Amusement website, brochure for the XD Theater attraction, which the article is about: "Triotech – Redefining immersive experiences. Again, it appears that merging to Triotech Amusement would be the best fit, as it appears that Triotech invented the technology. While there is a section in the article about XD theaters, it's not the article's primary focus. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As per the continued edits on Triotech Amusement, I agree with MichaelQSchmidt. Whenaxis (talk) 21:05, 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. Michig (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Andersen (fighter)[edit]

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

Article is about an MMA fighter with no bouts for a top tier organization. The article also lacks references that show significant independent coverage. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT. Jakejr (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one fight for a notable organization, few fights against notable opponents, and unable to find any other information about him. Fails WP:MMANOT and WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, following the comments above. Janggeom (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability.--Phospheros (talk) 03:50, 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 Merged with Visual Collaborative. —Dark 05:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ade Olufeko[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. This was a Articles for Creation submission that I declined because of lacking substantial sources, and to my surprise another editor accepted it, though uncorrected. I do not think the subject meets the notability guidelines. Only one of the source is directly about the subject, and it is hosted on examiner.com, e.g. a user-generated content platform, not RS. The other sources are about Visual Collaborative, not Ade Olufeko. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 18:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note there's a duplicate of this page at Visual Collaborative, so both would need to be deleted if consensus says so. If this ends with a keep perhaps the Ade Olufeko article could redirect to the other, as the other has a better-fitting title. Them From Space 03:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original authors indicated the intended article is Visual Collaborative, so this article may be deleted. Thorncrag 04:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tagged the article as a G7 per author's request in IRC. Shearonink (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Both article content contributors have indicated the article was mistaken and expressed a desire to have it deleted. Thorncrag 05:46, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Jayron32 06:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Alvarez[edit]

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

Unsourced article about an MMA fighter with only a few professional fights. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Although not mentioned in the article, I found a reference [7] that suggests Alvarez is notable. The source claims he won a gold medal at the Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu World Championships and the Pan American [BJJ] Championships. No year is stated but it would have been around 1994, I think. It also states he was a three-time silver medalist at Abu Dhabi Combat Championships. I think if additional sources could be found to back up these claims and added to the article, notability will be shown. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find. I found verification of that at the ADCC website. Therefore I would like to withdraw my nomination. Jakejr (talk) 06:04, 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 John Lennon#1940–57: Early years. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9 Newcastle Road[edit]

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

John Lennon lived here for his first 5 years of his life here which does not make the house notable. 251 Menlove Avenue, on the other hand, is a notable home of his. SL93 (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John_Lennon#1940.E2.80.9357:_Early_years. One-line article on a subject which is already covered well enough in the article on John Lennon, whose own notability is the only reason 9 Newcastle Road exists in WP. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hobbes Goodyear's sensible recommendation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect -- an alternative target might be 251 Menlove Avenue, in which it could be said that this was Lennon's earlier home. The other is notable, only because the National Trust have preserved it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think redirecting looks like the thin end of the wedge. He lived there for 5 years - if we do this for every notable person in the world, we are going to end up with an awful lot of redirects... --Legis (talk - contribs) 21:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this were a recent creation, I might agree, but it's over a year old. Also, John Lennon is not merely notable--if we delete, I can see this article cropping up again every so often. Maybe better to have the redirect in place and be done with it? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:09, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Barnett[edit]

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

Self-promotional article with no evidence of notability. Most of the references don't give substantial coverage, and some of them are in business promotion sites or for other reasons doubtfully independent and/or reliable. (Note: PROD was contested by IP with no edits on any other subject but Tyler Barnett.) JamesBWatson (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This should be kept because <According the biography guidelines "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Citation number two is a nomination of the subject as Top 25 Young Entrepreneurs by BusinessWeek, a very reputable secondary source that is independent with significant coverage.> In addition subject was selected by the Los Angeles Business Journal, a very reputable secondary source as one of the top 20 entrepreneurs in their 20's, again with significant coverage. (citation 5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerbarnett (talk • contribs) 19:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject's business is getting people's names in print. Of course he knows how to get his own in print a few times in quite trivial ways. In addition, most of these are quotes and getting quoted doesn't count for notability because that makes it a primary source. Wikipedia is not a webhost for self-promotion and autobiographies. Msnicki (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I went through the list of references on the page and I'd like to note that only one of the sources seems to be reliable. One is hidden behind a paywall (the LA Business Journal) and the other two are brief mentions where Barnett is only quoted. That he was a finalist in BusinessWeek's 25 young entrepreneurs is good, but it seems that since then not much has really been written on him. A search did not bring anything up that could be considered a reliable source. There was a lot of company-created sites, but nothing that would be considered a reliable source. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Being unavailable to read online without payment doesn't make a source "hidden" or unreliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it does make it difficult to verify its content, and if there is no significant coverage elsewhere in reliable sources, the existence of just one source which we can't see, and which may or may not contain significant coverage is not convincing evidence of notability. The fact that several other sources cited by the same editor did no more than briefly quote the person does not give one confidence. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think we may have fixated too much on RS above, and not enough on notability. Assuming everything is completely reliably sourced, you are left with a 28 year old businessman who appeared on a reality TV show and has been recognised (amongst a broad swathe of other people) as a young entrepeneur who may one day achieve something. And that doesn't really cut it. --Legis (talk - contribs) 21:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources and notability are tightly and inexorably connected. Our standard for notability is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Pburka (talk) 23:19, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transavia Airlines Flight 462[edit]

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

Non notable aviation incident per WP:Aircrash. No hull loss, no serious injuries. A line or two mention in the Transavia's main article is all this merits. William 16:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge into the HV article, as per above. Not a big incident. --Axel™ (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 16:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -William 16:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 16:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even worth merging, IMHO. Clear WP:GNG failure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AIRCRASH (no fatalities; aircraft wasn't written off; no subsequent precedural changes). --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:01, 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) 19:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWealth[edit]

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

Previously Prodded on grounds "No evidence that this enterprise meets the notability criteria for companies." Prod removed by article creator without comment. Only refs in the article are to press releases and founder's LinkedIn and I haven't located any references in reliable 3rd party sources, so I am bringing it to AfD on same grounds as Prod. AllyD (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like AllyD, I was unable to find any independent coverage of this website that would show notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (web content). As an aside, I notice that the article doesn't contain a link to the actual WikiWealth web site because wikiwealth.com currently blacklisted on Wikipedia due to rather massive linkspamming in 2009. If the notability problem can be fixed, then whitelisting the "about" page or similar would be needed too. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or any other notability standard. Not enough sources--GrapedApe (talk) 03:09, 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 deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Henle[edit]

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

Article was deleted a year ago after AfD. Since that time, the individual has competed in only one fight with a second tier organization. Article currently cites no references and I was unable to find significant coverage of the individual. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT. TreyGeek (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Airlines Flight 1760[edit]

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

Non notable incident. A plane lands at the wrong airport. Worth a note in an airline article maybe but not a whole article. William 15:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 16:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -William 16:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 16:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem worthy of mention in anything, unless we create a group of "List of NTSB incidents in [year]" articles. Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and burn with fire. Utter failure of WP:GNG and doesn't even meet WP:AIRCRASH criteria for one paragraph in a type article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG rather badly, as well as WP:AIRCRASH. Seems like a pretty minor incident. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:AIRCRASH (no fatalities; aircraft wasn't written off; no subsequent precedural changes). --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:03, 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. No one, except the nominator, advocates deletion. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Polisseni Center[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Will they ever get the money? Better to wait with this article till the actual building starts. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester Institute of Technology has already committed to paying for half of the Gene Polisseni Center with their own endowment (around $15 million dollars). The other half was to be raised externally to the endowment funds, which is being called the Tiger Power Play. 8 of the 15 million dollars has been raised. A location has already been chosen (with almost 100% certainty), although it hasn't been published yet officially (hence why it has not been added to this article). The only speculation on the date they will break ground is if it will be this coming year or the next. WP:CRYSTAL implies unverified speculation. References that have been cited are close to the source (RIT), but have been echoed in local newspapers and news programs. I could cite those articles instead, but they are not as comprehensive. To be frank, the chances that the Gene Polisseni Center will not be built is almost zero. It is a very important expansion for the local RIT community, as well as the city of Rochester, NY and hockey programs in Western New York. Devmorgan (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that, after looking around some more, they have officially announced the location of where the arena will be built. So, there's that too. Devmorgan (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing of articles in for proving the notability. Not for proving that something is going to happen hopefully. Better merge this to the article Rochester Institute of Technology then keep it as a stand alone article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Merging into Rochester Institute of Technology article would not make sense, and would not be in the spirit of that particular article either. Having it's own particular article page makes sense as that is consistent with other college hockey arenas, as well as community hockey rinks as well. If you'd like, I can try to dedicate some more time to expanding on the article with more information as the holidays wrap up here... but I assure you, this project is not a "hopefully going to happen" kind of project. Please don't mistake the lack of a fully expanded article for the lack of reality of the arena. Many pages, of many sports facilities start out with just an initial blurb about them. This has citations as well as the concept rendering already. Devmorgan (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep – The nomination doesn't advance any arguments regarding topic notability, and appears to be based upon personal opinion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I guess this is just your personal opinion, Northamerica, that you attack the nominator and not come up with arguments why this unbuild building is notable? Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment – I entirely disagree with my !vote above being mis-characterized as an "attack". It is not so whatsoever. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The spirit of WP:CRYSTAL is to prevent speculation. Usually talks about events or product announcements. GPC is an actual physical structure to be built in Rochester, NY. Only question could possibly be notability, which I would contend that it is notable, for both local and regional demographics (but, as someone interested in the building creation, I am not exactly impartial). Devmorgan (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is just as you say it: to be built! Did they start building? Did they announce the start of the building? Do they have enough money to start building? According to the article the answer on all three questions in: NO. In the present economic circumstances, even the start of a project does not guarantee the finishing of it. At the moment, there is only a plan to build with no guarantee of realization. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:49, 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 Far East. There is obvious consensus to redirect, but it's a bit of a tossup on which to choose. Far East seems preferable just because of the linguistic similarity and likelihood that a visitor looking for 'Far Eastern Civilization' would find something useful. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Far Eastern Civilization[edit]

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

Article is double to the (incorrect) section of the article Arnold J. Toynbee. Seperate article not necessary. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Far East: current article isn't keepable, but it's a reasonable search term, especially since it's used by such a famous historian. Nyttend (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to East Asia, which seems to be the major article on the topic. Arnold J. Toynbee's views should already be covered in articles on him and his books. Borock (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (as others said). If the article was worth having the author would have taken the trouble to cite an English version of Toynbee's work. The article says that Toynbee "holds" a view, but actually he "held" it, having been dead for 50 years. If the article were to be retained, I would expact that it should contain some discussion of Toynbee's view and whether it was correct that a single (presumably ancestral) Far Eastern civilisation could be identified. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 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 no consensus. L Faraone 21:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Turnbull[edit]

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

The subject does not seem notable enough. Sources given are only local webzines or newspaper, and most statements in the article are unsourced. SyG (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable enough. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't understand this sudden attack on major chess personalities in Boston, along with Marc Esserman. Turnbull has been noted in many, many newspapers over the years, and he is a well-known "city personality" in Cambridge and at Harvard. I cannot comprehend why you are suddenly attacking the Boston chess scene in this way. Tfine80 (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you should consider an AfD as "sudden attack", it seems this is getting a bit emotional, which will always be harmful. The thing is, an article on the English Wikipedia should not be notable at the scale of Boston, but notable at the scale of the world, which makes a big difference. My understanding is that Wikipedia is not aiming to be a site to describe all the chess scenes of all cities in the world, even cities as big as Boston. SyG (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes notability guidelines, per significant coverage in reliable sources: [8], [9], [10]. There's also coverage in the Harvard University Gazette: [11], The Harvard Crimson [12] and Harvard Chess Club archives [13]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have seen no reference to this player in books or international chess journals. I can only assume his notability is on a local scale only. Our normal criteria is GM or IM with notable sideline. I can't see this here. Brittle heaven (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure re policy Turnbull is a "human interest story". That's the basis of all the published sources being cited. He's not notable on the same basis as a GM or IM is notable (playing level and tournament or match results), but rather on what he's decided to do with his life, and his personality. To say his fame is bound to a particular geographic area, isn't 100% right, since his notoriety isn't all invested in his physical stomping ground, but to a large degree it is (his location has remained stable since 1982). The article is more than 50% about *him* (if he picked up and moved to Philadelphia, the same "Chessmaster" presumably would emerge there, too). He seems to be a colorful "cool-cat character" and human interest story, but the interest seems currently to be restricted to the local area where he performs (again, stable since '82), and not at a national or world-level. (But theoretically or potentially it could become that tomorrow, say, if he suddenly showed up as a feature human interest story on CBS 60 Minutes, etc.) Until his story publication becomes wider known (for any reason), his notoriety seems to be bound to his current locale, SyG is right about that. (But, does WP have policy limiting notability to that of national or world level?) ~~Clearly Turnbull *is* notable in his current home locale, since '82. If guidelines steer away from locally-restricted notability, then my !vote changes to: Soft Delete.~~ Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My working assumption for chess players is that something less than an International Master really needs something extra to generate sufficient notability - the closest we get here is that he once played a guy to a draw who would later become an IM (but presumably was not at the time they played), and one of his students went on to achieve something. If there is enough human interest that would do it (does the guy feature in Boston tourist guides?), as would be the case if they were the leading player from a certain country, or a prominent player from a particular background. But all I see is a Harvard drop-out who plays an awful lot of chess without winning any tournaments of note. I just don't see how that is notable? --Legis (talk - contribs) 22:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I mistakenly equated being published w/ notability. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legis, I agree. But am currently having trouble finding the/a policy supporting meaning of word "notable" as described by your view. (WP:INDISCRIMINATE hints at it: "merely being verifiable does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" but doesn't give def outside of excluding some lists/lyrics/stats etc. Where is it? I must be burnt out and missing it. [Otherwise would be necessary to debate a def in this little AfD, which would be just nuts—reinventing the wheel—since notability is a "pillar" for yrs Pete's sake.] Thx for assist.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. I assume the policy isn't intentionally obtuse so editors can nash at each others throats over competing interpretations what is "suitable" or not.[reply]

Legis, am drawing the conclusion there is no def of "notable" in WP supporting your view "how is that notable?". It seems WP:GNG = "are there WP:RSs?", and if not excluded in WP:NOT, then a subject is "notable". WP says notability is "worthy of notice", but that is unhelpful, it does not contribute to a further definition. I can't find anything in the WP policy supporting your view, even tho I agree w/ your view. (Plz correct me if am wrong and have missed something.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (people): "Worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can a WikiProject, like WikiProj Chess, define its own (narrowing) notability requirement, even tho a subject has WP:V and is not excluded by WP:NOT thus satisfying "notability" under general WP policy? (And if so, *has* WikiProj Chess done it already, or not?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is fascinating me thinks, ditto the result, because of its centering on vague WP policy. (Does notability = reliable sources exist? If so, does WP say to what "degree" RSs are needed? Or give any way to "measure" them? No. So, what is deemed "sufficient" or "insufficient" beyond personal like or dislike?) There seem to be no clear defs to work with. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He gets coverage in reliable sources. He seems to be a local established landmark. "On board 1 in the square is "chessmaster" Murray Turnbull (2390), a fixture since 1982" Dream Focus 00:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read meaning in your first sentence. But none in the second & third sentences. Do you mean to say the existence of the reliable sources is sufficient to say "notable"? Please clarify your view for me, thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the Republic of China presidential election, 2012[edit]

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

Nothing more then a crystal boll. Fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic would fall under WP:CRYSTAL only if it were for an election where no polling had yet taken place. However, many reliable sources are now reporting on polling for this specific and notable election, so the nominator's argument lacks merit. In addition, we have many similar polling articles for other elections, so the community seems to accept this type of article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar articles exist for many other elections; well-cited published polling is a key piece of information about upcoming elections, and it clutters the main election page when not broken into its own page.
- Comment. Strangely, we seem to have lots of similar articles for opinion polls in USA, UK and Canada (see sub-categories to Category:Polling) but not for any other country. But there clearly seems to be a precedent. --Legis (talk - contribs) 22:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite. A notable topic for sure, but the article needs to be more than a linkfarm. If this were cleaned up to our WP:EL and WP:NOT standards, there wouldn't be any content left. Them From Space 19:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic due to news coverage and reliable sources. Numerous precedent articles exist. Obviously not a crystal ball due to real data. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 22:20, 31 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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camden-Frontier Schools[edit]

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

No useful information at all Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no different from any other school district, and school districts are notable. Nyttend (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – The nomination doesn't address notability criterion, and appears to be based upon personal opinion of the current state of the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness to the nominator, its current state is markedly different from what it was when nominated. The entire contents were:
Located in Camden, Michigan. The schools' mission is, "The Camden-Frontier School community will provide all students with a foundation of educational opportunities that enable them to succeed in our changing society."
If it hadn't occurred to me to check for it on Google (whence I found the district website, I would have voted to delete, because that text suggests that it's just one school and not likely notable. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not particularly relevant to the outcome of this discussion, but "schools'", as opposed to "school's", makes it perfectly clear that more than one school is involved, and I hope that they teach punctuation properly at these schools so that future Wikipedia editors will understand that. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of national IQ estimates from Lynn and Vanhanen (2002, 2006)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG IQ test are culturally biased and depends on proper education. In fact, these list say absolutely nothing about how intelligent the people of a certain country are. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is simply an unencyclopedic reprint from 2 sources RadioFan (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—because of a lack of independent sources. I think this table is already adequately represented with the File:InvertedIQbyCountry.png image used in the IQ and the Wealth of Nations article. The reasons supplied by the nom. carried no weight for me (with regard to this AfD) because they are irrelevant to the question of satisfying WP:GNG. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:38, 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 Keep. In accordance with WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, discussion has been closed early to allow article to appear on Main page in DYK. At time of closure, discussion showed clear consensus and with the exception of pile-on votes the debate effectively ended 2½ days ago. --Allen3 ^talk 00:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain Day[edit]

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

More of an idea mentioned in the abstract and advocated as wishful thinking, than an actual holiday/event/celebration. No evidence of consistent observance. Article consists mostly of the advocacy information that the event is supposed to promote. –Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe evidence of consistent observance is related to notability. Feel free to NPOV the article more if you feel there is any advocacy, I don't believe there is much left, if any. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is advocacy. It consists of (in order): 1) material copied and and paraphrased from a web site created to promote it, 2) a lecture intended to explain why the event is important, 3) an arbitrary list of authors who died a little over 70 years ago, claiming vaguely that someone somewhere somehow "celebrated" these anniversaries, and 4) name-dropping a few one-time blog mentions and linking to unverified meet-up announcements, which we are meant to take as evidence that a significant number of people observe this as an actual event, and not just something some people would like others to get interested in. The extent to which the citations for this article keep going back to the idea's sponsors for "facts" about it, with sparse support from mostly one-off mentions by bloggers, demonstrates a lack of notability. Where are the third-party accounts of these gatherings? Where are the news (not commentary) articles about the day itself? Strip out the first-party sources, and the article collapses. While this is not a simple example of WP:MADEUP (it's a few steps past that), the advice on that page applies to the promoters of this idea. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that all the mentions of this event come from pro-free culture POV. Again, feel free to NPOV the article if you think it is an issue, and if you find any more neutral sources, by all means, inform us of that, but any perceived POV is not an argument in a deletion debate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The event is mentioned in numerous sources, many of which seem quite reliable. There are even a few book mentions ([14], [15]). Few years ago this might have been some Internet trivia, but by now I feel it has generated enough sources to become notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic isn't just WP:MADEUP, and is mentioned in several sources, including a newsblog from The Telegraph, "Happy Public Domain Day! Here's to many more", Duke University's Center for the Study of the Public Domain, "Public Domain Day: January 1, 2011 — Waiting for Waiting for Godot . . ." and Project Gutenberg news, "January 1, 2011 will be Public Domain Day". The article is written neutrally, and doesn't advocate the day, and the tone is not promotional. The article would benefit from the addition of more reliable sources to it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable notable sources. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know how many more references are needed for the article to be solid, but the celebrations (at least here in Poland) are organized each year from 2007 and was covered by mainstream media, so yes - it is the "actual holiday/event/celebration" (I just added a photo for illustrative purposes). kocio (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you add links to that mainstream media coverage? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 12:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course it's in polish, but there are some mentions: Rzeczpospolita (also here), Wirtualna Polska, Gazeta Wyborcza and this (pages seem to be defunct now, but are searchable through their website). Polish National Library also mentions it (it's one of the organizers of celebrations). kocio (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, and I didn't even realize there was a pl interwiki, ha! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage has been found. Clicking on the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD shows results in various languages even. Well known in many nations. Dream Focus 14:51, 31 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 moved to userspace by billinghurst. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Competition Island[edit]

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

No evident notability whatsoever (only set up this month). Prioryman (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No references, and no claims to any significance. noq (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author has been in contact with me, and I have moved the page to their userspace to allow time for the article to be built. After that it will need to go through articles for creation process. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Siham Tib[edit]

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

Autobiography / Conflict of Interest / Advertisement Senator2029║talk 05:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vanity piece that makes no assertion of notability. No independent evidence of notability that I can see. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:02, 11 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, v/r - T P 03:41, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Appears to have received sufficient coverage although I am not familiar with the publications linked to. Is there any reason to discount these as reliable sources?--Michig (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the absence of a convincing argument for discounting the substantial coverage that the subject has received.--Michig (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blanche Kelso Bruce Academy[edit]

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

PROD contested by author, a WP:SPA with voiced WP:COI issues … lacks multiple WP:RS to meet WP:GNG (just a link to subject's website.) — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it has a claim to notability, it certainly hides it well. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. High schools are held to be generally notable but this one is certainly underdocumented (It may be intentionally obscuring itself.) Rmhermen (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I rewrote the article, adding documentation. Blanche Kelso Bruce Academy is actually the name of seven or eight charter schools serving grades 5-12 under the auspices of the Detroit Public Schools. As such they are certainly notable. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 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, v/r - T P 03:32, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consensus is that almost all secondary schools are found to be notable if sufficient work is done to find the sources. Though the article is brief, MelanieN has improved it sufficiently. Incidentally, Blanche Kelso Bruce is a fascinating and little-known figure in US history, but that shouldn't affect this debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least some of the schools appear to function as a high school, teaching through grade 12, and should receive an assumption of notability per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools.(I do not agree that notability is inherited from being named after some admired person.) Edison (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... nobody said it is. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmmm.... Cullen broached the topic of the school being named for some fascinating person. In terms of notability, that gains a big "So what?" Edison (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...as Cullen himself pointed out ("but that shouldn't affect this debate.") --MelanieN (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How does multiple references to what is essentially a press release about the school's charter from school board web sites qualify as "Significant coverage" that is "Independent of the subject" as required by WP:GNG and WP:ORG? I mean, can anyone find coverage in the Detroit Free Press or some other newspaper? These references prove that the subject exists, but do nothing to show that the subject is notable. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education. This is not official policy, but it does reflect the consensus of the community at AfD discussions: "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." This is a high school, existence is confirmed, that's enough for a "keep". The reason for this policy is to save everybody's time, since virtually all high schools turn out to have significant coverage, as this one does; see Google News Archive. (When you demanded news coverage, did you bother to look?) --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW thanks for prompting me to look for news items; I added to the article the fact that Blanche Kelso Bruce Academy recently took over operation of the nationally known Catherine Ferguson Academy. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Melanie and generally accepted consensus by precedent as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it does count as a high school, and the compromise accepting them is one of the few good examples we have of longstanding and productive compromises. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 4 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. Consensus is that the subject does not pass WP:ORG. Hut 8.5 21:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hayling Musical Society[edit]

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

Lacks the depth of independent coverage required to meet WP:ORG. What does exist is very local coverage. Nuttah (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure I know what else to do. I have been comparing our article to other Hayling Island community subjects and think ours is more detailed and supplied with references. For example the Hayling Light Railway as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayling_Seaside_Railway. I don't see any independent coverage for them.

In addition, there are other societies like ours that are present on Wikipedia without the same history that HMS is currently providing such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Operatic_Company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbzrce (talk • contribs) 09:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Societies like ours"? Am I sensing a bit of COI? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I kind of struggle with WP:ORG too, although I have a bit of a soft spot for cultural organisations which had demonstrable (ie. 50 year plus) pedigree. Call me sentimental. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am continuing to gather information from the members of the society. Please bear with me. Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbzrce (talk • contribs) 10:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 03:23, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With local clubs and societies such as this we need some evidence that the subject is of encyclopedic interest, and I don't see that here.--Michig (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite it being around for a long time, it fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 17:05, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Cruise[edit]

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

Non-notable Facebook game. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although the development company is notable (see thingsoft), the fact that the article in question does not cite any sources and does not meet the notability criteria for online content is grounds for deletion. The guideline specifically states "Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it... [it] does not inherit notability from its owner". (see WP:WEB) Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 13:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to indicate notability - looks like it could be speedily deleted as an A7 to me.--Michig (talk) 12:14, 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 Lady_Gaga#Concert_tours. L Faraone 22:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lady Gaga concert tours[edit]

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

Lady Gaga has only headlined two tours to date; this is extremely premature. Nearly all of the information that isn't already covered in other Wikipedia articles comes from unreliable sources such as the Lady Gaga Wikia. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - her Ladyship certainly is one of the most well known global personalities and anything she does is almost certainly notable! The scope of the list includes more than the alleged two tours. Another one is due to commence shortly. Anyone that says Lady Gaga tours are not 'notable' must be hiding in a darkened room from the popular press :) The Lady Gaga article is absolutely vast and there is probably a strong argument to extract information such as tour names/dates/descriptions and display them in a separate list article. Sionk (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Agree strongly with every point the nominator has made. This is again another premature and unnecessary creation. Her "Ladyship" is not above governing rules of Wikipedia and this fails notability on a vast scale. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously notable- the article has multiple reliable sources so easily passes WP:GNG. While Gaga has "only" headlined two tours, they are enormous tours, The Monster's Ball tour was the highest grossing debut tour ever, generating over $220M in revenue and playing to 2.5M people. There is a third announced headline tour plus several support tours, all with major acts headlining. I don't see any policy grounds under which this should be deleted. Sparthorse (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To both of you who commented as keep, lemme ask you what exactly is this article presenting to us? The same oneline summary can be found in Lady Gaga too. Other artists who have the similar articles have more info on their tours, stats etc. Consider List of Madonna concert tours, which is a FL and has ample opportunities. This one is simply premature. And that third tour name is not even confirmed and goes against WP:CRYSTAL. Removing the false infos, there is practically nothing here. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lady Gaga#Concert tours. When there is actually enough substance to forma list, then would be the time for a separate article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I notice the deletionist in this debate has cut out 70% of the article, so we are now debating something completely different. Aren't we supposed to conclude this debate before deleting the article? Presumably the info was deleted because it is believed to be untrue and that the Lady Gaga performances were an elaborate hoax? Or is it simply another example of Wikipedia editors deciding to delete something because the sources haven't been added to the article? Sledgehammer to crack a nut, methinks! If the sources aren't provided, or if someone thinks the information is challengable, then the solution would be to request inline citations. Sionk (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To respond you, no, I personally create and develop most of the articles related to the artist and even I could not see enough credibility of the article and the sources being used. Some of them were downright using ladygaga.wikia.com content. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - People, she's only embarked on two tours... —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 02:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Not notable enough and there is no need of an article "detailing" the only two tours she has had. Fortunato luigi (talk) 07:27, 23 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two items are not a list. Lugnuts (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless non-list.--Michig (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article at the time of nomination was clearly modeled on List of Madonna concert tours and included additional verifiable information. Lady Gaga tours are clearly notable, so the delete votes claiming WP:NN are puzzling indeed. Lady Gaga tours and public performances are notable (in that they all receive extensive coverage in reliable sources), so having a list of them seems reasonable enough. Pburka (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lady Gaga, per WHPG above. Not sufficient material to support a free-standing article at this time, check back in ten years. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize: I believe each of her tours has an article. So create a category instead of an article for her tours Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lady Gaga concert tours currently exists. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You're kidding, right? What use is this? Fails WP:SAL. —Andrew_stalk 02:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN. I'm not seeing that the topic of "Lady Gaga concert tours" has been covered, as a grouping, in significant detail by independent reliable sources such that a list is warranted at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 08:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate. We will create this article again in x years. Why don't Incubate it?--Neo139 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Incubation as not needed as there is a perfectly good section in the Lady Gaga article that lists her concert tours where this material can be developed. -- Whpq (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--It contains information already in other articles. It can be forked off later when additional information overwhelms the main article.--LarEvee (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There were only two tours, a tour canceled and another tour confirmed. When do more tours will rebuild the list.--Flores,Alberto (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Whitest People U'Know[edit]

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

This show does not exist. This is the exact same article as the real show The Whitest Kids U'Know but with different names of the actors. (Probably the names of the people who created the article). Skeeler100 (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3; tagged as such. Article is basically a copy of The Whitest Kids U' Know with some of the names changed. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has a habit of creating several such articles:

The Whitest People U'Know (album) (copy of The Whitest Kids U'Know (album))

Miss Harch (copy of Miss March)

--Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Krause[edit]

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

He and his brother, also a martial arts instructor, have virtually the same articles, both claiming to be "an undefeated European champion" with a suspicious lack of detail. They're mentioned in a newspaper article (and possibly in a second one I can't access), but I don't see much notability here. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it makes the same claims:

Strong Delete - No proper references were given to support for the person. --C h i n n Z ^{(talk | Contrib)} 09:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't get how a martial arts instructor can be notable (unless they participated in a professional sporting event or coached a notable team or something). No reliable sources either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both There are no claims of notability that are supported by any reliable sources. Jakejr (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both unless a reliable source can be found for the European championship claims. Studying under H. H. Choi and K. H. Rhee does not, in itself, support notability; notability is not inherited. Janggeom (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable person. Tinton5 (talk) 03:08, 31 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.

Since there is in fact nowhere to comment, and no 'talk' page for this matter, I am placing my own comments here. Firstly, the article had three references - the main one being IMDB. The other two references were from a Herald Newspapers publication. Between the 3 sources, all matters stated in the article were verified. The brohers were in fact both european champions at the same time, at different weight groups. For the twits posting about the dubiety of that, it only confirms what I have feared for some time about wikipedia - the loonies are now running the asylum. I do not know these guys personally, but read an article about them and believed that they could not possibly be any worse than some of the trash I have seen on wikipedia - I don't have much time to contribute myself these days and I am less inclined to contribute on a site where the idiotic comments made on this matter simply beggar belief - wikipedia appears to be getting hijacked dmoz style. If any of those who commented here actually bothered to check the 'unreliable' sources used, they would have been able to verify the claims made from those same sources. IMDB is now apparently an ureliable source. There were in fact 3 references which I found online from Herald Scotland - Herald Scotland is published by Newsquest Group in the UK. Newspaper sources are now also apparently unreliable sources of information. These new and unannounced changes in wikipedia's policies are what caused my confusion in publishing two articles which I would not have published had I been aware of these policy changes. Thank god I am too busy to be bothered with the moronic stuff that now takes place on wikipedia.Chrissyboi (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Abercromby (monk)[edit]

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

Evidence suggests that this monk probably never existed. The only claim to notability is his martyrdom. Finally, there is no evidence that his non-existence is notable. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have numerous articles on people who never existed. He has a DNB article, which is usually taken as a criterion for notability. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject of an article in a dictionary of national biography. Pburka (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone with an entry in the definitive dictionary of British biography is certainly notable enough, mythical or not, for an article on Wikipedia with its myriad articles on modern "celebrity" non-entities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we'd be quite foolish to tell the Dictionary that their inclusion criteria are flawed. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The fact that he is listed in ODNB, is sufficient to justify the existence of the article. I will add a little to the text, having exmained the ODNB article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 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. Michig (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M. J. Kelley[edit]

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

IMDB is not a notable source and a careful look at Google, google news, scholar and books found nothing on this person. Its looks like we therefore have an unsourcable BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe that this person has yet achieved notability for his film work. If he later does so, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no signs of notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability.--Dmol (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find significant coverage for this person in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 19:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gibson[edit]

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

Actor/writer/producer/director with marginal credits and one significant, if short, Variety article. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe that this person has yet achieved notability for his film work. If he later does so, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't the significant coverage in reliable sources required by WP:N, certainly not "widely cited by peers or successors" given in [[WP:CREATIVE]. Also the article was created by a user whose only edits were related to this article, and with a name, User:Whateverfilms, that suggests a COI. Rwendland (talk) 12:24, 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.

Not sure why this page was deleted... And what the guidlines are that have been set for someone of interest within the entertainment industry.

Peter Gibson has been on TV, Broadway and Film as an actor and has produced, written and directed for film and television.

There were two references from variety articles written about the subject

Gibson Steps into Limelight

Fashion Label Tries on Reality Series

As well as credits included from Imdb.

Peter Gibson

Please explain how this is not sufficient?

Whateverfilms (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.30.37 (talk) [reply]

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

The result was delete. Redirecting would make no sense as of yet. L Faraone 22:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milkcah Wynne Nacion[edit]

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

Minor actress, fails WP:ENT v/r - T P 02:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete previous edits show this is an autobio. "My facebook page" and "My 1st Picture on Our First Taping in Iglot" show up. Editor still making edits, no references provided to date. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 03:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete may be notable in the future, but for now, not quite yet --Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability shown. Fails WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Iglot (TV series) per WP:TOOSOON. IMDB lists "Milkach Wynne Nacion" as the actress in Iglot. (spelling error by author?) Child actresses have atough time showing notability when thier careers are this fresh, and this girl is no exception. I note the filmography erringly shows roles as "himself" for this 6-year-old acrtress. The source in the article leading to an article calling this youngster "the newest kid wonder on primetime block" and Manila Standard Today calling her "another fresh and promising young talent" seems to underscore that this article is premature and her coverage is so far for one event. Let the "newest kid wonder" do more to be able to meet WP:ENT and get the coverage to meet WP:GNG and we could have an article. For now, let's redirect it to the series for which she is getting "newest kid wonder" coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:34, 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. At present this is essentially a category. L Faraone 22:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistani dancers[edit]

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

This list just duplicates Category:Pakistani dancers without contributing anything more. It's obviously incomplete (only 8 entries) and it's not clear that all of those even belong in the list (e.g. Nadia Ali is an American musician). Pburka (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it is contributing nothing other than names. The category specified above serves the purpose for the list of people in question. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 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, BusterD (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, adds no value that the category doesn't already have. JIP | Talk 05:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists go hand-in-hand with categories per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because it doesn't have anything particularly useful now doesn't mean it can't in future. Even with the few entries that it has, short descriptions and dates could be added (like other person lists), something no category can provide. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Several of the entries are links to disambiguation pages, the others are actors or singers, who may or may not also dance - the articles are generally not well enough sourced to confirm this. No problem having this list if there are some verifiable subjects to list, but we don't seem to have that at the moment.--Michig (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano "Nasal" Pereira[edit]

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

Subject appears to be non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT. TreyGeek (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no indication of notability or reliable sources. I agree with TreyGeek's assessment. Jakejr (talk) 00:39, 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, BusterD (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject's Sherdog record does not list any world championship, and the date of birth there does not match the date of birth in the article. Without a reliable indication of notability, the article should be deleted. Janggeom (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability.--Phospheros (talk) 03:48, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Niels Bonke[edit]

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

No evidence of notability from reliable sources William Avery (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPPROD unless references from reliable sources are added pronto. Pburka (talk) 00:59, 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, BusterD (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. note that the book mentioned on the page is a reproduction of wikipedia so is not reliable. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:46, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Until Tomorrow[edit]

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

No charts, awards, etc. Fails notability. — Status {^talk_contribs 21:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons stated above, including WP:TOOSOON. To all of my fellow editors, you have my permission to count this statement as a delete for all song articles without chart positions or accolades. However, if chart positions or accolades materialize, this should not be counted towards deletion anymore. You must also notify me on my talk page if you use this statement. If you do not, my statement can be considered null and void. Once you notify me, I will either retract my statement on the page or I will renew the time signature. Thank you. | ^help _dןǝɥ | 22:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 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, BusterD (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to just be a track released to radio stations to promote the forthcoming album. Nothing here to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 13:15, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saleen Owners and Enthusiasts Club[edit]

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

I am increasing finding it hard to identify why this club is notable. I don't think there is anything that suggests to me why we should keep this article, neither can I find any reliable third party sources, therefore this is the reason why I say delete this article. Donnie Park (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 21 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, BusterD (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most sources given on the page are too closely affiliated with the subject, and there are not enough reliable sources available to pass GNG. GrainyMagazine (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fre:ac[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Searches mostly turned up nothing. This CD ripper fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N - only refs provided, a wiki and a freeware download site, are not reliable. Created by an SPA who states he is the author of the software, so article is promotional in nature.Dialectric (talk) 18:32, 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, BusterD (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable coverage. Yaron K. (talk) 15:25, 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 redirect to Roman type. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roman (typeface)[edit]

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

Unsourced article that does not establish notability as per WP:N -- Liliana-60 (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N unless someone adds references. There are a number of poorly referenced typeface articles in the various categories below Category:Typefaces by foundry. – Pnm (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simply Redirect to Roman type (which contains the phrase "roman typeface"). --Lambiam 19:17, 18 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, BusterD (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roman type per Lambiam. This is a viable search term for the article, and until this particular font is notability, the redirect would be more appropriate. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've no problem with a redirect instead of delete. Seems like these articles are about the same topic. – Pnm (talk) 03:57, 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. That a country may be small is all the more reason for the politiicans in it to need to be at the highest national level for notability. not the other way round. The argument for keep does not seem based on either logic or policy DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Thein[edit]

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

no indication of WP:notability. No independent WP:reliable sources. Claims to be a local councillor on a small council. noq (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like an up-and-coming young man, but it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. Maybe he will go on to greater heights than representative on a small munipical council and officer in a youth organization. If so, we can have an article about him then. BTW I see that the author of the article, in removing the PROD, said he is on the council of "one of the biggest municipalities in Luxembourg". That may be so, but it still took only 403 votes to elect him. Per WP:POLITICIAN he will have to achieve national office before he gets an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:58, 18 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, BusterD (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a councillor on a communal council for a population of 15,000, which is insufficient for WP:POLITICIAN. Few other claims to notability. --AJHingston (talk) 10:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No-one is respecting the special conditions of each country. Luxembourg is a very small country and the circumstances such as they are, are lawful and important. A deletion of this article should have the consequence of a revise of all the other articles about politics, just referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Maar for an example, because this person has no seat in parliament, neither in council, no longer president of a youth organization and got an article here! -- Ungarisch (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.99.1.155 (talk) [reply]

I for one am aware that Luxembourg is a small country, and am sympathetic to the argument that special considerations apply. But we need to beware of saying that because in small countries or communities there is a tendency for people involved in public life, or entertainment, or whatever to become well known throughout that society much more easily than in a large one they are necessarily notable in Wikipedia terms. I am from the UK and I am not at all sure that somebody here who was a leader of his party's youth wing and been elected to a local council would be notable in Wikipedia terms. That is not saying that he will not become so, but as MelanieN says it seems best to see how his life progresses. After all, he may move on to other things. --AJHingston (talk) 10:48, 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. No arguments for keeping in three weeks. Michig (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maitresse Madeline[edit]

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

Wretchedly promotional, poorly sourced BLP. Subject fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, and the GNG. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails PORNBIO, ANYBIO and GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:58, 18 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, BusterD (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Relisted twice with no notability shown. SL93 (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted Denver[edit]

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

I don't see RS coverage that would confer notability on this website. Created by SPA. Tagged for notability for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable website that does not appear to have received any significant independent coverage.--Michig (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 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, BusterD (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I could find while searching is the official website. SL93 (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 18:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arcis Communications[edit]

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

Seems NN -- few refs discoverable. The article was created by an SPA, with a self-declared affiliation with the subject of the article (and the same name). Epeefleche (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oh, look. Another advertising agency that thinks it should have a Wikipedia article. Much of this seems worthy of speedy deletion: The collective experience of this group includes decades of experience in journalism, public relations, branding, issues and crisis communications, marketing communications and design services....With a young team - and a network of freelance and agency partners around the South East Asian region - Arcis Communications is establishing itself as an integrated communications solutions provider in the areas of Public Relations, Branding and Marketing Communications. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:14, 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, BusterD (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not-entirely-blatant spam. Nyttend (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Airlines Flight 463[edit]

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

Non notable aviation incident. William 01:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -William 01:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 01:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No hull loss, no fatalities, no change to procedures, fails WP:AIRCRASH to even be mentioned in the airline or aircraft articles, yet alone for a stand-alone article where it also fails the WP:GNG utterly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it does pass WP:AIRCRASH as the aircraft was written off, there are so few references to be found that it fails the GNG, so it isn't notable regardless. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know my country's flag carrier is struggling but never mind that. Anyway, incidents like this are not uncommon and there weren't even any fatalities. The plane may have been written-off, but there aren't enough reliable sources. I know that it's the Philippines, and I know that it's 1972, but still... Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Braniff747SP (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:AIRCRASH (no fatalities; aircraft wasn't written off; no subsequent precedural changes). --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:00, 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 as a violation of copyright under a speedy tag applied separate to this discussion. - J Greb (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

San Luis Shrine Desecration (Mormons)[edit]

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

This exceedingly minor news event occurred five years ago. Not seeing any long-term notability or mention in reliable sources since the date the event became known to the general public. Some BLP issues as well, and copyright issues with respect to the images. NellieBly (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Request you abstain if you are a member of the Mormon Church if another Mormon has voted voted and request that only one Church member vote . Also, it's noteworthy and has a plethera of sources which meet WP:V. The images were posted on Photobucket and are all over the internet and the authors themselves released them into the public domain. Go and check. And the denver post is a reliable news source and so is the associated press, articles for both exist. Justamanhere (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The images in this article are from Commons, but there is no actual evidence that these images were ever released into the public domain. Just because an image is on Flickr or Photobucket doesn't mean diddlysquat with respect to copyright; most images on Flickr and Photobucket are copyright. Anyone can upload an image to Flickr even if they aren't the copyright holder, and a quick search found one of these images on over 20 feeds - which one is the creator's feed? Who knows if any of them are. Without a specific release that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have come specifically the creator of this photo we cannot and MUST not assume these images are in the public domain. I've tagged the Commons images as possibly unfree. And as a disclaimer: I am not a Mormon or a Catholic or any sort of Christian, and I have no ulterior motives for bringing this up to AFD. My only motive is to remove non-notable subjects from the Wikipedia, especially those where there could be serious BLP issues. --NellieBly (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you can explain how denverpost, associatedpress, and other news organizations used the images posted by the missionaries themsevles on Photobucket? Was their use Fair Use or are the images in the public domain. 69.171.160.187 (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so there is no confusion, User:69.171.160.187 and User:Justamanhere are the same editor. 72Dino (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then someone needs to fix mediawiki because it says I am logged in sometimes and records IP instead of my account. Go figure. 69.171.160.187 (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor event with no significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. 72Dino (talk) 01:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No more notability established than for any of the scores (hundreds) of desecrations which occur annually in the U.S and around the world targeting practically any religious group we can name. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that 'human sacrifice' was or is apparently a part of secret as of yet undisclosed Mormon Rituals. Can someone verify that these young men were in fact just 'idiots' or were they actually performing authentic Mormon Rituals involving human sacrifice. Inquiring minds want to know. 69.171.160.187 (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to expose secret conspiracies. They need to be exposed elsewhere, in reliable sources, and then they can be reported here. Until you have a RS for these secret rituals, they are irrelevant to this discussion. --GenericBob (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let me count the ways. The last bigoted remark takes the cake. This is an article about a regrettable but minor and non-notable act of religious vandalism. The article pushes a ~~anti-Mormon~~ point of view hostile to Mormonism and is written by a single purpose account who displays no fewer that four ~~anti-Mormon~~ user boxes hostile to Mormonism on his user page. The article is illustrated with images that are almost certainly copyright violations. This new editor has been dedicated in the past few days to working on articles pertaining to Mormonism. His request that only one Mormon be allowed to express an opinion in this AfD debate is totally out of line. Any editor of any faith or none is welcome to participate here. I am not a Mormon, don't care for Mormonism, and don't usually get involved with topics related to Mormonism. But this article and this editor's behavior are both way over the line. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Anti-Mormon' is a hate speech term used by Mormons and is equivalent to using the word 'nigger' to refer to a person of African Heritage. Please do not use that word directed at me again. Also, It's clear you are a Church member or you would not be using it. Thanks. 69.171.160.187 (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations are absurd, and a visit to my user page and edit history will clearly show that you are wrong. I am a Jew who has written a biography of a rabbi and a Jewish educator, as well as an article about a Hindu festival and a Russian Orthodox cathedral. Only a small percentage of my edits have anything to do with religion. My edit history shows that I am a constructive editor with over 15,000 edits who has never gotten involved with Mormon topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those who have been labeled "anti-Mormon" object to the designation, arguing that the term implies that disagreement or criticism of Mormonism stems from some inherent "anti-Mormon" prejudice, rather than being part of a legitimate factual or religious debate. Eric Johnson, for example, makes a distinction between "personal animosity and intellectual dialogue". Johnson insists that he is motivated by "love and compassion for Mormons", and that while he "[might] plead guilty to being against Mormonism", he finds the suggestion that he is anti-Mormon "both offensive and inaccurate."^[1] Stephen Cannon elaborates,

It is also helpful to know that Mormons are a group of people united around a belief system. Therefore, to be "anti-Mormon" is to be against people. Christians who desire to communicate the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Mormons are never to come against people of any stripe. Yes, evangelical Christians do have strong disagreements with Mormonism, but the argument is with a belief system and not a people. The LDS people are no better or no worse than any other group of people. Any dispute is to be a disagreement with the "ism", not the "Mormon".^[2]

69.171.160.187 (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Is Mormonism Research Ministry "Anti-Mormon"?". MRM.org. Retrieved 2006-09-24.
^ Cannon, Stephen (2000). "Games Mormon People Play: The Strategies and Diversions of Latter-day Saint Apologists". PFO.org. Retrieved 2006-06-01.

Your references are not neutral ones, but I have changed my characterization to "hostile to Mormonism" since you object to the other term I previously used, and I don't want to argue about semantics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The associated press and denver post are neutral sources. Nice to see denialism is alive and well. 69.171.160.187 (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When asked whether he was aware of any other acts of vandalism by missionaries against religious property, Trotter said, "I'm going to have to decline comment." LDS church officials wrote in a statement that they were "deeply saddened" by the reported vandalism. And why did he refuse to answer the question -- was this desecration part of a broader Mormon ceremony or have other such acts of symbolic human sacrifice performed on the shrines of other faiths as part of some Arcane Mormon Ritual? 69.171.160.187 (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reasons why somebody might decline to answer such a question. For any of us to insert our own interpretations into an article violates Wikipedia's policy against original research; interpretations would only be appropriate here if they were attributable to a notable source. --GenericBob (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#NEWS. It should also be noted that the original version is still in his userspace which goes against WP:FAKEARTICLE. Hot Stop ^UTC 08:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've read the article, delete. Article creator seems to be relying on OR for the allegations of human sacrifice; without that it's not remotely notable. --GenericBob (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A piece of idiocy which embarrassed the LDS. Not notable. --AJHingston (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator has made it clear that the creation of this article was motivated by a desire to promote his own point of view. If the article were about a notable subject, then we could clean up the point of view, remove the photographs (their copyright status is unclear, but it seems unlikely that the copyright owner has released them into the public domain), and turn it into a good article. Unfortunately, such a cleanup would be pointless, since the subject itself is not one that an encyclopedia would need an article about. Every day, all over the country, hundreds of acts of vandalism are committed. They are not all notable, and there is no sign that this one has any particular notability that would make it stand out from, for example, the teenagers who wrote their names all over the sidewalk at my workplace. I also recommend the immediate blocking of the creator if he finds it impossible to stop using Wikipedia to push his own point of view. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much of this article is copyright violation of AP and CNA stories conveniently collected here . NebY (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once FisherQueen had removed the parts not supported by the sources, what was left was a cut and paste copyvio. I have deleted both this version and the version in Justamanhere's userspace. Sorry about this - it's always annoying when an article gets deleted for something else part way through a discussion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - Debate rendered moot by speedy deletion as copyvio. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 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 deleted per several reasons (no indication of notability mostly). Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GDV Virus[edit]

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

Unable to find any sources on gsearch or gnews. No references provided. Almost seems to be a hoax. "Gay Discover Virus"? Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 00:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is patent nonsense. An AFD is not needed here. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:34, 26 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. First of all, it is perfectly fine for an article subject to be completely invisible to Google so long as some other significant coverage in the form of print or broadcast can be reasonably demonstrated to exist. That being said, that does not appear to be the case here. The argument to keep is based on the assertion that they exist but does not back up that assertion in any but the most vague manner, making it impossible to judge the validity of those alleged sources. The lack of sources combined with the comments on the talk page suggest that original research was in fact the primary resource used in creating this article. The talk page is also very concerning as it was overtly hostile towards anyone editing the page unless their credentials in the art community are sufficient. If a subject is adequately covered by sources, a person with no knowledge whatsoever of the article subject should still be perfectly able to edit and improve it. Again, that doesn't seem to be the case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newname performance[edit]

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

The subject doesn't appear to be notable. I've found no coverage in reliable sources via Google or Google News, and three entries in Google Books - two of which are prefixed with "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." - the other appears to be a digital media catalogue. Two local newspaper reviews are given in the article, which I've searched for on Google and can't find. An article about one founder, Leslie Streit, exists so a merge and redirect may be possible. Speedy was declined; author contests deletion. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are using GOOGLE as your primary reference for something that ENDED before Google was born? How stupid can you get? Notability for new WP editors seems to consist of "pre-Internet" - which has no value, and "Internet" which is worthwhile. If I were to find a copy of one of the missing books burned in the Library at Alexandria and mention it on WP, you'd probably say it has no value because it isn't in Google?

Do your primary research - Visit the Citadel Cannery arts community, look in the Morgue at San Jose Metro, San Jose Mercury, the grants issued by the State of California, the County of Santa Clara and the City of San Jose. Few if any of these are available online so you'll have to do some leg work. Mccainre (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the group has no value, but I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia because there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage in reliable sources to suggest notability. If you can provide these, please do so. If this group was influential, one would expect it to have been written about in newspapers, reviews, books, journals etc.Dada, the Linked Ring and the Photo-Secession ended long before Google was around, yet they're notable because many people wrote about them. This group doesn't appear notable. The onus to provide evidence of notability is upon you, the creator, not me or anyone else on Wikipedia - do you really think someone on the other side of the world from you is going to 'do some leg work'? Thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon died before Google was born, but still a Google search for "Napoleon" returns 15.1 million hits... JIP | Talk 11:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to submit pdfs of the reviews in magazines like High Performance (the gold standard for performance art at the time), San Jose Mercury News and BAVC's VN? Just because someone didn't get massive press at the time does not make them "not notable" - look at the arguments over who invented the first mechanical or electronic computers, where the earliest versions had almost no contemporary publicity. For decades we were told that Babbage was the first because he was a well known public figure in England - now we know that analytical machines were in use in the B.C. era by Greek navigators.

It is contradictory to say that there is nothing in Google about something in the past, therefore it isn't important. I've found that many "notables" in history are poorly represented in Google. You have to look directly to the specialty organizations and publications to establish notability in many areas - and many of these have not yet been placed on the web. A good example is within this very note - High Performance magazine. see [16] Mccainre (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mccainre, please feel free to add the urls of the files you mention to the article as references so we can verify the subject's notability. From WP:GNG - "Sources are not required to be available online...". If you can include the author, date and place of publication and the publishing company, so much the better. Google searches aren't the only criterion for inclusion, but we'd expect a subject to have received some internet coverage if it's been influential upon its field. The reason I nominated is that I haven't found such coverage and the article lacks evidence of substantial coverage. Happy Christmas, Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable, independent sources are produced that give significant coverage to this group. Individual sources need not be available online, but they should be well-cited and described in detail including quotations within the limit of copyright policy. In addition, these phrases on the article's talk page concern me very much: "This article was originated by one of the members of the organization who attempted to be as factual as possible" and "It is a first person eyewitness account of historical events". Those statements indicate that the article has a serious problem with regards to conflict of interest and original research. I fear that these problems are insurmountable in this case, but I will keep an open mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Burning (band)[edit]

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

Not a notable band. Vanity page. Laval (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence the Danish Metal Awards are a major award and I could not find significant coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:40, 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 delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewakening[edit]

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

Non-notable album from non-notable band. Laval (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything substantial from an WP:RS source. A bit of blog/'zine notice. It does appear to be a real album from a real band, just not sufficiently up the notability scale. If better sourcing can be found, happy to look again. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources for this album; it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 07:31, 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. L Faraone 22:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Square Monorail[edit]

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

Project did not materialise, and as such the subject (a failed proposal) is not notable. Paul_012 (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Failure to materialise is not a reason to delete - a failed, cancelled, or abandoned project is still notable. If it was notable to begin with, it still is - Notability is not temporary. Is there a reliable source stating that this project has been abandoned? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that the subject was notable to begin with. In the past few years many plans for mass transit systems in Bangkok have cropped up and died. I don't think mentions of such plans in news sources are enough to establish notability (per WP:NOT#NEWS). Anyway, I found this news article (in Thai) from Thansettakij back in April saying the planned system was facing legal difficulties and construction would likely be delayed, if authorised at all. (Couldn't find any more recent mentions.) Actually most sources documenting the project seem to have originated form Thansettakij, with only passing mentions in other news sources. Probably this is due its being a private venture. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps it should be merged-and-redirected to a Mass transit in Bangkok article, then? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some one can provide evidence that it will definitely be built soon. WP:CRYSTAL An 800m line with four stations hardly sounds notable anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – See below, and references in the article. The project has not been cancelled, and is estimated to be completed in December 2012. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with The Bushranger. Even canceled or not-yet-materialized projects can be notable. The sources do indicate passing our guidelines. WP:CRYSTAL is about unverified speculation and states so in the first sentence. There is nothing "unverified" about this proposal.--Oakshade (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The project doesn't appear to be cancelled, per Bangkok Post article and this external link. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do note though that those articles are from 2010. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, the Bangkok Post article was published on July 3, 2010. Here's a quote from it: "If things go as planned, Bangkokians will see the country's first monorail system in the next two to three years." Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From another source in the article, the project hasn't been cancelled: Rama 9 Monorail project to be completed Dec 2012. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've seen no evidence it was even started. The link above is from September 2010 and says construction was to start last month. There seems to be similar articles. Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall hydrothermal recovery system[edit]

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

Appears non-notable, given the paucity in RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for that for over 2 years. Authored by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:20, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found this, but that is not enough. SL93 (talk) 16:55, 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 merge to Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assistant Democratic Party Leader of the United States House of Representatives[edit]

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

Putting this here because I'm not sure about this one. I can't see it as an article per se, nor can I see this as a redirect to Jim Clyburn - simply because the position will inevitably change in the US House of Representatives. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe this would better be covered in Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives, along with assistant Republican leaders if such a position exists. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives. This position has only existed since 2011, as far as I know, and depending on what happens to the Democrats in the House, they may either retain the position or eliminate it in future Congresses. If the position becomes more institutionalized (permanent) in the future, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:50, 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 as failing to have the reliable sources which give "significant coverage...independent of the subject" necessary to meet WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fulgur Limited[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable publisher, doesn't meet notability requirements for organizations and companies. Yworo (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to counsel caution and prudence here. I am well aware of the Wiki policy regarding notability, and of the good reasons for establishing notability through secondary sources. I can't help but observe however, that the requirement for secondary sources creates a bit of a problem in cases where the entity in question is a publisher. A publisher – any publisher – establishes notability in the world by publishing books. To phrase it as baldly as possible: the books produced by a given publisher are precisely what establishes that publisher's notability. And yet because of the requirement for secondary sources such indicators are precisely what end up being disallowed here. This is a publisher with an international reputation, that has been in business for ~20 years, and one that has produced approximately the same number of titles. These titles are discussed extensively online, by interested parties in different countries across the world. We should keep this in mind.

In any case, this is a notable publisher, which can be established as follows:

1. The publisher produces notable works. The notability of these works is established by their frequent mention in online media. Just do a search for a few of the titles this press has produced and ignore online media produced by the publisher itself while focusing on mention of its publications by third parties. While these are not secondary sources of the first order, they establish international public awareness, interest and discussion regarding the publisher and works bearing its imprimatur. For example:

http://beinart.org/art-news/2011/03/03/book-launch-for-orryelles-new-art-book-coagula/
http://plutonica.net/2008/01/21/new-book-by-austin-osman-spare/
http://www.society.kosmic-gnosis.org/atua.html

2. Several authors who produced works that have been published by this press are individually notable, most importantly Austin Osman Spare and Kenneth Grant. For more information on these authors see the existing Wikipedia articles. In the case of Spare Fulgur Ltd. is particularly important as this publisher has been tapped as an authority on this figure, maintains a digital archive of this unquestionably notable figure's work, and is the primary publisher today of his work. That said, this is not all that Fulgur does, and so simply putting a short mention of the press in Spare's article is not a felicitous solution.

3. The leading figure associated with the press, Robert Ansell, is himself a notable authority on things esoteric. He is regularly invited to discuss esoteric subjects in interviews and presentations. For example on Thursday, 4th Nov. 2004 an episode of the BBC program "The Culture Show" focused on a notable occult artist, and included an appearance by Robert Ansell, identified by name with "Fulgur Publishing" appearing prominently in the title over introducing his segment. Footage can be reviewed by interested editors here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjtK7vQdgEg

He is also recognized as a notable authority on things esoteric in online publications. For example:

http://equinoxfestival.org/speakers.html
http://plutonica.net/2010/11/14/sparian-delights/
http://esotericbookconference.com/2011/press/reviews/

The existing article already includes a citation indicating Ansell was quoted in an issue of The Fortean Times this year. He has also written for publications which he himself did not publish. For example he wrote the introduction for Austin Osman Spare: Cockney Visionary, A Catalogue of Works in the Collection of the Southwark Council, Jerusalem Press, 2010. This was produced to coincide with the exhibition of Spare's work at the Cuming Museum, London. In connection with this exhibition an article in The Telegraph newspaper of Oct. 29th 2005 makes mention of Fulgur and one of its publications. While the argument can be made that here we're talking about Ansell in some cases instead of Fulgur I think it is safe to say that Ansell is at the center of Fulgur and contributes to its notability. It does not seem that an article on Ansell can be justified, while one regarding Fulgur is justified.

4. Works produced by this publisher are cited and acknowledged in academic works by publishers about whom no notability questions can be raised. This is precisely the basis of notability in the academic tradition of citation, which is what Wiki's guidelines are based upon – being as it is the central tradition of scholastic endeavor.

For example Stealing Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Modern Western Magic by Nevill Drury, Oxford University Press, cites Fulgur publications/media more than a dozen times. And Shamans/neo-Shamans: Ecstasy, Alternative Archaeologies and Contemporary Pagans by Robert J. Wallis, Routledge 2003 cites works by Fulgur and indeed explicitly thanks them in the acknowledgements for permission to use material.

I think this article should be kept. I also can't help but observe that nominating the article for deletion right at the peak of the holiday season puts any parties interested in preventing deletion at a distinct disadvantage, as many are busy with the holidays and therefore unable to get involved in defending the article, or else simply unaware that it has been nominated for deletion. --Picatrix (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you note are primarily blogs and other self-published sources, which aren't reliable and can't be used to establish notability. I challenge you to show a single book published by this publisher that meets WP:NBOOK that's not a reprint of a book previously published by another publisher. And it's not hard to show notability for a publisher, we have hundreds of articles about publishing companies which are actually notable. Yworo (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the owner of Fulgur is aware and after our notability requirements were explained to him said, "Well, maybe its best if you just delete the page then". Yworo (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if Ansell is notable, ~~and I believe that he may very well meet our notability requirements~~, then start Robert Ansell, which can mention Fulgur until such time as it becomes independently notable. Also, consider starting articles on books first published by Fulgur that meet WP:NBOOK. If it should prove that both Ansell and several books are notable, then you will have established the validity of your argument, but right now it doesn't look valid as neither I nor Ansell could find even two sources to meet WP:GNG, and he tried to do so and would be more intimately aware of what's been published about the company than anyone. Yworo (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It will never be easy to demonstrate notability for specialist publishers of fine books in limited editions. Their reach is so small that it takes a century or two before enough people notice them, and generally they are happy with that (see Robert Ansell's comment linked by Yworo above). We still need to know about them, and Wikipedia should be a place where we can find them. Andrew Dalby 13:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a business directory. There are plenty of sites which are. Acting as a directory for non-notable businesses is not part of Wikipedia's function. This is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. Yworo (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Business doesn't have much to do with this: the relevant concerns are art, literature and the specialist fields in which the press publishes.

Is there a list of invalid arguments in deletion discussions? Andrew Dalby 08:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good. Thanks. I don't see my argument there. I maintain my point. Andrew Dalby 15:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure your argument is there, your argument boils down to "it's valuable information" and "it's useful" to some unspecified population of people. We don't base inclusion on the "need to know" something, we base inclusion solely on notability, which hasn't yet been shown. We simply don't keep articles that don't meet at least our general notability guideline for any reason, so if you think it must be kept, provide sources that show notability. There is no other argument which is valid in a deletion discussion except when combined with a demonstration of notability as shown by substantial coverage in multiple independent third-party reliable sources. We are under no obligation to fulfill any "need to know", the Fulgur company website does that quite well, and as there are no other sources to use, the most we can really do is serve as a copy of the information on that website, which is just what the article now is, essentially an advert with no information about Fulgur that's not already present on the company website. Yworo (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge possibly to List of publishing companies of the United Kingdom. Statements such as "The apparent success of this business model has led to it being widely adopted within the esoteric genre, particularly since the arrival of e-commerce." are unsourced and so must be removed. Worldcat.org does not list any of Fulgur Press, Fulgur Limited or Fulgur Publishing. I found the lists in the article to be insignificant, really everything in the article I found to be insignificant, except that this press exists, and that this existence is of importance to the enduring record. Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to vote twice, but I still say keep. This whole area is one that Wikipedia hasn't yet spread into, but it will. The sooner we start, the sooner we'll get somewhere. I see what Unscintillating means about "merge" but I wouldn't, in any case, agree with the precise suggestion of "List of publishing companies of the United Kingdom". All private presses (of which Fulgur Limited can surely count as one) would be utterly insignificant among publishing companies (OK, I know that's how it describes itself). That just isn't why they are notable. As I said above, it's their contribution to art and literature that matters, not their microscopic footprint in sales or marketing or world media. Anyway, I will now add Fulgur to the very incomplete list at private press (which I've only just discovered). I'll also add to that article a reference to the specialised journal in this field, The Private Library, which will no doubt do a long article on Fulgur Press some time in the next fifteen years or so. Happy New Year to all! Andrew Dalby 10:13, 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. Only one of the references actually talks at any length about the site, but that reference is a press release from Alloexpat. All the other "references" are actually just passing mentions or "hey, you might find this site useful or interesting". Clearly does not meet WP:N per the sources provided. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alloexpat[edit]

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

though there are 5 references in the article, none of them amount to significant coverage in the way required by WP:N, apart from the Yahoo News article which seems to be a press release, and as such not independent. It has a WP:BIGNUMBER of visitors though, so although I haven't found anything, something might still be out there that I'm overlooking Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i am new to wikipedia so i ll be most pleased for any of experience wikipedia writers to edit or modify it but i am a bit surprised (although i am a novice here)that Alloexpat article is consider for deletion since alloexpat web articles are mentionned as reference by many writers in many articles in various languages all across wikipedia. some example i found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates ref 145 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta ref 117 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Dhabi ref 18 http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malasia ref 23 http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Dabi ref 16 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vereinigte_Arabische_Emirate ref 69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidkl2012 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC) — Davidkl2012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - On Wikipedia, notability is gauged by how much coverage a topic has in reliable, independent sources (see wp:GNG). Unfortunately, Alloexpat being mentioned on other Wikipedias does not establish notability. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 18:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also alloexpat is mentionned in few books dedicated to expatriate and traveler as a reference. http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Alloexpat%22 hope this can help in the discussion. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidkl2012 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC) — Davidkl2012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - most of those mentions appear to be trivial (see wp:NWEB#Criteria) and thus would be insufficient to establish notability (the coverage doesn't seem in-depth; most mentions of Alloexpat in those books are just in lists of similar websites. Again, see wp:gng). Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 18:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major Reliable sources for the expatriates community worldwide always use AlloExpat.com as a key website reference. My arrival in Singapore as an expat 3 years ago was made easy thanks to AlloExpat community website. Anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.207.98 (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC) — 61.8.207.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - While your thoughts are appreciated, discussions in AfD debates are supposed to be based upon Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not personal opinions. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 18:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not established due to lack of coverage. Has GNews hits and references, but mentions overall appear to be either trivial or in press releases. Fails WP:NWEB. If I missed something that is brought up later in the discussion, I might change my mind. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 19:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I am learning through your clear and pro analysis, I really can't understand the fact that you can't aknowledged the notability of Alloexpat, this website is a 10 years old website with more than 1 milion visitors per month, it has helps thousands of expatriates family around the world for a decade. I hope you can make some more research on the expatriate subject in order to have different thought about Alloexpat notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidkl2012 (talk • contribs)

Reply - While I understand your concerns, I think that you may have misunderstood me. When I say "notability" on Wikipedia, I don't necessarily mean age or popularity, but how much in-depth coverage the topic has received from independent, reliable sources. This is how the notability of topics on Wikipedia is gauged to figure out if the topic should have its own article, if that makes sense. In other words, I'm not debating the impact that AlloExpat has on expatriates, but rather how much is has been discussed in independent sources (books, newspapers, etc. that are not affiliated with AlloExpat). I'd suggest you read the policy on notability; this is how base my argument. I hope this helps. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 20:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As i keep on searching for more references for Alloexpat, i just found that the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR)is using Alloexpat as a source for its Turkey information report in 2007. Please see report at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/45ffefcd2.pdf (ref 50). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidkl2012 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 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. Insufficient sources to keep. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Latiker[edit]

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

Nominating per outcome of discussion here.

Original reason: This is one of ten bios created from a CNN award for "a normal person, they're doing a normal job," to quote CNN itself. Point is, this is WP:ONEEVENT and also a good example of how widespread coverage in a national publication can still occasionally not be an indication of notability. In fact, I think that this set of articles is the textbook definition of BLP1E.

Of course what these individuals are doing is great, but it can be sufficiently covered in an article about the CNN Heroes series/award. We don't need new BLPs to do that either.

I'm nominating those that don't have coverage outside of the CNN related coverage. A few entries have additional external links so I am not nominating those. This particular nom only applies to this article. Shadowjams (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:26, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep or rename Kids Off the Block. There's this 2007 Chicago Tribune article, this 2009 Guardian article and a possible ghit for the October 2007 issue of Ebony magazine to go with the more recent stuff. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly trivial. When a news program makes pof point of selecting average non-notable people for special coverage as representative examples, this doe not make them notable. (this sort of thing has been a difficulty for many years here, but I cannot find a way of making a general rule out of it which would not be subject to abuse. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 4 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) 09:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bonoko[edit]

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

no indication of WP:notability. The article seems to be being used to publish a news story about Kenyan police rather than defining a word. Even if it was defining a word, wikipedia is not a dictionary noq (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a Kenyan slang dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mix up of Dictionary, News and Essay, sourced with a blog entry: Wikipedia:NOT.--Ben Ben (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't really understand what this article is talking about. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:25, 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 and revert to this version to remove possible copyright violations. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paigah (Hyderabad)[edit]

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

This article appears to be a copyright violation. In addition, it doesn't cite any sources, nor does it make any assertions of notability. Yes, in theory, this article could be cleaned up to clear those concerns. In practice, though, this article is 75k of unsourced, possibly copyright violating text. I think it'd be much easier to start from scratch. Quanticle (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the claims asserted in the intro are accurate, it looks notable enough to me, tho the usefulness of a lengthy family tree/genealogy seems is debatable (I'd say not much if any in its current state). The copyvio connection is because of [17] I believe. The copyright asserted is 2004-2011, so it would be predating this article being made on wikipedia, but archive.org has no data for royalark.net before 2008. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incomprehensible, unsourced mishmash naming and giving personal details of what appears to be scores of BLPs, including, presumably, minor children (it's hard to discern in the textdump, but all children of, uh, everyone, of every age, appear to be listed). The only non-deletion option that I see here is stubbing the article down to just the (unreferenced) lede, but I lean slightly to deletion being the better option. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but revert to this version. The topic itself seems to be notable, but the recent contributions have made the article incomprehensible. utcursch | talk 10:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but revert per User:Utcursch. We certainly don't need 78 kilobytes of genealogy describing every member of the family, whether notable or not. JIP | Talk 05:55, 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 Keep. In two weeks of discussion, nobody other than the nominator has argued for deletion. Michig (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Duck Tours[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Extensive referencing is deceptive: the cited references point to the history of the vehicles used by the company, or to various events that the boats have been used for, or to the company's own web page, but do not indicate extensive coverage of this company. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that the sourcing needs work but the company has become something of an icon in Boston. GabrielF (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Duck tour --Northernhenge (talk) 19:19, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Significant, ongoing coverage in reliable sources confers to topic notability. See [18] and click on some of the links, for starters. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – References I added to the article, and there's more available; topic passes WP:GNG:

"Visitors can Tour Historic Boston by Ducks". The Milwaukee Sentinel. March 2, 1995. Retrieved December 25, 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Marantz, Steve (May 6, 1999). "Boston Duck Tours draws scrutiny after deadly Ark. accident". Boston Herald. Retrieved December 26, 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Wong, Nicole C. (June 19, 2008). "Judge says a duck tour is a duck tour". The Boston Globe. Retrieved December 26, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
AP (July 16, 2010). "5 hurt in "duck boat" accident in Boston". The Boston Globe. Retrieved December 25, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Abel, David (July 9, 2010). "Duck tours sail on in Boston, despite Philadelphia sinking". The Boston Globe. Retrieved December 25, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Coverage about a company's involvement in accidents or other dog-bites-man news items, does not establish notability. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – What about the other articles listed above? Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out that the list claiming to establish notability is padded. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage out there. Not just the Boston Globe and Boston Herald articles, but also Hartford Courant [19], The Milwaukee Sentinel [20], and others. Dream Focus 09:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need to show how the sources get beyond just saying wp:ITEXISTS though. I still think this material would augment the Duck Tour article but isn't notable in itself. Is there anything distinctive about this particular duck tour? --Northernhenge (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company's involvement in flood rescue in Wayland, Massachusetts was distinctive, as is the Ducks becoming a part of local Boston tradition in professional sports parades. Also, the safety record of a company carrying 600,000 passengers annually in one city is quite a bit more important than "just another man bites dog story" (IMHO). Trilliumz (talk) 17:57, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn and no !votes for deletion are present. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 19:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mine Games (2012 film)[edit]

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

Failed PROD. Per notability guidelines for films and future films, article contains no evidence of reliable sources and shows no significant third party coverage. Unable to find such references through a web search. Barkeep^Chat/_$ 15:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Barkeep^Chat/_$ 15:13, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Meets WP:NF and WP:GNG. Happy that someone properly removed the prod... specially as the film's production had received coverage, has completed filming, and is now in post-production for a release in June 2012. I do not know the nominator's search parameters, but suspect they may have been based upon the weaknesses sometimes inherent in the Find sources template. I had absolutely no difficulty finding plenty of available sources... [21][22][23][24][25] and was able to begin using some to work on the article before coming to AFD to comment. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - I withdraw my nomination for deletion in light of the improvements made by User:MichaelQSchmidt. Barkeep^Chat/_$ 19:07, 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 as sources establish notability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway (post-hardcore band)[edit]

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

Article was AfD'd in April and salted - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadway (band) (3rd nomination). This is somewhat of a recreation, but the sources are better and it is longer. No opinion, though if it is kept it should be moved to Broadway (band). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Band still lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Mix of forum posts, PR, non reliable sources, talking about themselve and primary sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. It has some nice sources, but I am not 100 percent convinced that it should stay until there are more third party reliable sources given. The band does not mention of any songs charted or any hit singles that are notable, either. Tinton5 (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree. This is a legitimate performing group, and the sources for this article are more reliable than previously written. I don't believe there is a reason for AfD, and I likewise agree for the Broadway (band) move. leemcd56 21:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems that in the last AFD's it was all down to unreliable sources, which isn't the case this time. I don't see a reason to delete it, though I do agree on the move to Broadway (band). -Jer ^{Hit me up} 03:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if T. Mills can have an article. this band can too. They're just as notable as one another & were also signed to the same label at the same time. Not to mention, searching for the band in very specific details such as "broadway band florida" brings up more than 12 million hits on Google • GunMetal Angel 11:19, 3 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) 08:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Tickles Limited[edit]

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

Zero refs. Lack of rs coverage. Tagged for notability for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:51, 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. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Barnes (broadcaster)[edit]

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

Previously deleted by PROD and BLPPROD a number of times, and then re-created by the same editor. No evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His common name and numerous articles by him makes it very hard to search on google, so I'm hoping that a Scotish native might be able to help out - the incident with a club chairman happened over 10 years ago, and he seems to broadcast the biggest sport in Scotland, so he may be notable, we just haven't found the refs yet. There isn't much other info to help with the search, either. I'll vote later in the week to see if others can find any decent refs. The-Pope (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Him being punched by Jim McLean was quite newsworthy at the time ([26]), but would probably qualify as WP:BLP1E. He has worked regularly for BBC Radio Scotland, but hasn't been the lead commentator for BBC Scotland or Scottish television, unlike Archie Macpherson, Arthur Montford, Jock Brown, Rob MacLean, Paul Mitchell or Liam McLeod. That would probably be a notability rule of thumb for Scottish commentators. Therefore I vote to delete. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not to be confused with John Barnes (English broadcaster). Giant Snowman 15:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As one of the filers of an earlier PROD, I still see no indication of meeting notability requirements. As a side note, I have just now restored the older, PROD-deleted history. It'll be re-deleted if this AFD ends as Delete, but should be availible if this ends as a Keep. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Jmorrison stated qualifies, as WP:BLP1E but hasn't had persistent coverage in reliable sources. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:26, 3 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 due to failing WP:N and WP:V. "Keep" opinions also failed to provide any reliable sources to support keeping article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SeerSuite[edit]

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

Collection of software without any evidence of notability. The component software may be notable, but this suite of software is not. No third party sources to establish notability, as required by WP:N GrapedApe (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this nomination is legitimate at all. I don't think the statement reflects any of the properties of the software - The nomination does not provide any support for "The component software may be notable" and "suite of software is not" and how the nomination came to this conclusion. Please improve the article to include references to it, rather then nominating it for deletion. I guess, the effort required to improve an article, is more than nominating it for deletion. Pradeep (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was about to say keep, but the coverage that I was thought was significant was not. The coverage was from the college where this was developed. SL93 (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google Scholar search shows several results which are unrelated to the place of software's origin. Furthermore, the paper about it was accepted to USENIX. Some sporadic results from general search reveal it's on a rise, so it might be a better idea to leave it alone. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to claim that software from the software suite is notable, but the suite itself is not. P.S.: A paper Google didn't show in first n pages and a ref from pt.wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly does a ref from pt.wiki give notability?--GrapedApe (talk) 01:56, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xu Yuanchong[edit]

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

I can't find sufficient RS support for the notability of this translator. Created by SPA. Tagged as an orphan since September. Epeefleche (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep It is a problem to get sources from China sometimes, but this translator has his share of publications and is apparently regarded and contributed to translation theories... the single purpose of this account is not fully clear to me. I guess he made it for his class room project; see his talk page for links L.tak (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have substantial RS sources that discuss him? And as to the author, he is generally considered an SPA if he has only edited one article -- which from what I can see is the case here. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to indicate (re SPA), that it should be used with a bit of care: in this case the single purpose of the author was not to make this article, but I do get the point... I think the articles at the style section are close, but realize their is no source in the article which specifically addresses him as the sole point of the article. But the fact that his theory is used substantially and he is used as an example of domestication (in combination with the many non reviewed papers in the MSc abstracts that I have no entry to) establishes for me notability sufficiently. I will see if I can find also the articles establishing it to the letter of notability (persons), possibly by using chinese sources, but we seem to differ whether that is strictly necessary here... L.tak (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for your contributions to the article. Second, perhaps our misunderstanding relates to what an SPA is -- an SPA is defined in wp:SPA as "A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose." This editor's edits are in fact limited to one article, so he meets the definition -- using the phrase with care requires that we make sure it is accurate, which it is. The above comments did not assert what the SPA's motive was. Finally, I'm happy -- if refs support the notability of this translator per wp notability standards, for the article to be kept. I'm not sure that the improvements to date quite meet GNG or any of our other standards, however, but will be happy if we get it to that point. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

our misunderstanding in SPA came indeed from definition. I thought you suggested motives by mentioning the SPA in the argumentation for the AfD; my apologies. More to the point: we have refs now at nr 1,4,6 and 8 which specifically address Xu (3 of them in different scientific journals; 1 a news report on a prize) so with that for me also the burden for notability is explicitly fulfilled (IMO). There are still issues with the article (referencing and trivia), but those are not AfD-worthy. Cheers! L.tak (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I think the GNG is satisfied (but not by a large margin). I don't think the SPA label is a helpful label for student editors in cases like this because, at AfD, "SPA" tends to carry rather different overtones. (Using the pedantic definition, most of us were SPAs once...) bobrayner (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For this is almost always a good idea to look for sources in his Chinese name. This is a 45-minute TV program about him aired on CCTV-10. Also this. Passes GNG. T. Canens (talk) 01:09, 3 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trustfall (band)[edit]

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

I was tempted to tag this for speedy A7, but the original version of the article did have a (very weak) assertion of importance. Because I felt that assertion didn't mean much, I prodded the article. However, when the prod tag disappeared, so did the assertion of importance that saved the article from speedy deletion. Regardless of the process used, Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't really find useful sourcing, under this name or their current name, "No December". No suggestion of any real following. If better sourcing can be found, happy to look again. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:27, 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fausto Biloslavo[edit]

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

The article claims a far bigger importance then is backup up by the Google test. Google News only has three hits: two announcements of a photo exhibition and one article from him. Not notable journalist/photographer Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might there have been a typo in your search? Or is this another google oddity? I got 100 results from clicking the google news link above. Ian Spackman (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that this is either a typo or an oddity. I have prompted the nomitator before to use a Google News archive search rather than the default search of just the last month, but that advice has always been ignored. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a Google oddity, because I can not get the archive of Google News. Could it be possible that the archive is only available for American-IP's? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried clicking on the word "news" in the nomination statement above? Or on the word "archives" on the left of the Google News search results screen? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! Withthis result: Archives Your search - "Fausto Biloslavo" - did not match any documents. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you get that with both of the actions that I suggested? I've never known the link provided in the nomination statement to fail for anyone. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd! It’s not that the archive is only available to US IPs: I’m logging on from the UK. Ian Spackman (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even stranger. If from the UK works, from Ireland should work too... Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Coverage in reliable sources does exist, many of which appear to be in Italian-language sources. Here's a few English sources I added to the article:

"Journalist Jailed by Afghans Recalls Ordeal". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. June 5, 1988. Retrieved December 26, 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Journalist Freed". San Jose Mercury News. June 3, 1988. Retrieved December 26, 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Kabul to Free Italian". Washington Post. June 2, 1988. Retrieved December 26, 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable coverage found. If the nominator is having trouble using Google news archive, just trust those who have access to it, and Google around until you find a solution to your problem. Dream Focus 07:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No one, except the nomintator, advocates deletion. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard St. Denis[edit]

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

Nominating per outcome of discussion here.

Original reason: This is one of ten bios created from a CNN award for "a normal person, they're doing a normal job," to quote CNN itself. Point is, this is WP:ONEEVENT and also a good example of how widespread coverage in a national publication can still occasionally not be an indication of notability. In fact, I think that this set of articles is the textbook definition of BLP1E.

Of course what these individuals are doing is great, but it can be sufficiently covered in an article about the CNN Heroes series/award. We don't need new BLPs to do that either.

I'm nominating those that don't have coverage outside of the CNN related coverage. A few entries have additional references unrelated to the BLP1E so I am not nominating those. This particular nom only applies to this article. Shadowjams (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 19. Snotbot t • c » 23:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. He has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources over a long period of time. I believe he was notable before the CNN award. See The Gazette (1989), Rocky Mountain News (1990), Denver Post (1990), Sun Sentinel (1997), Summit Daily (2003), CNN (April 2011). Pburka (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per significant coverage in reliable sources: Free Wheelchairs Give Life To Rural Mexicans, St. Denis revives Breckenridg wheelchair tennis tournament, RACING THE WORLD DISABLED SKIERS CHASE BRASS RING IN COLORADO. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I think you both have listed many of the same articles. Shadowjams (talk) 20:48, 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 Special relativity#Consequences until such time as sufficient reliable sources can be found and unitlized for it to stand on its own per WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences of special relativity[edit]

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

Propose to delete this unreferenced article. As a lead it contains a copy of Special relativity#Consequences, and it has an entirely unencyclopedic unsourced wp:ORish section. Was proposed to be deleted on talk page a few times. Nobody objected. - DVdm (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next time try Proposed deletion instead of directly bringing it to Articles for deletion. --Lambiam 17:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I had considered that, but the latter suggests that the former should be "used to suggest deletions that no editor would contest," so, as I expected some resistance from the author who created the unsourced section, I came here. - DVdm (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Looking at I can see nothing that's not covered well in special relativity, and from the talk page merging/deleting it has come up before but not been acted on. Compared to that well visited and well maintained article there's no point keeping this. Checking the history this seems to be the point where an anon IP copied and pasted most of the article from special relativity. Without that duplication there's nothing worth keeping.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment see also this discussion related to the above change which mentions this article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note I just noticed that this AfD was incomplete, missing its header and not added to the log for the day. I've corrected both problems, which maybe explains why no other editors have participated in the discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Special relativity#Consequences - without sources, there is nothing to distinguish this from original research. Assuredly though, I would say keep following a cited rewrite. Merry Christmas folks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Changed from an accidental delete). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Special relativity#Consequences. --Lambiam 17:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another abuse of "original research" at AFD, I see — this time to mean "the article lacks source citations". Anyone who knows xyr physics should know that this isn't original research, by any stretch of the imagination. (As David Hilbert once remarked, this is mathematics that "any schoolboy in Göttingen" could understand.) Original research physics in Wikipedia would be crank physics, that hasn't been acknowledged by people other than its creators/proposers, or not-yet-properly-published new physics that has yet to be reviewed. This, by contrast, is the standard Pythagorean derivation of the Lorentz coefficient γ, as can be found in a multitude of textbooks and popular science books on the subject. Its presentation here is better than the one at Lorentz factor#Derivation, ironically, and an order of magnitude more accessible than what is at Lorentz transformations. It is, however, not a consequence of special relativity; but, rather, an integral part of the mathematics of special relativity.
I don't know what Sabejias (talk · contribs) was planning when xe started this article. Certainly there's ample scope for an article on this, given the number of textbooks that have a "consequences" section for special relativity, as well as Einstein's own mention of strange consequences. But as it currently stands, this is a breakout sub-article of Special relativity#Consequences that doesn't expand upon the summary in the super-article, and goes into none of the detail that such books do.
DVdm, instead of waiting for two years, you could have just redirected this yourself back in 2010. Uncle G (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think we can safely redirect to Special relativity#Consequences. I would do it, but there this warning "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled" on the page, so I won't touch it. I never did a redirect before, so I don't now what will happen with the associated talk page and with this discussion. Should it be somehow closed or archived? Cheers all and thanks for commenting. - DVdm (talk) 12:43, 3 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.

[1] "Is Mormonism Research Ministry "Anti-Mormon"?". MRM.org. Retrieved 2006-09-24.

[pfo-2] Cannon, Stephen (2000). "Games Mormon People Play: The Strategies and Diversions of Latter-day Saint Apologists". PFO.org. Retrieved 2006-06-01.

[1]

[2]