Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 26 December 28 December >

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 speedy delete per G11 by Fastily. (NAC) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 01:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Granato[edit]

Sam Granato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not convinced that the subject of this article meets the notability criteria. His chief claims to notability appear to be serving as chair of a state government agency, and failing to win an election, and I an not sure that Wikipedia needs an article about him in order to be complete. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:47, 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.  7  00:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle (Drishtantoist film)[edit]

Cycle (Drishtantoist film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a film which does not demonstrate its notability. The only source that is reliable is the DIFF List of the Films 2012, which shows it was one of 216 films entered for the Dhaka International Film Festival. The film did not win an award at the festival. Prod was contested without explanation, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other than links put out by the filmmaker/production team themselves, I couldn't find a single source to show how this is notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Comment. An article on this same topic has recently been deleted from the result of G7 here. BOVINEBOY2008 15:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: NN film. (Also, this is the latest in a series of self-promotion and vanity articles from the same group of nn authors (Taposh and Riyad).) --Ragib (talk) 05:25, 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. Mkativerata (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MYX International Top 20 Year End Countdown[edit]

MYX International Top 20 Year End Countdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable end-of-year list. Fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind talk 22:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possibly a copyright violation - the only reason we can have rankings from Billboard on WP is because they're based on facts (sales/airplay/whatever) this is apparently based off of SMS votes (no real source for that), does that mean it's based solely on facts and we can reprint it? IANAL OSborn arfcontribs. 04:29, 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. Notability established (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 04:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every Day and Every Night[edit]

Every Day and Every Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-charting album fails WP:NALBUMS Orangeroof (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 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. Mkativerata (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Spearing[edit]

David Spearing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Director of questionable notability. Google news search on "David Spearing" shows zero results - standard search shows a lot of primary sources and social media, but little significant coverage. Similar search on "David Spearing" "Broken Toaster TV" (his company) shows only 57 unique results, none from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The subject & presumed creator is canvassing for support against deletion; see his twitter. (In fairness he's also calling for the article to be improved.) --Killing Vector (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, on account that there are apparently no secondary sources, or at least, not enough to establish notability. If the canvassing campaign can turn up edits that will fix this problem then I will change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a notable person, as nominator indicated. I BLP-prodded this, and there still are no reliable sources to establish notability, nor did I find any. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sole source on the page that isn't from Spearing himself does not list him at all. It might help to show how his film might (and that's might) be notable, but not Spearing himself. There's just nothing here to show notability and I wasn't able to find anything via a search.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since additional sources could not be found, it appears to fail WP:GNG. If someone wants a userfied version to try to find more sources, let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mahalo Ukuleles[edit]

Mahalo Ukuleles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking in reliable coverage. Coverage seems to consist almost if not entirely of incidental mentions and unreliable sources. Seems to fail wp:gng and wp:org. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 22:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep while I cannot put my finger on a source I have heard of these. Which makes me think they have some use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandn (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment i confess i am not sufficiently motivated to craft crafty google search strings in this case, but note the coverage in Alistair Wood's Ukulele for Dummies [1] which strongly suggests notability. it says, among other things, that "almost every ukulele player in the UK has had a Mahalo ukulele pass through his or her hands at some point". 86.44.31.213 (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I don't think that book is sufficient to establish notability by itself, it could be a big help for the article if additional sources are found. I should have been able to find that myself. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 16:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I looked for other sources and couldn't find any thing except Alistair Wood's Ukulele for Dummies--MLKLewis (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this brand of ukulele. The reference to the Mahalo brand in Ukes for Dummies, and in other websites that I can find indicate that that this is a common ukulele because it is cheap. However, nobody appears to have really taken note of this particular brand with any sort of significant coverage, and so I don't see that notability is met. -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 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 redirect to Shakaya. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 07:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Stacey[edit]

Simone Stacey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Singer who has not been shown to be independently notable outside the music group Shakaya, which already contains all the information at this article. Cloudz679 21:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Shakaya unless/until significant coverage in independent reliable sources are found to justify a standalone article.The-Pope (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shakaya per The-Pope. I'm unable to find significant coverage for this person demonstrating notability independent of the group. As WP:BAND suggests, a redirect is appropriate.  Gongshow Talk 03:26, 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 Shipley, West Yorkshire. Redirect as per WP:OUTCOMES. Though a user points to a "detailed report", that is a routine UK government document that confers no indication of notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wycliffe CE Primary School[edit]

Wycliffe CE Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The topic appears to be notable as it is documented in detail by independent reliable sources such as this. Per WP:GNG and WP:PRESERVE it should therefore be kept, not deleted. Warden (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. A quick search reveals little to nothing on the Internet that we could use to grant notability. Ofsted report linked above is a statutory requirement, thus there is one for every school in England. It does little more than confirm the school's existence. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The report is of 16 pages and full of detail. For example, it tells us that the teachers use electronic whiteboards; that the school teaches French; that the pupils attend committees about the curriculum; that there is a school council; that there are well-attended after school clubs; and so on. This is fundamental information about the operation of the school in its role of providing education. Readers who are actually interested in education will get a comprehensive understanding of what is done there for this is the report's purpose and it is written and reviewed by professionals. Warden (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it is the only primary school (or one of the only) in the country to teach French, and the report doesn't state that to be the case, it doesn't really establish notability.
As for use as a general reference, to be honest, I'm still not sure what use most of the information is unless you actually quote the report verbatim. Otherwise, given there are no other independent sources about the school, we'll just end up with an indiscriminate list of bullet points as there is no other information to tie it together. Pit-yacker (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be odd if a British School in 2012 DIDN'T use IWBs.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Run of the mill; routine report from government agency is not "significant coverage." Neutralitytalk 03:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. England and Wales have over 16,000 maintained Primary schools. Every one of them has an Ofsted report. That makes the reports Run of the mill.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where does it say you can't have a redirect? Yes, there's no policy saying you must create a redirect (just common practice), but neither is there any policy saying you must not create a redirect. Policy is, incidentally, usually created when common practice is formalised in writing, so if we were to never follow precedent like you suggest, it's most likely policy as we know it would never get formed on anything. The de facto policy on redirects is generally that we can have one if consensus is that we should have one, and this is quite sensible redirect to have. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I support your view Chris. 'Redirect' is one of the official closures, and indeed all policies and/or guidelines recommend seeking any solution that leaves deletion as a last resort. This does not mean that Wikipdia is inclusionist per se, but caution is the best policy where deletion is uncertain to be absolutely necessary, and where AfD !votes (either way) are not founded on policy, guidelines, or precedent. AfD is not the venue for debating policy, but it can certainly determine a precedent, as it has done over the years on a vast scale for redirecting school articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The array of !votes here -- delete, redirect, and keep -- would seem to support the view that assessing consensus in a discussion at the notability guideline, and enshrining it in the guideline, may perhaps be a helpful course.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • We already have a notability guideline and this topic passes it by virtue of the detailed sources written by independent professionals. The contrary opinions are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT supported by appeals to essays which are just more personal opinions and so there is no policy-based argument to delete. The point about redirection/merger is just shuffling the material around and so is not important in the question of deletion. Warden (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi Warden. My point is merely that the views expressed on this page range widely, and your view (which I respect) is not one that all editors agree with, and that the divergence of views expressed as to what our policy is vis-a-vis articles such as this one suggests that greater clarity at the notability guideline might be helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply to Warden. The arguments to delete are actually based on facts provided by people who have knowledge of the subject, and have explained why the source does not establish notability. If it was just a case of citing policy we wouldn't need to have discussions. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree wholeheartedly. This topic fails GNG. An Ofsted report might establish notability IF it commented on something notable. For instance if it mentioned that the school had no interactive whiteboards (IWB) and mentioned that the reason for this was that the school governing body had made a strategic decision NOT to spend money in this area in order to direct funds into another more deserving area, then that might, just might, establish notability for the school. But an Ofsted report which establishes that most of the teaching is good, with the remainder being satisfactory (or vice-versa) does nothing to establish notability. That would just establish that the school is among the middle 80% of schools on the Ofsted bell curve. It's the content of the report that counts, not the report itself per se. I'm not convinced that all primaries ARE non-notable. Nor am I convinced that all UK schools are notable by virtue of the presence of an Ofsted report. If we want to say that all secondaries are notable then fine, let's enshrine that in a guideline that is not subject to challenge every time a user creates an article about their school. And let's also include some guidelines on merge and redirect of primaries. But don't expect volunteer editors with limited time to contribute to embark on a protracted bureaucratic process that will eventually end up where we are today every time they want to do a little cleanup. Let's give them the tools, authority and support to go and make this paedia a better experience for readers. Fmph (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have attended many notability discussions about a variety of topics and so have the breadth of experience to say that this topic passes the requirements of the WP:GNG with ease. Many topics struggle to find sources of such good quality as an Ofsted report. For example, see Whole stuffed camel which was a recent snow keep. That has sources but they are not as substantial or as convincing as an Ofsted report. To delete a solid respectable school on the grounds that it is mundane and boring compared to such traveller's tales is a travesty. We are here to cover all knowledge not just the bizarre. Warden (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have attended many notability discussions about a variety of topics and so have the breadth of experience to say that this topic fails the requirements of the WP:GNG with ease. Fmph (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as the standard way of handling it. That we do this, is a guideline in practice, re-established every once in a while by someone who wants to test it. Not everything labeled as a a guideline or even policy is actually effective, if we don't follow it (need I mention NPA), and many things that aren't specified as such are actually de facto guidelines that we always follow. I don't quite understand Fmph's complaint here, nobody need go through any bureaucratic process to achieve a reasonable result--no secondary school article ever need or should be taken to AfD, for the result is 100% predictable, and all primary school articles can be redirected boldly, unless someone actually wants to make a case for an exceptional one. It's questioning this process that will cause endless bureaucracy, because then every school article of any sort will lead to an AfD discussion. The more things we get out of AfD the better, so we can spend the effort discussing the things that really do need discussing 8in order to form or clareify a consensus. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder whether perhaps it may be slightly less than accurate to say that the result is 100% predictable. Many editors have asserted what the well-settled consensus is, but even this week we have had a variety of opinions expressed at AfDs similar to this one, and different closes. Given the range of opinions expressed just this week as to similar AfDs (ranging from keep to delete to redirect to merge), and the range of closes just this week of similar AfDs (from delete to redirect to merge), and given that even this week editors have disagreed as to what our "well-settled" policy is, I think we might benefit from writing into our notability guideline precisely what our consensus is. That would help matters, and if it is well-settled it should be something we can do without a problem -- though I've heard from some editors that they fear that our lack of consensus on it would lead to us not being able to add it to our other, similar notability criteria that are reflected in subject-specific guidelines..--Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems clear that there are varying opinions and preferences about schools so that general consensus cannot be found for this topic. What's not clear is why schools are such a battleground when they are generally quite respectable. My impression is that it's because few editors actually like schools as a topic. Everyone thinks they are an expert because they all went to school themselves. But the topic does not attract enthusiastic fans in the way of topics such as cabbages and kings, let alone Doctor Who and football. My impression is that the schools project is now run largely by haters who are constantly at loggerheads with advocates and old boys of particular schools. There seem to be few editors who take in an interest in education as a general field and so such topics are comparatively neglected. Warden (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course entitled to an opinion. But it's just that - an opinion. I certainly don't recognise your characterisation of editors in general being anti-schools. I have personally spent quite a bit of time and effort bring a bunch of local secondary schools up to scratch. At the same time I have merge and redirected numerous local primaries. that's cos I abide by consensus which is generally to either delete or redirect most primaries. What I've noticed is many editors with particular attachments to individual schools to the extent that they display severe ownership characteristics, and object strongly to their little favourites (despite such articles having virtually nil content of note) being merged and redirected. These may or may not be old boys and girls. Who knows. And I know I'm not the only one. And if we didnt have to waste time trying to implement consensus against the recalcitrant few, we might actually be in danger to improving the paedia. Fmph (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to Shipley, West Yorkshire per usual practice. An Ofsted report does not establish notability because every primary school in England has one (by law) and consensus is not in favour of the idea that all primary schools are notable. I cannot find better sources, hence this school is not notable. Hut 8.5 20:48, 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 redirect to Harrogate#Education. The consensus (delete + redirect !votes) is against the existence of an article about the subject. No convincing objections have been raised to redirection as an acceptable alternative to deletion. So redirect it is. Mkativerata (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rossett Acre[edit]

Rossett Acre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This topic appears to be notable as it is documented in detail in "reliable independent sources" such as this. Our editing policy is to keep such topics. Warden (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • England and Wales have over 16,000 maintained Primary Schools. All of them have to have an Ofsted report. The presence of such a report is not evidence of notability. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of why this school is actually notable. A search of the net provides next to zero coverage that could be used to grant notability. Ofsted report is produced by virtue of the school existing and is not a demonstration of notability. In reality it contains very little useful material for an article. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It certainly exists, but then so do I, and I don't have a WP article. Notability not established.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Marton, Harrogate. The clear consensus (delete plus redirect plus merge) is that an article on this school is not warranted. As the redirect/merge suggestion is reasonable and no convincing argument has been given why it would not be a reasonable alternative to deletion, the result shall be a redirect. Editors are free to merge content from the school article (viewable in its history) to the redirect target. Mkativerata (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marton-Cum-Grafton Primary School[edit]

Marton-Cum-Grafton Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The topic is notable per WP:GNG as it is documented in detail in independent, reliable sources such as this. Our editing policy is to keep such topics. Warden (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim as to why this school is notable. Other than possibly being the shortest article on Wikipedia ever, I cant find anything to grant it notability. Ofsted Report linked above is produced by virtue of the school existing and isn't a demonstration of notability. In reality there isn't much of value in the report that could be used in the article. The more of those reports I read, the more convinced I become that a substantial proportion of each report is actually automatically generated by a computer Pit-yacker (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amongst many details, that report tells us that the school is free from bullying; that the pupils behave especially well; that they share ideas with confidence; that they listen to others with interest; that they are very polite and learn with enthusiasm. How very different from what happens here... Warden (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and unless these points are quoted verbatim in context, what meaning do they really carry? For example, out of the context of this report and other Ofsted reports how do we measure behaviour? Pit-yacker (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ofsted reports are authoritative - they determine and define the quality of the school for official purposes and seem to be taken seriously by everyone else. They are thus superior to arbitrary journalism and vested interests as sources. They are the best possible source and so it is a nonsense to say that they are inadmissable. Warden (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You side stepped my point. I also didn't say they are inadmissible. What I am saying is that without any other significant coverage, it is impossible to write a good article. That is probably half the reason we have policies requiring wide ranging coverage? I am also saying that I think text in Ofsted reports needs to be used with extreme care. Yes, the report mentions that the pupils are well behaved. However, outside the context of this report and the wider Ofsted inspection system, I think care needs to be taken as to how that is used such that we don't misrepresent what the inspectors were trying to say or mean. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established. An OFSTED report proves that the school exists, it doesn't establish notability. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's like saying that the Racing Post doesn't establish notability for a race horse. It is nonsense because Her Majesty's Inspector's are the experts in this topic - they spend days at the school studying it and then writing it up. What better source could we possibly have? And what policy do you derive your bizarre theory from or did you just make it up? Warden (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OFSTED are legally obliged to write reports for every school in England. I don't think that every school in England is automatically notable.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this legal obligation arises because the powers-that-be decided that this is important information which should be made public. The BBC report such details as do other news organisations such as The Northern Echo. All these various authorities and media consider that this school is of some significance. Who are you to decide differently? You have written dozens of articles about horses such as Raven's Pass. Personally, I am not the slightest bit interested in any of these horses — they seem of little significance outside of racing and betting circles. What is your policy basis for saying that short-lived horses are in but a school which has existed for over 150 years and educated thousands of pupils is out? Warden (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify: An OFSTED report does not make a school notable, as all schools have OFSTED reports. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, schools for less than 5 pupils or for adults would be outside the scope of Ofsted inspection of this sort. And, of course, schools outside England and Wales. School inspection is obviously an expensive service - Ofsted costs about £250M per year - and so is reserved for cases which are considered significant, i.e. notable. Warden (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acccording to the Guardian [2] the smallest school in England is Holy Island Church of England First School. It has an Ofsted report.[3] Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably they are just talking about registered schools. There are large numbers of trade schools, language schools, tutoring services, Sunday schools &c. which would not be so registered. Warden (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? The concept of a "Sunday School" being treated as a real school really is hilarious. This isn't the nineteenth century (where the only education many children got was Sunday School) any more you know? Pit-yacker (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Here's a current example of an active Sunday school which has many features of a school - governors, headmistress &c. It is not inspected by Ofsted. Warden (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this comes to the point below - just because you attach the term school to something doesn't mean its a school in the terms most people would understand. Many churches have "Sunday schools" with "teachers", "classes", "head teachers" and committees. However, in some cases these "teachers" have little or no qualification beyond GCSE, let alone a qualification to "teach". In reality they aren't schools as most people would understand them - they aren't giving a formal education of any description and they aren't a substitute for a formal education. In the better cases they are more akin to private study groups, in the worse cases they are informal baby-sitting services. Whilst the lack of information makes it difficult to assess, the school you give appears to fall into the former category.Pit-yacker (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT, your point is slightly misleading. Ofsted only covering England and Wales has more to do with the UK's slightly quirky constitutional make-up, than factors such as notability or cost. Schools in Scotland come under the remit of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, which provides the equivalent function to Ofsted. Pit-yacker (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wales is separate now too, as is Northern Ireland. And other countries and states have their own particular arrangements. The point is that not all schools have Ofsted reports as Tigerboy claims. Warden (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually said "every school in England" see above.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And so, given the bizarre ageism which seems to abound in this area, we would presume notability for that institution, even though it is not inspected in the same thorough way by Ofsted. The age of pupils seems to have nothing sensible to do with notability and so should be dismissed as a reason to delete. Warden (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the point is that the "London School of English" it is not what is called a "school" in common British usage. Ofsted also has no authority over driving schools, card schools or schools of fish. Or is that "speciesism". Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it's a school. It has teachers, it has classes, it educates, &c. It is officially accredited in various ways but it's just not within the parameters of Ofsted. Warden (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Run of the mill is just an essay not a policy. An Ofsted report is significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. There's nothing there about routine or government agency so you're just making things up. Warden (talk) 08:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • England and Wales have over 16,000 maintained Primary schools. Every one of them has an Ofsted report. That makes it routine.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Fmph (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to Marton, Harrogate as is normal for articles on non-notable schools. An OFSTED report does not establish notability because OFSTED is legally obliged to inspect all schools in England (for pedants, Section 5 of the Education Act 2005 obliges the Chief Inspector to inspect "every school in England to which this section applies", namely community, foundation and voluntary schools, community and foundation special schools, maintained nursery schools, academies, city technology colleges, city colleges for the technology of the arts, and certain other special schools). Warden's examples of entities with "school" in the name which are not inspected by OFSTED do not change this point. If we allowed OFSTED reports to confer notability then every school in England would be notable, something which is clearly outside previous consensus. Hut 8.5 16:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to Marton, Harrogate as is normal for articles on non-notable schools, and as Hut 8.5 says.
  • merge or redirect I'm a little surprised at the argument from my good friend the col., proposing that a routine bureaucratic report is sufficient for notability DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My argument is policy-based, deriving from WP:GNG and WP:PRESERVE. There seems to be no logical difference in principle between these inspection reports and other sources upon which we base articles such as census returns and book reviews. They are not routine in that such detailed independent reports are not commonly published for libraries, say. That's because libraries are not as important as schools in public life and so millions of pounds are not spent inspecting them and publishing the results. Warden (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every state school in England gets an Ofsted report every three years or so, and sometimes with interim reports. The reports basically state: "This school has classrooms, teachers, and students, and should do better at [...] and is graded X". It establishes the existence of the school but not uniqueness or notability for anything in particular. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The key word in WP:GNG is significant in the term "...significant coverage...". An Ofsted report per se is not significant, although it may in some circumstances be significant where it establishes evidence of uniqueness or notability. Fmph (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with Ofsted reports being used as sources. But they do not establish notability, for the reasons explained above. And I don't think I would get an article on my great-grandfather saved on the grounds that he was mentioned in the census returns of 1881, 1891 and 1901 (Multiple RS!) Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ofsted reports certainly establish uniqueness — they provide the Unique Reference Number and other particular attributes of the school such as its location and head. By grading the school and reporting on its performance in detail, they provide much material for our articles. This is what is required for significance which "means that sources address the subject directly in detail". The trouble with the nay-sayers here is that they think that words like notability and significance mean that topics should be special — unusual, exciting, extraordinary, &c. But they don't and the guideline makes this clear by saying "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity...". And that's why we have articles like Calomarde, Aragon - a place of 73 inhabitants - fewer than the number of pupils in this school. To discriminate against this school as a topic when there are substantial, independent sources which cover it in detail is contrary to numerous policies: WP:CENSOR, WP:NPOV, WP:PRESERVE. And there is no policy-based argument for deletion - not one. Uniqueness is not a policy. Mundaneness is not a policy. Personal preference is not a policy. Warden (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting that there should be an article on every one of the 21,398 primary schools in the UK? Are they all unique beyond their URN? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we should have an article for every one of them, just as we expect to have an article for every Polish village (about 150,000 settlements ) or every type of fungus (about 1,500,000 species). As this is the English Wikipedia then English schools are a far more relevant topic to its readership than clathrus treubii or Kami-Katsura Station. Warden (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds remarkably POINTy to me... Consensus has determines that primary schools are non-notable unless they fulfil the GNG, which this clearly doesn't. If you disagree, take it up at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies), which is the appropriate guideline for schools. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:45, 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 redirect to Sham Shui Po. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 07:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis of Assisi's English Primary School[edit]

St. Francis of Assisi's English Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as the usual way of handling it. Contrary to what was said just above, redirection for primary schools, or anything else that lacks notability but is worth mentioning, is firmly established policy, as a basic part of WP:Deletion Policy, that if there is an alternative to deletion, it should be taken. In the case of schools, this particular action is very firmly established also by years of absolutely consistent decisions at AfD, which is as much a guideline as if it were written down as such. And, of course we do not even need a guideline or policy to take the obvious course for handling something--that;s one of our foundational principles. The guideline we follow for primary schools is that they are not notable, in general. That there are a few people who think they are all notable regardless does not affect the acceptance of the guideline, because we never decide on that basis. When we do keep one here, it's because of special characteristics. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in agreement that a redirect is fine here, if that is the consensus at this AfD. I don't see anything RS-supported in the text to warrant keeping any text via merger of the text into the article that this is re-directed to. In similar AfDs of late, we have had a range of !votes -- including keep, delete, merge, and redirect. And we have had varying closes. And a variety of assertions by different editors as to what our standard way of doing thing is. And even here we have different views expressed. Perhaps a notability guideline addition would help clarify these type AfDs.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the only varying closes we have had are for those primary schools were there is a speciual factor, which is asserted is enough to cause notability ; such will always come here, unless the school is famous enough that nobody doubts it. the various voices are people wording the standard a little differently, but meaning the same thing, or trying to challenge a standard. Are there any examples, of a primary school kept without there being some strong special factors? Given that the variation of AfD discussions is at least 10%--some would say double that-- that anything gets as much consensus as this does is extraordinary. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just this week I've seen varying closes for other reasons -- some have been delete without redirect, and some have been redirect, and some have been merge (without it being clear in some cases that only RS-supported material should be merged, which I would imagine would be the better course). Also, while some people may view a school being 100 or 150 years old as a special factor, other editors do not share that view. And our friend the Colonel and a couple of others have viewed the detailed bureacratic automatic report the same way we view the census for cities and town -- as sufficient to meet our notability standards, and confer notability ... though that view has not prevailed as of yet this week. And some editors think we treat schools that stop at grade 10 or 11 as high schools -- at least in certain countries -- and automatically keep them, while others think the "keep high schools" well-settled rule applies only to schools that have education through grade 12. For my part, my greatest concern is that we move forward in a consensus-driven manner; I care less whether we include grade 10 schools, than that we have people claiming that it is well-settled that we keep them, while others claim that it is well-settled that we do not. Perhaps a well-crafted clear notability guideline would be helpful, though some think our divisions (signs that matters are not well-settled?) are such that we could not pass one.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:33, 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. It was deleted by Fastily at 00:12, December 28, 2011 per CSD G3. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 00:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

Mariano Enrique Hernandez[edit]

Mariano Enrique Hernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure this is a real person or that the company he supposedly works for, TKT Productions, exists either. The only real coverage I can find after a modified Gsearch is this, which is about a Mario Enrique Hernandez. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 20:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete G3 (hoax). So tagged. I see no evidence of the claims in the articles here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 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 Elwood Union Free School District. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 07:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Avenue Primary School[edit]

Harley Avenue Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as usual Even the nom. accepts the redirect, which he couldhave done without even coming here. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the range of opinions expressed just this week as to similar AfDs, ranging from keep to delete to redirect to merge, and the range of closes just this week of similar AfDs (from delete to redirect to merge), and given that even this week editors have disagreed as to what our "well-settled" policy is, I think it appropriate to come here and let the community decide.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 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 redirect to Wantirna, Victoria. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan25 — 00:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wantirna Primary School[edit]

Wantirna Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:45, 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. Only objections are that sources exist, but others showed that none of the sources presented so far meet GNG's requirements of being both independent and significant. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Setsucon[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Setsucon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was deleted in 2007. The current version does not show any indiciation why it passes WP:EVENT.∞陣内Jinnai 19:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is now coverage, so what happened years ago isn't relevant to now. Anime News Network covers them in multiple articles. I find one college newspaper covering them. Other sources already in the article. Notable people in the industry have appeared there. Dream Focus 01:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notable people appear at many conventions, even small ones. Hell we had Johnny Depp at one of our local conventions.∞陣内Jinnai 08:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd like to note that one of the biggest sources on the page is "www.animecons.com/", a site that merely lists convention dates and listings. Even the smallest and non-noteworthy of cons can get listed there, so I don't see where that would count as a reliable source at all. It's like listing IMDb as a source for various movies actors have been in. Other listings on the page include the con's forum (which can't be a reliable source) and a video blog that's released by a representative of the convention. Even if it wasn't, Vidgle appears to be the equivalent of YouTube and the videos aren't by anyone official or an official news entity. The listing on ANN [4] is a press release, not an article about the convention at all. There's nothing here that can be considered a reliable source out there. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Amend: There has been 1 RS review added.That is still not enough for the WP:GNG let alone WP:EVENT.∞陣内Jinnai 06:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In agreement this does not pass WP:EVENT. Jun Kayama 19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In agreement with Dream Focus's argument. This article now has many notable people attending it plus it is being covered by authorized sites on the subject such as ANN. The newspaper articles also seem legit. Idk what that "Vidgle" thing is that was pointed out earlier, but I guess it was removed. I see no reason why this page should not pass. It's a smaller convention, but it has good attendance. And appears to be growing. I say we keep the article for now and just keep it under watch, like the page for "Zenkaikon"--my home convention in Philadelphia. MoonlightWanderer90 (talk)MoonlightWanderer90 —Preceding undated comment added 08:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Here's the issues I have with the links as follows:
1) [5] This just says when the con happens. This site will list any con that gives their information to this site. This is little more than a press release.
2) [6] This is a college website and I'm not too sure how notable this particular college newspaper is.
3-4) These are links to animecons and only shows the dates the cons occurred. Existing and holding cons does NOT equate to notability. I can hold a party and put out press releases, but that does not give that party notability.
5) [7] This is just the forums for the convention. Not usable as a reliable source at all.
6-9) These link to information about OTHER cons and do not refer to Setsucon at all. Size does not equal notability either.
10) [8] This is a link to the same college newspaper as before. So far these are the only remotely reliable links and you need more than a college newspaper's reports of the convention.
11) [9] Setsucon is mentioned once, briefly in the article. It is not about Setsucon at all. Setsucon is just mentioned as an example. It cannot be used even as a trivial source.
12) Doesn't mention Setsucon at all.
13) [10] This is a list of events for Otakon. Doesn't mention Setsucon at all and besides, it's just a press release.
14) [11] This is a page from the Otakon website. Does not mention Setsucon at all.
15-17) Here are more press releaseson from animecons.com. STILL not reliable sources that show notability.
18) [12] Another link to the Setsucon forums. Still not usable as a reliable source.
19-20) These are both links to the Setsucon website. Not usable as a reliable source showing notability.

None of these links are usable as far as notability proving goes and I'm surprised that people are claiming that they are. The only ones that seem remotely usable are the college papers and we need more than just a college newspaper giving two reports of the con. There's no notability here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

  • Comment Has everyone seen all the sources that the other anime cons are using on Wikipedia? I think we're being a bit harsh in judgement. Examples: Anime Boston, PortConMaine, AnimeNEXT, They all cite AnimeCons.com for their numbers, because where else can you get those numbers from? Maybe from their own sites... But that's it. Even if ANN or someone big reports on it, it will just be noted as a "press release." ... I'm claiming the same notability for sources as you, tokyogirl79, but I just give those sources that do provide credibility more value (i.e. the newspaper articles and actually being noticed by ANN --meaning that they bothered to appear at their con and review it) . Of course the writers of this wiki need to cite the con's website and some direct material. But you kind of need to, though. How else do you prove that something exists then by citing the event itself? I guess what I would like to see is more substance taken from the newspaper articles and have some extraneous info taken out. Then, I think it could be a nice little article. It has a lot of potential in my opinion.MoonlightWanderer90 (talk)MoonlightWanderer90 —Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    • Reply - The state of other articles is not under discussion here. Those other conventions may also be non-notable and possibly be deleted to. Simply claiming that press releases and directory entries impart notability does not make it so. I too would like to see more substance taken from newspaper articles. The problem here is that is no such coverage with which to develop the article. If there are such newspaper articles, I am unable to find them, and nobody else has provided any either. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's a big difference between a news source reporting on a convention and a press release. A news source reporting on a convention is where they write their own piece about a convention. A press release is something that is written up by the convention president/managers and their press division and then handed to the news to run. A press release is not written by Anime News Network, nor is it written by AnimeCons.com. AnimeCons.com just reports the data that is handed to them. The issue heere is that people are trying to use it as a reliable source that shows notability and it's not and can't be used in that aspect. What bothers me about people trying to say that ANN wrote about Setsucon is that really, they didn't. It's mentioned once, as a one sentence piece where they mention convention panels. It's not about Setsucon at all and they were only used as an example. It can't even be used as a trivial source. It's like Russell Brand saying that he likes bacon flavored olives once in an article where he talks predominantly about his new movie, then someone trying to use that as a reference for an article about bacon flavored olives. The only things I find on ANN about Setsucon are press releases that are sent directly to ANN from Setsucon itself. As far as writing a real article about Setsucon, ANN has done no such thing. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • There are 63 results at Anime News Network [13]. They think it is notable enough to mention when it is happening, and who will be there. A lot of the results seem to be pres releases, but still, if they weren't notable, then the Anime News Network wouldn't publish those. Dream Focus 15:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Can you point out which of those represents significant indpendent coverage? A vague wave of the hand saying that an abundance of search results must indicate notability is not one of the criteria that satisifies any of our notability guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. We still need reliable sources to show that it's notable and press releases, no matter how many there are, is not really a show of notability. It could just mean that Setsucon has a very good press department that is diligent in forwarding press releases to various offices. Web hits, whether it's on google or on ANN, does not bestow notability no matter what the number because if it is truly notable then you'll have multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the con's publicity team. (IE, that they write their own stories instead of publishing press releases for the con.) I hate to sound obstinate, but this needs more than just press releases and college newspapers. Most conventions aren't notable enough to be on here, unfortunately. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Is there anything gained by deleting this article? Whether or not a newspaper reporter cares about something enough to write about it, isn't really a good way to judge things as notable. That's why the guidelines are suggestions, not absolute rules. Wikipedia is not a moot court or a bureaucracy. WP:BURO A conventions seen as notable enough by those in the industry for them to appear there every year, is clearly notable. Dream Focus 17:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is something to be gained. We keep Wikipedia from being cluttered with articles about non-notable subjects. Otherwise, why bother with a notability guidelines at all. Notability isn't established by the presence of notable individuals who are generally paid to make an appearance. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The lack of independent coverage is evident. This article is borderline WP:SPIP and Tokyogirl79 has a solid case. Nothing is served by making this a stand-alone article in its own right. Jun Kayama 17:53, 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 redirect to Education in Ahmedabad. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 07:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harivallabh Kalidas Primary School[edit]

Harivallabh Kalidas Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as we l always do for primary schools in the absence of special factors for notability. No reason to even bring these to AfD . DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 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. If someone wants a userfied copy, let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Uninvited Ancestors[edit]

The Uninvited Ancestors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no reliable sources for this film and I can't prove that it was even released. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy back to author until such time as it is completed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy until more sources are available to show notability. The movie looks like it'd be awesome, but we have no reliable sources to show notability and the only one on the page is for a blog.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) HurricaneFan25 — 00:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gray charter school[edit]

Gray charter school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nice work on the article so far! However, elementary and middle schools usually do not warrant their own article. Per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools, "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia." -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 18:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to be clear, per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools, I vote for Merge/Redirect. See my discussion with the author of the article here-- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 19:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • After further research, I think Keep is appropriate here. I did not realize how significant a Blue Ribbon award was when I nominated the article. I will do some work to clean the article up. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 21:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn and StB's cleanup. Merge/redirect per consensus on nearly all primary schools. tedder (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while I agree that the overwhelming majority of primary schools should be redirected, the school does have a claim of notability as a Blue Ribbon school and based on the circumstances of its establishment, as documented here among many other sources online and in print. The article needs to be renamed and drastically reworked, but there is a credible claim of notability here that makes this school stand out from others that I agree should be merged/redirected to a district/local article. Alansohn (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The school has a clear claim to notability, having won a Blue Ribbon award. Warden (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Hrm, I may have been a bit overeager with my WP:AFD here, but I'm not fully convinced yet. It looks like about 300 schools a year win the Blue Ribbon Award. Nevertheless, I've added an additional citation to the article about the award. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 21:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the update to the article; I've added some additional material to flesh out the article and am only more convinced that there might be some merit to retention in this case, unlike most others. Alansohn (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article meets notability guidelines, and has improved source material. Terrific job to all that expanded it. Tinton5 (talk) 03:13, 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. I'm going to delete this, then selectively undelete just the two edits by Lenticel to preserve the attribution history for the dab page. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women's League[edit]

Women's League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, only lasted 3 years, no assertion of notability made in the article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete, as pwer the above.Bandn (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short-lived, non-notable organisation. It existed, that's about all you can say in its favour. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to Dab There's a lot of Women's League articles here in Wikipedia and this entry is a plausible redirect to them all. I've added a disambiguation entry below the article although the list could grow longer. --Lenticel (talk) 05:02, 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) HurricaneFan25 — 00:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akihisa Ikeda[edit]

Akihisa Ikeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferced BLP article since 2009. A a google RS search for Akihisa Ikeda and 池田晃久 do not turn up any RSes that are not manga reviews. The manga author is also famous for only 1 work, Rosario + Vampire.∞陣内Jinnai 18:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The New York Times list this person is having a best selling manga on their charts. [14] Manga-news is a reliable site, and it gives high marks to his works(click Google news archive search at top of AFD). And Anime News Network lists just how many times he has been on the bestseller's list. [15] Whether or not a notable manga creator decides to give interviews, doesn't determine their notability. Also, when you are published in one magazine, you aren't going to get interviews in others. You have to go by common sense on these sorts of things. Dream Focus 17:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps I am misinterpreting it, but it seems WP:AUTHOR considers a person notable even if he or she has created only one famous work. I also think the fact the one work in this case has been adapted in multiple media (anime, game, CD) fits the third criteria of a work that has been the subject of secondary works. Michitaro (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If anything this article needs to be rewritten in line with the JP Wikipedia page for the artist. [16]. Non-review interview is here [17]. He is not a talento so it is not reasonable to expect him to have numerous interviews in JP media. Grounds for inclusion in EN Wikipedia are covered above, with exception for last comment by Dream Focus. Having a series contract with Shueisha would not prevent the artist from holding interviews with JP or foreign periodicals. Jun Kayama 19:49, 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 deleted by Fastily as "(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)". Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ebube Chukwurah[edit]

Ebube Chukwurah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Complete lack of verifiability that anything in this article is related (or relevant) to Ebube Chukwurah or that Ebube Chukwurah even exists. This was originally pointed out on May 25th, 2010, at which point the name got exactly 7 Google results; Wikipedia mirrors and social media have raised this to 437 results since then, but none of them are reliable sources. It also fails notability guidelines. It should also be pointed out that practically all information on the subject was added by a single user, Bargainocean, whose sole contribution to Wikipedia is creating and editing that article. There are four sources given in the article:

  • Jan U. Pinborough and Barbara J. Clarke, The Miracle of Change, Lihona, June 1996, which I found at [18]. I'm not sure what part of the section relies on this source (couldn't find any relevant connections), but either way, this one fails WP:NOTRELIABLE for being an article from a church newspaper about how religion changed Florence Chukwurah (supposedly Ebube's mother)'s life. Even if it were reliable, all it does is prove Florence exists. Worse than that, the end of the article states Florence has two sons, Emeka and Uchenna. As the article was written well after 1985 (according to the article the year Ebube was born), this would imply this Florence is not the mother of Ebube (bar special circumstances like adoption, which aren't mentioned anywhere). This article therefore seems completely unrelated to Ebube Chukwurah.
  • Kevin Clawson, Reach the Children, http://www.reachthechildren.org/about/board_of_directors2.cfm?pagetitle=Board%20of%20Directors. This one helpfully gives a link, but all it does is confirm that Christopher N. Chukwurah, supposedly Ebube's father, exists. There is no source confirming this Christopher is actually Ebube's father or in any other way related to this article.
  • Deseret News, Quorum of the Seventy, April 6, 1997. Found it at [19]. Confirms that a man named Christopher N. Chukwurah is a 'former member of the Quorum of the Seventy of the LDS Church'. Relation to the Christopher from the previous source is unknown, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt. Still does not say anything about Ebube.
  • Idaho State University, March 3, 2010. I was unable to find this source. It apparently confirms that Ebube attended Idaho State University at one point, which could finally confirm at least that this man named 'Ebube Chukwurah' exists. Regardless, even if it contained a detailed 100-page description of his time at Idaho university, it doesn't prove more in this article than the half sentence stating he's attended the Idaho State University.

We are lacking sources on the following issues:

  • Whether or not Ebube actually exists (unless the fourth source is found).
  • Ebube's birth date.
  • Ebube being an American.
  • Ebube originally being from Nigeria.
  • Ebube being a businessman or entrepreneur.
  • Ebube being the son of Florence and Christopher Chukwurah.
  • Bargain Ocean Marketing Inc existing.
  • Bargain Ocean Marketing Inc being a company that 'has a worldwide business reach and provides logistics and consulting services to a worldwide clientele utilizing the Vehicle of the internet to minimize overhead associated with its competitors'.
  • Ebube being CEO of this company.
  • Ebube attending Brigham Young University in Utah.
  • Ebube pursuing a degree in Economics.
  • Ebube owning several other businesses.
  • Ebube being involved in numerous entrepreneurial ventures.
  • Ebube having made numerous contributions to businesses around the globe.
  • Ebube having exceptional talent in business.
  • The man in the photograph being Ebube.

Unless these statements are sourced (especially the ones regarding his actual existence), we have no information on Ebube whatsoever, in which case I feel this article should be deleted. VDZ (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there seems almost no evidence of notability here. Worse, User:Bargainocean looks very likely to be both in COI on this article (for instance, LinkedIn says Chukwurah is Chairman at Bargain Ocean Marketing), and falls foul of the rule that WP usernames may not be corporate group names. Looks like pure business self-promotion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to International Conservation Caucus Foundation#Conservation Council of Nations. though there is little participation in the AfD, the redirect seemssuch an obvious solution that I see no need to relist DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation Council of Nations[edit]

Conservation Council of Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

recently speedily deleted under A7 and quickly recreated with no improvement. Taking to AFD. No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Only references are from primary sources. RadioFan (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Worth noting that the article creator and only editor has disclosed a COI on the article's talk page RadioFan (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to International Conservation Caucus Foundation#Conservation Council of Nations. I am unable to locate significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. The sole information I have been able to locate outside of job recruitment notices and primary sources focuses on a couple of celebrations of the launch of the organization. The org's website states that they brought "together global leaders in conservation at the opening of the U.N. General Assembly", however, I have not been able to verify this claim through independent sources. Nothing in any printed reports, archives, or news reports of the press or the archives of the United Nations. No books, magazines, newspapers, or journals. The most information that turns up about this organization is on their own website and that of ICCF. While it appears that notability may be forthcoming, I see nothing at this time. It appears that this article was created as an attempt to merely promote awareness of the initiative, as developed by ICCF. However, independent notability is not yet established. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 13:07, 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. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of Zelda Timeline[edit]

Legend of Zelda Timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:NOTPLOT and WP:NOR (there is no official timeline for Zelda except the release of games. There are a few remarks by officials and lots of speculation out there) and even if sources found WP:UNDUE given that it even if RSes are found for this timeline, other sources will contradict it. ∞陣内Jinnai 17:57, 27 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) 18:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, there are other sources that contradict that timeline. Saying we should just completely ignore those or mention them as a minor statement when there are far more of them even by RSes gives WP:UNDUE weight to that timeline simply because it has the stampt of "official". Wikipedia isn't here to be a corperate promoter.∞陣内Jinnai 19:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh snap, that is a damn insightful comment. Once you've forced your product into popular culture, you don't get to control how it's perceived. BTW, I don't know if a useful article full of real-world perspective can be made with this name, but this one is clearly not helpful. Delete. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Ah, I get it! I assumed that this came from this (mainly because it looked copypasted and that it said "The Legend of Zelda Wiki" on top and "This Wiki is in progress" on the bottom), but now I think I understand a bit better about the background. Basically, the "official timeline" has nothing to do with this article; instead, nearly all of the content was in fact copypasted from the plot sections of all of our Zelda game articles. Please compare:
While the "Timeline" section is not copied from anywhere, it's completely unreferenced and looks like some conclusions someone came to after analyzing all the plotlines or possibly from looking at the new "official timeline" that surfaced. In any case, this is likely original research.
I still stand by my recommendation for deletion, as there is nothing being added here that we don't already have. Given the new information from the "official timeline" and the discussions that have been ongoing at Talk:The Legend of Zelda (including quite a few calls that the "Chronology" section needs to be rewritten), any developments that come forth from the official timeline should be directed there. --MuZemike 22:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More of a discussion for Template talk:The Legend of Zelda. One can say that it already is in chronological order, i.e. in the order in which all the games were released; that might still be preferable over rearranging the games in the navbox in "plot order". --MuZemike 01:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not only is this unsourced but Nintendo in fact did recently release an actual timeline and it directly contradicts the content of this article.[20]. One example would be that the timeline in the article has no time splits while the newly release timeline by Nintendo has 3. So not only is this article violating WP:OR the content is verifiablbly wrong so a merge is not necessary. A redirect to the series article to a section mentioning the new official timeline however may be a good idea.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Revised vote, see info below.) Keep - An official timeline has been released now. So, rather than deleting this, it should be re-written using that, removing any unsourced info, original research, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 22:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We aren't here as corperate promoters.∞陣内Jinnai 22:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • At no point was anything like that said or inferred (by me anyways.) I'm just saying an official source now exists out there. The official source can be used to weed out the other sources that people claim contradict each other. Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to clarify and say that I like the idea of this article. It's actual state is quite terrible right now. But I keep by "keep" stance; an article of this could exist, the sources are out there. Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that everything in the article right now is either copypasta or OR. Even if you wanted a completely separate article on a timeline, you would have to completely start over. --MuZemike 01:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. In addition to what you said above, I was under the impression that this was some sort of long-running, long-debated article. (Not sure if I'm thinking of a different timeline article or what.) This was created a week or two ago, merely by copy-pasting from some wikia or something. No thought or work put into it. I still think that an article like this could exist, but I now believe we'd/they'd be better off deleting this mess, and recreating it from scratch, if that were to happen. Sergecross73 msg me 03:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this equates to a vote of "Delete without prejudice", which I agree with. Maybe there could be a decent article here, discussing the real-world debate from reliable sources, etc., but this ain't it. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 03:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator's rationale. There's no extensive coverage of the topic in reliable source, so it's not notable and doesn't deserve a stand-alone article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:03, 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. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fosfomycin/tobramycin[edit]

Fosfomycin/tobramycin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Each individual medication already has its own article. I don't think it is worthwhile to have another article devoted to the combination of the two medications, especially when this article merely describes the properties of each individual medication. Any relevant information about the combination of the two drugs can be added to the articles about each drug. —SW— spill the beans 17:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with OP that until this drug combo is approved and marketed for CF, it doesn't need its own article. JFW | T@lk 19:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Such an article is similar to Fluticasone/salmeterol. It being new doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is not notable. Should an article be made for every single possible combination? No, but this is being trialed as its own medication entirely. The information is lacking but it is still notable in my opinion. I believe the same reason for the previous example and others like Budesonide/formoterol is that the information regarding the combination could end up on both articles separately, and its easier and more appropriate to discuss the combination on its own article. | pulmonological talk • contribs 06:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between this article and the two examples you've given is that those two examples are extremely popular medications which are marketed under trade names and sell billions of dollars per year. The medication we're discussing here is (correct me if I'm wrong) in trials, is not currently marketed under a trade name, and is not currently for sale anywhere. What if the trial fails, will this combination of drugs still be notable? Do we have an article for every combination of two medications which has undergone trials and failed? To say that this combination of medications will eventually get out of trials and be sold would be WP:CRYSTAL. I'd have no prejudice against recreating this article if it is successfully trialed and begins selling. —SW— soliloquize 17:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I have a more relaxed view of notability than you. I would not be opposed to articles about drugs that have successfully made it through the trials this has. I consider this article notable, and if it fails then that would be more information to add to article regarding its failure after so many successes. In my view, wikipedia would more than likely be the article a person who heard about this medication would find if they were trying to discover its status, whether it be failed or passed or currently in trial with success. I don't mean to insinuate a giant list of articles with just rejected statuses, but those with success that suddenly fail, its not necessary to split that information to become more difficult to find. I like the idea that (within reason) people are able to easily find relevant and free information regarding the life, the universe, and everything. | pulmonological talk • contribs 16:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I just need more information about the state of this drug. At first, you said the medication is in trials, then later you implied that it has successfully completed the trials. Which is it? If this medication is completely out of the trial stage and is being prepared for commercial production, then I agree the article should stay. If there is still a chance that it will not make it out of trials and will never be a commercially available drug, then I think it is too early for this article. Disclaimer: I don't claim to know anything about this combination of drugs, nor am I even remotely an expert on anything pharmacological. —SW— gossip 17:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has successfully completed phase 1 and phase 2. The only remaining trial is phase 3 which is the "Therapeutic Confirmatory" phase. I mean't to imply that if a drug has made it through the development phases all the way to the final confirmatory phase it would be wise to include. Since by this point the drug has garnered enough media attention (however minuscule) to (in my opinion) have an article about its status, history and usage and its eventual approval or rejection. Wikipedia is looked to for an explanation of literally everything and the people who are hopeful about these drugs that they hear are "having successes in trials" should have an article to read to help them educate themselves. At least in my opinion. | pulmonological talk • contribs 17:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it is treated as a separate medicinal preparation in its own right, or a fixed combination therapy proposed as a standard, it's appropriate for an article. Mixtures can be as notable as individual chemicals DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Girnet[edit]

Andrei Girnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a hoax, but even if accurate, the article fails our notability guidelines; WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Article was proposed for deletion but creator contested without explanation. Jogurney (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - almost definitely a hoax, and even if it isn't, this person is not notable by any standards. GiantSnowman 17:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - G3 elidgible in my opinion. If not, the article clearly fails all notability criteria. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Rail services in Bristol. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan25 — 00:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Bristol Metro scheme[edit]

Greater Bristol Metro scheme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a place for failed transport schemes which is what this is. Given that no further progress has been made I suggest that the article is deleted and merged into Public transport in Bristol Rail services in Bristol. Bob Re-born (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rail services in Bristol. This article is just about notable since there are quite a few articles about it in the media. However it is too small a subject to stand on its own unless it becomes a reality. ArfonOwen (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably a better merge target. --Bob Re-born (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have Bristol City Council or the Passenger Transport Executive (or any one else) secured the funding to enable this to be more than a pip-dream? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per ArfonOwen - but has this truly failed, or has the article just not been updated?
  • Keep, no valid reason for deletion has been provided. This is still an active proposal. Will provide further details within the next few days. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added cited material demonstrating that this proposal is still active. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Rail services in Bristol. Whether or not the scheme has been abandoned is not important, it's whether the scheme was notable when it was active that matters. FWIW, the fact that four local authorities are backing this scheme does mean we should take this project seriously, but there doesn't seem to be enough to say about this scheme at the moment to be worth a stand-alone article. If, however, it's a choice between a keep or delete, my preference is to keep. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- as Chris Neville-Smith. At present this is a case of pure WP:CRYSTAL, one of amy rapid transit schemes that have still to get beyond the drawing board and fund-raising publicity. We should not allow such articles until the scheme has secured government funding or (if privately funded) issued a public prospectus for share subscrtiptions. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 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 delete. Mkativerata (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Francis N'gokumu[edit]

Prince Francis N'gokumu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not play in a fully professional league. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources The-Pope (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan25 — 00:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aelita (album)[edit]

Aelita (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed prod. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:45, 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, v/r - TP 16:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Due to the sources found by Gongshow, which establish notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per substantial coverage from WP:RS sources that has been added. I've also added a quote from The Wire's review. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:12, 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 delete. LFaraone 22:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMP³rove[edit]

IMP³rove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article seems to promote a nonprofit initiative. Hard to determine at first glance if WP:GNG is met. Had been deleted as promotional by CSD, user requested undeletion at my talkpage. Syrthiss (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – I have read this several times and have not worked out what IMP³rove actually is. I see what it stands for, that it has a curriculum and various other properties, but what is it? Occuli (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 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, v/r - TP 16:20, 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 delete - deleted per CSD G3 by User:Fastily (non-admin closure). — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Domenicism[edit]

Domenicism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. I proposed this page for deletion with a rationale including "probable hoax", but the author assures me that it is a real movement. In any case, I cannot find any sources about it on Google Web, Google News, or Google Books, and it doesn't look like it passes our notability guideline. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The only link I provided is for De Broglie wavelength (line 5, paragraph 2, belief) because I could not interlink it with any wikipedia article. As for every other relevant thing mentioned there is an interlink. What I could not provide evidence for is the actual subject. Surely it would not be right to delete the article on the grounds of bureaucracy when it is evident that it would actually be very surprising to find articles (!!) about something born and spread exclusively in masonic lodges and only two years ago. Luxoculi (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't know whether or not this is a hoax but, if it is not, it is certainly not notable. I'm struggling to find sources which even mention the movement, never mind establish notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism. By the admission of the article's creator, it is unverifiable.  --Lambiam 19:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve - The article seems to be based on a neologism but at the same time the

writer does not seem to be a neologist. We must not get in the way of culture because of our own ignorance. Certainly if we knew about the movement we would not be against this entry. I say we keep it, if it is a hoax it will be easy to tell in the near future. Don't get demoralised Luxoculi (talk) 20:32, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Michig (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Girls with guns[edit]

Girls with guns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be WP:OR attempting to define a film genre. Many of the references are to http://www.girlswithguns.org, an individual's blog, or http://www.animeinfo.org, a defunct website. The reliable sources cited use the term literally rather than in reference to a recognized genre. A Google books search shows that the term is used to describe any cultural phenomena involving women and weapons. However it doesn't appear that any of these uses are well established in the literature. Pburka (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete / Rescue - really lacks a single solid reliably sourced cite to the claim that this is a 'sub-genre'. Cites appear to mostly be to a personal web site, a forum and a usenet FAQ. Other mentions are trivial and don't indicate that it's an actual recognised genre, rather than just an obvious descriptive label. Maybe someone could rescue this with a bit of work, and a google certainly suggests there's something to the concept/image/fetish that may be notable. But as a recognised film genre? Not established in the article at present. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Republican-American : Girls with Guns: Female Action Heroes... Republican-American - Feb 13, 2005 

   In the Girls with Guns genre, this element is often reversed. In Underworld ( 2003), a gun-toting female vampire must protect a hapless male from a pack of ...

   DVD Talk - Jul 22, 2003
   While the "girls with guns" genre had been a mainstay in HK film, movies like In the Line of Duty weren't too far a cry from the "guys with guns genre". ...
   Gunslinger Girl DVD 1 - Review - Anime News Network 
   ‎
   Anime News Network - Jun 10, 2005
   It's pretty clear what the creators of this series were trying to do: make a startling new variation on the “girls with guns” genre by treating that label ...

   Animation World Network - Jan 16, 2007
   COYOTE RAGTIME SHOW falls into the "Girls with Guns" genre. Sexy robot assassins tangle with two hot federal agents in a prison break that leaves dozens ...
   ADV Announces January 16 Releases - Anime News Network 
   ‎
   Anime News Network - Nov 17, 2006
   Nonstop action, super-smooth animation and cool character designs help Coyote Ragtime Show set a new high water mark for the “Girls with Guns” genre. ...
   activeanime.com | EL CAZADOR DE LA BRUJA COMPLETE SERIES … [
   ‎
   activeanime.com - Jan 31, 2010
   It helps set El Cazador apart and demonstrates that it is setting its own unique tone to the girls-with-guns genre. During their travels, many episodes are ...
   Orginal Dirty Pair - Movie Collection : DVD Talk Review of... 
   ‎
   DVD Talk - Nov 8, 2005
   Though they might not have been the first, Yuri and Kei soon became the poster children for the girls-with-guns genre, and their success allowed for other ...
   activeanime.com | ROSE HIP ROSE VOL.1 | Rose, Hip, Manga,... 
   ‎
   activeanime.com - May 13, 2008
   ... high school girl and a host of insane criminals and make it work so flawlessly. Highly recommended to action fans and fans of the girls with guns genre!
   Rumble Pak - Shelf Life - Anime News Network 
   ‎
   Anime News Network - Jan 21, 2008
   Part of the girls-with-guns genre, the series packs pure action with a lot of emotion, and raises a lot of moral questions regarding childhood and human ...
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn per references found by User:Dream Focus. I should have been able to find tho myself. Apologies all round. Pburka (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular talk 20:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pyaar Kii Ye Ek Kahaani[edit]

Pyaar Kii Ye Ek Kahaani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be the only contents of this article is the plot. Also, there are no reliable references Hallows AG (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Re-write - the article has been badly written, not easily understandable owing to its too long narative without any paragraphing or structured sections.--SubContinentalAnalyst (talk) 09:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing stopping you from rewriting this without it first being deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 14 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, Wifione Message 11:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Insufficient content beyond a plot, no reliable references, and being badly written are reasons to improve the article, not to delete it. It seems improvement is already underway. Gnome de plume (talk) 12:33, 27 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 - TP 16:03, 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. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melnyks Chinese[edit]

Melnyks Chinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Promotional page for an non-notable web site and podcast. Unreferenced, though there were some when prodded they were of very poor quality. A web search turns up nothing better. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 07:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider searching for Mandarin Chinese lessons with Serge Melnyk, and perhaps rename the article to that name. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulXX (talk • contribs) 08:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another podcast. Google search for alt names show itunes and facebook links, not enough for notability. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 08:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what do you mean "just another podcast"? You don't respect podcasts as a media and think since they are free, they are not notable? If you know how many people it helped, you wouldn't say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulXX (talk • contribs) 08:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This particular podcast is in top 10 language podcasts on iTunes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulXX (talk • contribs) 08:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So source it and make a that claim within the article. That will help to establish notability. But what we are really looking for is coverage in news sources. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 08:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, given that we can't seem to find any reliable sources for this, and it's of doubtful notability for the time being. Could have potential in the future though, I suppose.  dalahäst (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Keep, in light of the sources that have been added, and other edits that were made since this was listed.  dalahäst (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


What I type seems to disappear. Please search by another name. "Mandarin Chinese Lessons with Serge Melnyk" And Change the title to this name, if possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulXX (talk • contribs) 08:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Paul (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have added links to 3 articles, 2 from Global Times, 2 from China Daily--this is the news coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulXX (talk • contribs) 08:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep please. I've found and added the links from news coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulXX (talk • contribs) 08:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found articles:

Paul (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)— PaulXX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep. It's a remarkable podcast, notable in the community. http://www.chinese-forums.com/index.php?/topic/36009-listen-to-chinese-audio-lessons-w-pdf-transcripts-and-tons-of-dialogs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.42.183 (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC) — 70.79.42.183 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Weak Keep – Sources are difficult to find, but have been shown to be available. This article addresses the topic in detail. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources have been found giving ample coverage to this. Dream Focus 08:58, 27 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 - TP 15:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reliable sources added mean this should be kept, but there should be inline citations created from the sources. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:16, 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 keep. LFaraone 22:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Keilitz[edit]

Craig Keilitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual, only referenced from primary sources. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)Talk 18:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Not sure what the litmus test for athletic directors is, but my gut feeling is that the man is just not sufficiently notable. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not pass WP:BIO. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I couldn't find the entry for gut feelings in our guidelines, nor did I see how BIO isn't passed. We don't have guidelines for ADs, so we can go by the normal policy: GNG. I just added some references to the article, of which this is probably the strongest. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 27 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 - TP 15:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sources Drmies provided do establish notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't want to close it; I think it was a close one when I saw it, and it still is, though now on the keep side. Thanks for weighing in. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 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. While the article when nominated failed to show notability, sources clearly indicative of notability were produced during the discussion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 06:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'97 Bonnie & Clyde[edit]

'97 Bonnie & Clyde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. I am proposing that this article redirect to The Slim Shady LP. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it needs expansion. Not a very well written article as it currently stands, but it does have information about the Tori Amos cover and some background on the song itself. Many album tracks do have their own articles, and this is a big-selling album by a notable and controversial artist. --Fightingirish (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first google books result alone has 7 or 8 pages on this song. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no Google Books reference on this page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not understand "the first google books result"? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not understand there is only one reference and it is not Google Books? Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources. If the article can be fixed through normal editing... i forget how the rest of that one goes. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 03:09, 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, v/r - TP 03:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree it's not very well written and definitely needs more than one source for the entire article. If nothing can be provided to help substantiate the article, a Redirect to either The Slim Shady EP or The Slim Shady LP would be appropriate. AlphaSur (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that this constitutes "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. Brief mentions of the song in one or two news articles and analysis of lyrics of, apparently, all of Eminem's songs in a book is not close to the level of coverage Wikipedia topics should be getting. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:NSONG, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:22, 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, v/r - TP 15:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSONG, has this impacted any music chart? Have any music critic(s) establishes its notability or importance to Eminem's career or to the rap/music world? Have the media picked up the song in their shows, movies or other promotional importance? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. For instance, Hasted has been music critic at The Independent for some 15 years [22], and Stubbs is perhaps one of the UK's better known music critics. A selection of his work for Melody Maker, Uncut and The Guardian can be found here: [23]. Both have written extensively about the track, in the process describing it as "notorious", "one of his most infamous", "deeply controversial", "the track critics zeroed in on", "appalling, thrilling, grossly unfair and brilliantly audacious" and "real-life dysfunction and the airing of lowlife laundry [which] sells big in the U.S." As you would expect from such descriptions, coverage is by no means limited to these two. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 03:55, 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. LFaraone 22:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs in the City[edit]

Pigs in the City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a marketed product of Uptown Lexington, Inc. and reads like an advert. Sources used are only local sources and do not establish notability. There are literally hundreds of thousands of annual local events and we cannot have an article on all of them. Short of national coverage, such events are not notable by Wikipedia standards. Yworo (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - For starters, this article was listed on the front page of Wikipedia in 2008 in a "Did you know?" segment (see the talk page) demonstrating it has already undergone administrative review. The lead photo was considered for photo of the day. The event has been mentioned in Kate Boehm Jerome's book North Carolina: What's So Great about This State? [24] and Charlotte and the State of North Carolina [25]. It has a 12 images accompanying it and is sufficiently referenced by reliable sources that are not from Lexington, but other cities in NC. No part of WP:N requires references are beyond a state border, and the articles scope meet or exceed the expectations of significant coverage. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, DYK is not in any way, shape, or form an "administrative review". It is done by regular editors who can approve each others submissions and typically only cares about the length of the new article and/or added material and whether the specific fact has a good citation. It is not a peer review, a good article review, or a featured article review, and cannot be relied on to review the whole article for notability. Yworo (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge , selectively to parent article on the Lexington. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Those references listed are either primary ones, mention the promotion only in passing or are stale links. RadioFan (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge unless there are sources from outside the area. This is overcoverage of local events. If better sources ever do appear, the article can be expanded. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If sufficient sources are added, keep as a separate article, much like CowParade, since (who knows?) other cities may copy this public art idea. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    or like Big Pig Gig. These are cultural events that might not make national headlines but are important parts of the regional culture. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per coverage in reliable sources, topic passes WP:GNG. Contrary to the nomination, there is no stipulation that "local sources" are disqualified to qualify topic notability:
  • Broughton Hodges, Vikki (May 18, 2009). "Uptown Lexington's Pigs in the City 5 unveiled". The Dispatch. Retrieved December 29, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Stiff, Bob (March 8, 2003). "It will be a sporktacular time, but these pigs need parents". The Dispatch. Retrieved December 29, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Broughton Hodges, Vikki (October 24, 2003). "Uptown Lexington to auction 'Pigs in the City' on Nov. 1". The Dispatch. Retrieved December 29, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Keesler, William (December 4, 2007). "Sooey! Call goes out for Pigs in the City IV sponsors". The Dispatch. Retrieved December 29, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • "'Pigs in the City' exhibit provides chance to discover downtown Lexington's appeal". The Dispatch. May 14, 2008. Retrieved December 29, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Edwards, Deneesha (May 19, 2008). "Pigs parade through town". The Dispatch. Retrieved December 29, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
—Northamerica1000(talk) 01:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment even with this coverage in the local newspaper, this subject can be adequately covered in the article on the town. It's just not notable enough for a dedicated article. I'm still !voting for a merge.--RadioFan (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It has coverage beyond the local newspaper (The Dispatch), where it is covered extensively. It has coverage in the Piedmont Triad and Metrolina areas by 3 major paper (cites now in article). These aren't exactly small cities, even if Lexington, the host to the event, is. It has been covered in at least one book as well. I get the fact that this isn't a major event, but that isn't the criteria. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Added to the article:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 02:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wouldn't call any of these sources a "major" newspaper. Nothing against them and they are certainly reasonable sources to use here but I maintain that this can be adequately covered in the town's article and should be merged there. It's a wonderful public art project but hardly groundbreaking and there is really not much else that can be written about it. It will fit nicely in the parent article. --RadioFan (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winston-Salem is a town of 229k people, Greensboro is 270k. Both are top 100 largest cities in the US (83rd and 69th). The Piedmont Triad area they belong to (and circulation reaches) is well over 1.6 million people, the 30th largest metro area in the USA. These aren't exactly podunk cities, and their newspapers easily pass WP:RS. Second, the article's subject does not have to be "groundbreaking" to be notable, it only has to pass the criteria, which it does by having "significant coverage by multiple reliable sources", and it does. As to your other point, WP:TOOLITTLE clearly points out that this is never a valid argument for deletion, only a reason to add material to the article. As it stands now, it has many articles in at least three newspapers (two of which are larger city publications, in different cities), one book, multiple state agencies, plus regional magazine that have covered it, in detail, sourced within the article. I do believe that the delete votes are in good faith, but by any reading of WP:N, it passes the bar, no matter how small someone thinks the event is, or now small the article is. I just hope people aren't ignoring the multiple references just because they don't like it. Dennis Brown (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Winston-Salem and Greensboro articles are not being discussed for deletion here. They are very notable. Lexington, North Carolina is also very notable and warrants a dedicated article as well. However this small town public art project doesn't inherent the notability of any of these. You need not worry, the uninvolved, closing admin will consider the whole discussion when determining whether concensus has been reached and if so what it is. Any WP:IDONTLIKEIT and as well WP:ILIKEIT !votes will be filtered out as appropriate.--RadioFan (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one has claimed it has inherited the notability from the larger nearby cities, only that the larger nearby cities thought the art initiative was important enough to write about multiple times. My point was to the quality of the sources, ie: coming from the primary newspapers of larger cities, and not just local news rags or the local newspaper, since WP:RS is more concerned with quality instead of quantity. I've been here for a long time, I'm quite aware of the closing process and the requirements of WP:N, btw, so we should just focus on the merits of the arguments instead of worrying about the process. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, not enough 3rd party sources for a local event. If the event becomes more notable in the future then it would warrant a separate article.Mr. BNST (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How many 3rd party sources for a local event would be more appropriate? This would help clarify your stance. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:49, 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 Delete all. Hut 8.5 19:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D. Saarvindran[edit]

D. Saarvindran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the creator of a previously deleted version the article, without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason: Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syazwan Tajuddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Muhamad Nazmi Faiz Mansor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:25, 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. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Geographic Summits[edit]

Seven Geographic Summits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Concept of "Seven Geographic Summits" is probable original research. Searching reveals no sources for the concept. —hike395 (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research; I can't find a source that even mentions the topic outside of this article. It also seems like a rather silly concept, as none of the points are actually summits. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 08:04, 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 speedy delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homayoun Arbabian[edit]

Homayoun Arbabian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious notability. Zzarch (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: After examining the page history and the creator's user talk, this page is better nominated for speedy deletion. Zzarch (talk) 12:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It's a routine resume about a non-wp:notable person, zero references. North8000 (talk) 12:45, 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. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty: Iron Wolf[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Call of Duty: Iron Wolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:CRYSTAL. At the moment it fails WP:N and WP:RS. At best it might deserve a mention in the main article. Also see WP:Notability (video games) Animusv3Talk to me! Contribs 11:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Surely it regards somewhat until the game has been announced. Not necessarily under the title "Iron Wolf", but under "Call of Duty 9" or similar.comment left by IP 124.188.212.92 on the article page. Moving it here. Animusv3Talk to me! Contribs 12:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When an article begins with headers like "Rumours" and "Suspicians"[sic], you know you're in crystal ball territory. Delete and consider restricting, as this is the 2nd time we've been here in a few months. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 27 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) 17:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Obvious crystal, we've been here before. --NYKevin @842, i.e. 19:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Salt: As before, WP:CRYSTAL. SL93 (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt What can you actually find in an XBOX Live account in the first place beyond the avatar and gamer stats? Sounds like a bunch of WP:BOLLOCKS to me. Nate • (chatter) 20:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt for all the obvious reasons, not least of which is the fact that the subject doesn't exist. The article should be salted due to multiple recreations. Quasihuman | Talk 18:34, 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 SNOW keep Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quincy Miller[edit]

Quincy Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable basketball player, per WP:NBASKETBALL: fails on all three counts listed, i.e. 1 played...[in a] major professional sports league, 2 selected in the first two rounds of the NBA Draft, 3 won an award, or led the league in a major statistical category of the CBA or NBA Development League. Emeraude (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was on Team USA and he passes WP:GNG based on WP:RS encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Team USA? Not mentioned anywhere but here as far as I can see. Are you claiming that Wikipedia:Notability (sports) does not trump the general notability guidelines? (In which cae, why do they exist?) Emeraude (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a person gets a lot of press that provides encyclopedic content, WP:GNG applies and they get a page. Here are the first three searches I would drop in Google to blow up his article:
        1. "Quincy Miller" site:rise.espn.go.com
        2. "Quincy Miller" site:usatoday.com
        3. "Quincy Miller" basketball site:nytimes.com--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having a lot of press coverage does not 100% guarantee notability, as GNG makes clear. Quality must be considered with quantity. But Wikipedia:Notability (sports) specifically states that "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia" and the more specific detail of WP:NBASKETBALL suggests that high school/college players do not. Now, which guideline trumps which?Emeraude (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • In this case, the press coverage is quite extensive and sufficient to support GNG-based decision to keep.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Even though none of that extensive press coverage relates to the criteria specified in WP:NBASKETBALL? Emeraude (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • When sufficient biographical content exists in WP:RS to recount the events and stages of his life as a person, he no longer needs to pass as a basketball player. He is notable because the press has provided us sufficient encyclopedic content to recount his life regardless of whether we can take his article through enough hoops to pass WP:NBASKETBALL. We can recount his entire college career, his international play, his high school career, and possibly his extracurricular career (I am not so big on AAU stuff, but I am betting it exists in the sources).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The guy was written about 34 times in ESPN HS alone. That alone provides a good basis for a biography.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received ample news coverage to meet GNG as well as meet basketball notability in receiving significant press as an individual. Also on the finalist list for the Naismith Award. See WP:NCOLLATH Rikster2 (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep passes any number of guidelines, including WP:BIO and Wikipedia:ATHLETE#High school and pre-high school athletes. He also represented his country internationally.--TM 19:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one occasion when the standards set by WP:NBASKETBALL should be abridged in favor of common sense. Miller will likely be in the league in a year. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 04:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NSPORTS says article that failing to meet NSPORTS "means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline ..." As others have stated, WP:GNG is met by significant coverage in multiple sources.—Bagumba (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Played for Team USA. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MBS ETV(EntertainmentTV)[edit]

MBS ETV(EntertainmentTV) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsourced. Nothing to identify the subject properly. Google searches only bring blog entries for this tv station. noq (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 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. causa sui (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Two (2012 TV series)[edit]

Perfect Two (2012 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsourced future tv series - only content is an infobox. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Future series. No indication of wp:notability. Zero references. North8000 (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 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. Drmies (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unitas Communications[edit]

Unitas Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable communications company. Lacks substantial rs refs. Tagged for notability for a year. Epeefleche (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Only found directory listings and this mention: [28]. Topic isn't passing WP:GNG at this time. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It may conceivably be notable, but there's no evidence to show it. Any organization can get notable speakers if it pays them their fees. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 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 merge to Boracay. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan25 — 00:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boracay European International School[edit]

Boracay European International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Schools through grade 9 are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones Epeefleche (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect - Per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools, "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia." -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 16:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Chennai. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan25 — 00:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German International School[edit]

German International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary and elementary schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones Epeefleche (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect - Per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools, "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia." -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 16:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Cham, Switzerland. There is clear consensus that the subject is not notable. No editor has offered an argument against redirection and there are concerns about a merge due to the promotional nature of the article content. The subject can be mentioned in the target article at editorial discretion. Hut 8.5 21:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International School of Central Switzerland[edit]

International School of Central Switzerland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Schools through grade 6 are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones Epeefleche (talk) 09:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect - Per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools, "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia." I also have concerns about WP:NPOV, as some of the language reads like an advertisement. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 16:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of notability, the external references are broken or do not mention the school, reads like an advertisement. This is a private school, of which there are very many in Switzerland, and so a merger is not warranted. Its existence might be mentioned in Cham, Switzerland, at the most.  Sandstein  17:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:N and WP:ORG. Multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage are needed. Edison (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cham, Switzerland, per standard procedure, but recast for neutrality and to remove WP:PEACOCK (Wikipedia either a school nor a tourism guide). Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect or merge of course; it's our standard way of doing it. I can not figure out, with this the usual option, why the nom decided to bring it here--especially when he himself accepts redirect as a solution. Perhaps he thinks he need general endorsement here to do the obvious, but he doesn't, & could just boldly have gone ahead withthe redirect he asks for. . DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In similar AfDs of late, we have had a range of !votes -- including keep, delete, merge, and redirect. And we have had varying closes. And a variety of expressions by different editors as to what our standard way of doing thing is. And even here we have different views expressed. Perhaps a notability guideline addition would help clarify these type AfDs.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:59, 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 Redirect to Menlo Park, California. Though there is no agreement on whether a redirect or deletion is most suitable the two outcomes are not greatly different and there's no actual objection to the redirect outcome. Hut 8.5 12:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German-American International School[edit]

German-American International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kindergartens and primary schools and those through 8th grade are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones Epeefleche (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect of course., per Maelanie; it's our standard way of doing it. I can not figure out, with this the usual option, why the nom decided to bring it here--especially when he himself accepts redirect as a solution. Perhaps he thinks he need general endorsement here to do the obvious, but he doesn't, & could just boldly have gone ahead with the redirect he asks for. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In similar AfDs of late, we have had a range of !votes -- including keep, delete, merge, and redirect. And we have had varying closes. And even on this page, we have a variety of suggested closes -- even among those who favor redirect. Perhaps a notability guideline addition would help clarify these type AfDs. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have had zero policy based arguments =why redirects aren't suitable. We have had some rather absurd arguments that Orford is enough to show notability, but I know nobody else who agrees with that,. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Warden is not the only editor who has suggested that a keep is appropriate for such schools. Ebe123 for example expressed that view this week at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/École Beaubassin, and Zero did so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bearwood Primary School (2nd nomination). And editors have disagreed often this week as to whether a delete is the better course, or a deletion of the text with a redirect of the title ... and closes this week have followed the consensus at the AfDs, which have varied.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:38, 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. LFaraone 22:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Educational Organisation[edit]

Victoria Educational Organisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kindergartens and primary schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones Epeefleche (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Defunct kindergarten/primary school does not appear to satisfy WP:N and WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirectas the alternative to deletion. that nobody else has said this here just shows that variability that will be encountered by bring in too many AfDs on the same subject: there's an inevitable falling off of interest. Redirect is in fact enshrined in one of our basic policies: WP:Deletion Policy, that alternatives to deletion are always preferred when possible. And not evben the nom wants appears to want a delete rather than a redirect, and Edison, who says onlydelete, gives no reason why a redirect isn't suitable. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 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. LFaraone 22:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bird dog (person)[edit]

Bird dog (person) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This couldn't be any more WP:DICTDEF if it tried CTJF83 09:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is article must be the poster boy for WP:DICDEF. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 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 no consensus. causa sui (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Xie[edit]

Sunny Xie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indications of notability. Does not appear to be signed to any label, albums appear to be self-released. No significant coverage found from independent reliable sources. Google news search on "Sunny Xie" shows no results for this person. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 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 - TP 03:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP lacking reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A cursory review of text, image, reverse image and news searches for "谢容儿" reveals substantial Chinese media interest.   — C M B J  
  • Keep Personal life is a topic of media interest as well[29] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyfiler (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:33, 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.  Sandstein  17:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Scown[edit]

Shelley Scown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that she meets the notability criteria. All the references provided (along with others I found when searching) were minor ones:

  • Novanation reference shows that she has performed at a specific venue - but no significant coverage
  • ABC Jazz reference shows that they have played some of her songs, but no biographical coverage or coverage of songs (i.e. no significant coverage)
  • ARIA Awards reference shows that she was nominated but did not win an award - not significant coverage
  • Northern College reference does not appear to mention her on the site
  • IMDB coverage is not generally accepted as a reliable source.

Other coverage which I found was minor ("Shelley Scown played at xyz." type of thing) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to admit that this is a borderline case, but I would say weak keep, given the notable collaborations and mentions in the Australian media [30], [31]. I've added some citations. The website of her publisher says that the album 'Angel' won the ABC Classic FM Jazz Album Of The Year award, however, I can't verify the claim by an independent source. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified the Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz about this discussion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline but delete. The film roles are all bit parts and do not imply nobility. Has been involved in 1 significant album but as far as I can see it did not meet the criteria of wp:music. The reference at ABC Jazz says: We are unable to find an entry for this artist in Wikipedia . Visit the user-contributed encylopedia, create one and tell the world about this artist! - an invitation to manufacture notability. Porturology (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, that's a pretty standard wording for not-founds; the BBC equivalent is "We currently have no biography for this artist. You can contribute biographical information for <> to Wikipedia, the user-contributed encyclopedia." No reason to be suspicious of the broadcasters' enthusiasm for WP!. AllyD (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ARIA Award nomination clearly satisfies wp:music#8. she also has significant coverage in Jackson, Adrian (8 April 1994), "Shelley Scown's Trek From Mozart To Jazz", The Age -- Weir, Kenny (21 December 1997), "Angel of music", Sunday Herald Sun -- Shand, John (25 February 2000), "Send In The Scown", Sunday Herald Sun -- Jones, Kevin (21 March 1998), "A voice discovered.", The Australian -- amongst others. Clear and obvious keep. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 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,  Sandstein  08:28, 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. Delete as not notable and lacking coverage, one local award notwithstanding. Drmies (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Frantz[edit]

Bob Frantz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Not notable. Fails WP:BIO. Local broadcaster/writer with little or no coverage from reliable third-party sources. Could not find a single secondary source online or in print to demonstrate notability of subject. Even if some are found, there is certainly a lack of "significant coverage."  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 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 - TP 15:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one local emmy does not notability make. If this award was significant, it would have plenty of coverage in 3rd party sources to reference here. These kinds of local awards consist of a dinner and is written up on the stations website and it pretty much stops there. RadioFan (talk) 18:53, 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,  Sandstein  08:21, 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. causa sui (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bahareth[edit]

Bahareth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am having difficulty finding substantial RS coverage of this family. Tagged for zero refs for well over 3 years. Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All that I can find is works by Mohammad Bahareth and unreliable sources for him which the article says on the bottom is the translator. SL93 (talk) 00:10, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Keep, and consider how to deal with the contents in this and related articles. The possibilities for merging are too diverse to be properly decided here by a simple merge close; --those interested should pick one or another of the relvant talk pages and decide how to do it. As I understand the discussion, Quasihuman volunteered to coo-ordinate the discussion. No prejudice against redirecting one or more of the terms, if that's what's decided. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epigenome[edit]

Epigenome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not really an article. Anything salvageable should be copied to Human Epigenome Project so that this can redirected to Epigenetics. JonathonSimister (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep notable concept, has significant coverage in reliable sources: [33], [34], [35], and much more. The parent article is quite long, so this may be a useful split from that, for example, we have separate articles for genetics and genome. I'll try to work on the article when I have time. User:Quasihuman 08:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepComment clearly the tone is all wrong; the current text is little more than a Wiktionary-type definition, followed by some promotional stuff. However the concept is well substantiated (many sources, Notable) and I agree with User:Quasihuman that the split is reasonable, i.e. Epigenetics, Epigenome. The article will need effort but that is not reason for deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not trying to argue against the concept. Wouldn't it make sense to redirect to the much better article Epigenetics for now though? --JonathonSimister (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, give me time to develop it, most articles start in a bad state, for example look at the first edit] of Paul Nurse, a major figure in cell biology. I've made some changes to the article already, so it is on my to do list, and it won't be left in its current state for long. (Thanks to Chiswick Chap for signing for me, you would think that after a few years of editing here, I'd remember to sign my posts. :) Quasihuman | Talk 09:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sounds reasonable. Is there a way I can withdraw by request for deletion? Or should I just leave this open in case others want it deleted and are more committed to that side? --JonathonSimister (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's up to you, you can withdraw the nomination, and either close it yourself as speedy keep (instructions here), or you can wait for another editor to close it for you. If another editor !votes delete in the mean time, it can't be speedy kept, and we have to wait until the AfD is closed. It's normally best just to close it, if another editor thinks it should be deleted, they can start a new AfD. (I can't close it myself because I'm involved in the discussion.) Quasihuman | Talk 09:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Logan Talk Contributions 12:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's also an article titled Epigenomics, though the first half of that appears to be about epigenetics. Not my area and I haven't read them in full, but do we really need three separate articles on epigenetics, epigenomics, and epigenome? Consider merging epigenome with epigenomics ? (Note I'm not arguing to delete epigenome, so this shouldn't affect any speedy keep decision.) Qwfp (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete I agree with Qwfp. This could easily fit into Epigenomics. I've rarely heard the term "Epigenome" used in the genetics field, and I don't think it needs an article separate from Epigenomics. But the Epigenomics article does look good and useful. --Qwerty0 (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, epigenomics is the study of epigenomes, I agree that a merge is a good idea, the question is what the destination article would be. I have no particular opinion on this, gscholar searches result in a similar number of hits, with epigenomics having the greater number by 500 (10500 vs 11000). I think deleting either one is a bad idea, both would clearly be plausible redirects. Quasihuman | Talk 21:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm going to stand by original suggestion again. If Quasihuman or someone else does want to write a good epigenome article there's nothing to prevent them from overwriting the redirect once it's set, right? But until now, this stub is useless. A redirect would be better. --JonathonSimister (talk) 06:46, 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,  Sandstein  08:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first paragraph is a fair summary of the topic. Here is the same thing with more details: [36]. The rest is pretty poor and can be removed rahter than moved. Narayanese (talk) 20:29, 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 speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes remains. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 07:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Israel and Judah family tree[edit]

Kings of Israel and Judah family tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A redundant article that creates a new page out of a little info and a picture from Kings of Judah, Kings of Israel, and Kingdom of Israel (Samaria). Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 17:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that family trees are important, but the exact same info (with that very picture) is provided on other pages. Why not just redirect this page? Magister Scientatalk 14:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But those pages are not "Family tree" pages and this one is, so it can legitimately stand alone. IZAK (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Harmless and (combined with the template) might be useful as a navigation tool. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 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,  Sandstein  08:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw After hearing the points made above I withdraw my nomination and ask for a speedy keep. Magister Scientatalk 02:42, 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 keep. LFaraone 22:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber-utopianism[edit]

Cyber-utopianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real evidence this is notable, or that the several mentions of this term refer to the same idea. Appears to be more of an obvious pairing of words that has no one distinct reference. Hairhorn (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence that these two words point to a definite, notable topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be made up be a single author Millermk90 (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete There are enough mentions of this term in reliable sources to see that this is a real idea that might reach notability standards at some point. However, for a new neologism we need to see extensive discussions of the term itself, rather than just brief mentions, in reliable sources, so at this point I would lean to delete. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A few people coming up with a clever syllogism does not make it a subject. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We're not talking about some kind of bullshit neologism that someone made up: cyber-utopianism as a view is widely discussed in the academic literature. Google Books gives me 38,000 results. The views of the opponents of cyber-utopianism are widespread now, but to understand the critiques of Nick Carr, Andrew Keen, Evgeny Morozov etc. you need to understand the cyber-utopianism of Wired (magazine), John Perry Barlow, Kevin Kelly, Ray Kurzweil, Howard Rheingold, the futurists and their admiration for the transhumanist/cryogenics movements etc. These topics haven't just magically popped out of thin air, there is a long history, and many hundreds of sources that show this. The article claims that the term was conjured up by Morozov: this is not true. Morozov attacked the concept, but the term itself has a much longer history, as you can see by doing a search on Google Books where there are books using the same term for roughly the same cluster of ideas going back to the late 1990s. See, for instance, [37], [38], [39], [40]. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing that the term has never been used before, so stacking up examples is beside the point. I don't see any real sign that everyone using the term has the same thing in mind. The second reference, for example, throws around loosely defined neologisms pretty freely ("digital divide", "digital capitalism", etc), all in the same sentence as "cyber utopianism" (without a hyphen). Wired/Kurzweil et at. are already covered at Technological utopianism. Hairhorn (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You think "digital divide" is a neologism too? There are books on that topic going back to 1995. It's as much of a neologism as "World Wide Web"! The policy on neologisms isn't that they are banned on Wikipedia, it's that creating a Wikipedia article in order to boost a neologism isn't allowed. That said, if there's an existing article on digital utopianism, why not redirect and merge? —Tom Morris (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be content with a redirect to Technological utopianism, but I don't see much content worth merging. Hairhorn (talk) 16:01, 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, v/r - TP 03:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Books and Scholars find a variety of writers using the term in a wide variety of contexts. Certainly the underlying idea is familiar; the world is flooded with hogwash about how the Internet or social media will bring down tyrants, unite the world, or at least make us money. It seems to me to be a concept that can be described from sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" and "Expand": The topic certainly is viable. The word is instrumental in defining the "theory" that wherever there is internet, democracy follows. I am currently a student at Farmingdale State College, completing a course titled, " Mass Media and Politics. The term was extremely important in understanding technology's relationship to "positive" political change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.60.167 (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the difference between this and Technological utopianism is?... Hairhorn (talk) 18:35, 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,  Sandstein  08:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All You Need is Kill#Movie adaption. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We Mortals Are (film)[edit]

We Mortals Are (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This film has not entered production and may never be made. WP:NFF is very clear cut about films not having stand-alone pages dedicated to them until they enter principal photography. It should be deleted. Krevans (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a pretty piece of WP:CRYSTAL, but it doesn't have enough here to pass WP:NFILM. It can be re-created when reliable sources become available.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, this one is WP:TOOSOON. In consideration that the attachment of actor Tom Cruise and director Doug Liman for a film version of the Hiroshi Sakurazaka novel, perhaps some place could be found to which this could be written of and sourced as a project-in-planning.[41][42][43][44] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:37, 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. Non notable and promotional. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E2ride bike tours[edit]

E2ride bike tours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been tagged as an ad for a year now, and as the article is written, no claims of notability are made. Every city has a bike tour group, nothing makes this one special. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 03:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The local news articles in the article does not show notability. SL93 (talk) 00:05, 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) 04:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only news coverage this company has gotten is coverage of it opening, otherwise it hasn't received any attention from reliable sources. It should be noted that there will be a little bit of cleanup from where the original editor posted this onto various pages. I cleaned up one that was a blatant advertisement, but there is still some left.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete. Company doesn't meet notability criteria. There is also a history of mention of this company being added to Jacksonville, Florida. This article appears to just be part of a promotional campaign. -- Donald Albury 12:45, 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 delete. LFaraone 22:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra (ride)[edit]

Cobra (ride) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is worthless. Poorly written, links to worthless, unrelated references. Some things made up on the spot. I regret writing such a monstrosity. Please delete with haste.

Superscout22 (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:35, 14 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per request of primary content creator SuperScout22, who nominated this for deletion as a "monstrosity." About 75% of the content is by SS22, by my count in the history, so it seems to me a fair enough request. Carrite (talk) 05:04, 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, BusterD (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

João Kléber[edit]

João Kléber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography without reliable sources for the most part of the article and the only source that can be considered reliable just talks about a future tv show that will come. Also most of the article is being written by User:Luizinho galo doido, which may have a COI and the user have been removing BLPPROD templates without addressing the issue. Sdrtirs (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I largely agree, but would feel slightly uncomfortable voting for delete without a Portuegese (sp?) speaker chipping in. Bit hard for us Anglos to assess notability about someone which is primarily documented in another language. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:03, 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, BusterD (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep The Portuguese version of this article has been on ptwiki forever, without a lot of discussion. --Austrian (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable for being the only man to have had a miscarriage... Seriously though, I see dozens of Google hits to mostly Portuguese TV websites. It would seem that he is quite notable within Brazilian TV circles. Whilst the page may need some clean up, and ref improve, I don't think it needs to be deleted. Pol430 talk to me 22:12, 5 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 keep. Nominator has withdraw and no outstanding !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 07:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pritchard-Strong Company[edit]

Pritchard-Strong Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable company. No reasoning in article as to why it is significant and no verifiable sources. DaffyBridge (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable company and the article contains several sources. Warden (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a wikipedia article on one of its founders, who was the first president of Eastman Kodak. This company was a pioneer in metal manufacturing in this region.

  • I think I'll take off the afd notice actually. It seemed a bit too much like an advertisement when I read it and there were few hits in a google search which is what made me think it was not notable. Also, the refs given are hard to verify with no links. But after looking at the links on google books it seems like its notable enough. The article still needs work but I have changed my mind on the nomination for deletion. I haven't done this before but I assume it's okay for me to take it off the page since I put it on. Please let me know if the procedure is different. DaffyBridge (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I'll wait before I remove it since it says not to remove until it's settled. DaffyBridge (talk) 01:47, 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) 04:30, 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 06:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gurm Sekhon[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gurm Sekhon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local politician; fails WP:POLITICIAN and isn't a mayor. About ~1900 google hits on his name but not much in the way of establishing notability. Sources in his article only mention the subject in passing. Miracle Pen (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I dunno, there's some indication of involvement in nationwide politics, which might in turn indicate notability. Australian politics aren't exactly my area of expertise, though, so I'm not sure how to parse that. The sources, though, are inadequate - as the nominator points out. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Local politician with insufficient independent sources to establish much more than trivial in-office details. Orderinchaos 00:17, 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, BusterD (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sekhon is according to the article a councillor in a suburban LGA, and a reasonably important party official with the Greens. Neither of these is usually taken to indicate notability in the absence of some notable scandal or other unusually notable event. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete There's I think general consensus that city council members of large cities are very likely to be notable; for cities under a million, the consensus is uncertain. But he's just a council member in a small suburban area, and there's no rational way this can be considered notable in the absence of strong non-local sourcing, which is not present here. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 5 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 both. Hut 8.5 19:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xplora[edit]

Xplora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a non notable album by Xplora:

Azul Electrónico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 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 - TP 15:51, 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) 04:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. I agree that notability has not been established - no evidence of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:16, 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) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sultana N. Nahar[edit]

Sultana N. Nahar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this person is notable by our standards. If you are interested in seeing what a resume looks like, refer to previous versions of the page. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The previous version of the article was an unholy mess. That said, she may be notable based on certain research she's done with black holes and cancer therapy that have received a fair amount of media attention, particularly this year. Here are some articles: [45]; [46]; and [47]. The first article kind of shows the beginning, and the latter two show the results. They are pretty much about the same thing, but I included one from India and one from the U.S.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Shows potential for WP-notability in the not-so-distant future; article created too early.--Eric Yurken (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, she's not a professor. She's a research scientist at Ohio State University, but even applying the academic standard, why doesn't she meet "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"? She also seems to satisfy WP:BASIC, which is subsumed in WP:BIO. Is her research not sufficiently established yet, not "significant" enough, or what? I'm just trying to understand where you draw the line.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a subjective call Bbb23. Publication itself, even if refereed, is not enough. It has to make an impact among researchers first, which in the case of this subject I’d bet will happen in a couple of years. As I have been reminded in the past by experienced editors such as DGG, we need to always look at the big picture. As for standards, the best way for you to assess mine is to look at my recent contributions in deletion discussions; several of which were keeps. I can always revise my vote if a convincing argument is made.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately for us in academia, Yurken's point is valid: an influence has to be proven and cannot easily be assumed from having been published. Thus, we have things like impact factors and citation indices and what not. Of course, if one can prove that the subject's influence is acknowledged and cited (but even that's not easy--it would need to be clearly cited as meaningful and important, even if wrong), then notability can be established. Now, the main editor (now blocked) was fond of putting in paragraphs that stated how many publications someone had, but in the natural sciences that isn't even always meaningful, given that many papers have many co-authors, for instance. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a certain irony here about my questioning the nomination. I'm usually the one nominating, and I don't often !vote Keep in other editors' nominations. Not that I'm arguing this article should be kept - I'm just exploring people's reasoning, and I appreciate the responses. I just find some of the most non-notable (in my view) articles are kept, so it's interesting to me to see this article nominated. Maybe it's just a question of who contributes to the discussion and the standards they apply. Enough of my musing. I'll let others contribute and I'll remain on the fence on this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's true she is only a "research scientist", but her record at Google Scholar is fairly impressive. Several of her articles have been cited more than 100 times. And as noted by Bbb23, some of her work has been noted in major lay publications like the Times of India. I restored the "research interests" section to the article and added references. If she is not yet a thought leader in the field, I think she is on her way there. Maybe it's a little WP:TOOSOON. --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 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, v/r - TP 15:49, 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) 04:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Press coverage of her research seems to say that she is notable. BigJim707 (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Some editors have been removing the AfD tag. In addition, they have been adding incredible amounts of unsourced and unencylopedic material to the article. Just so others are aware, I have reverted all those changes, with the knowledge that there might be some small amounts of material that are legitimate that are being swept away by my reversions. It is hard to accord good faith to such editors, and it is even harder to plow through the garbage in the hope of finding something appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a borderline case, Her work has received at least two bits of reliable media interest; however, the coverage is more about the work she has been involved in than it is about her. Based on the presence of reasonable sources I think the article should be kept. Pol430 talk to me 22:27, 5 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. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got to Dance (Australia)[edit]

Got to Dance (Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Besides lacking any content , there seems to be no third party reliable multiple sourcing for this article other then Daily Star tabloid and forums/blogs. I would have thought that this should have been a speedy somehow. Planetary ChaosTalk 13:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A Google search shows it as an actual program. I don't live in Australia so I don't know. However, there is very, very little activity on this article, no substance, no references and very few articles linking to it. If this show truly does exist, this article needs to be fleshed out. --Fightingirish (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely existing is not sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Future show that has yet to gain enough coverage. Probably will, given time but WP:CRYSTAL. Rubiscous (talk) 09:21, 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 - TP 15:46, 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, BusterD (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as crystalballery. No sources as far as I can see, and there is a lot of scope for the programme to never get made. Article can and should be recreated if and when reliable sources from independent parties present themselves. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:17, 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. Sources do exist, but they are either trivial or not independent of the subject. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PLUS7[edit]

PLUS7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable refs other then primary sourcing. Planetary ChaosTalk 06:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary ChaosTalk 10:56, 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 - TP 15:26, 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, BusterD (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not finding enough reliable sources at this time. Of the links given, I have to agree with PCR on what they are, although I'd like to mention that the last two links appear to be press releases, which generally cannot be used as reliable sources since PR usually comes directly from the company. Most of what I have found are either press releases or trivial mentions. It seems that other than a bit of press anticipating the site's release, there hasn't been much afterwards to show that it's notable at this point in time. I would recommend incubating or userfying this until more sources become available. It's definitely something to watch for and I believe that it will become notable at some point in time, but there just aren't the reliable sources in the here and now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete: None of the above sources show notability. SL93 (talk) 02:23, 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 06:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Frederick Lindauer[edit]

Charles Frederick Lindauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. In the main source for his claim to notability, the NYTimes article[54], he is barely mentioned: "Lindauer, who was a small-fry backer, had a portion of the lower east side." There are no reliable, independent sources who give any significant, indepth information about Lindauer and why he would be notable. Article is mostly based on primary sources. The Brooklyn Eagle source is not about him. His obituary from a local newspaper, quoted at the end of the article, gives a good idea of how notable he was... The article on his father, Oscar Arthur Moritz Lindauer, is also nominated for deletion by me, but since their claims to notability are independent, the debates should be separate as well. Fram (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 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, BusterD (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that the standard of significant coverage in independent sources has not been met here, therefore notability not established. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the above rationale and that the text of the article is a largely rambling biography that fails to assert to notability of the subject. Pol430 talk to me 22:31, 5 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. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Marcu[edit]

Tony Marcu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems to be written in an advertisement fashion. Much of the information is unsourced and innapropriate. For example, it refers to thoughts he had in first grade. The section on roots contains innapropriate information about favorite colors. He doesn't seem to meet the requirements from WP:PORNBIO. The only notable thing is his suit against the government of Canada but Wikipedia does not keep records of everyone who has filed a suit. Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The are no third party references to him anywhere, except a couple small media references to the lawsuit, but according to WP:1E, the event should more likely be covered than the person, and I think neither is significant. It's not like he won the lawsuit. Additionally the article does fail WP:PORNBIO (no awards for one thing). Finally, regardless of notability, the article is a mess. Nothing is properly sourced, yet claims are made about thought he had in grade one, and his favourite colour is listed. Millermk90 (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 10 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 - TP 03:43, 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) 04:25, 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. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sly / Joey Cape Split 7"[edit]

Tony Sly / Joey Cape Split 7" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no independent notability shown for this single. lacks coverage in reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:NSONGS. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 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 - TP 03:42, 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) 04:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There isn't really an assertion of notability, and notability has not been established through significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 13:32, 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. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon Club[edit]

Cannon Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod, removed by SPA page creator. From JamesBWatson's original prod: "No evidence of notability. No substantial coverage in any independent sources." MikeWazowski (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Explanation?

Could be helpful. As in: How does it violate the Notability guideline? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

It seems to satisfy all the criteria...

...as does its sister articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_clubs_at_Princeton_University Example of other, less-cited and "notable", article on parallel subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloister_Inn — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoungLochinvar (talk • contribs) 06:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC) — YoungLochinvar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The existence of other articles on (in your opinion) even less notability is not a justification for keeping this one. You may like to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a single one of the cited sources is substantial coverage in a reliable independent source, and I have not been able to find any substantial independent coverage elsewhere either. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are a couple of good articles in the Daily Princetonian.[55] [56] There are also a ton of hits in Google news archives, google books and some in scholar. Most of these appear pretty trivial, but there's enough noise that I've become convinced that there is likely to be sufficient coverage out there. In any case, I think the articles from the Daily Princetonian are enough to make a decent case for meeting the GNG.--Kubigula (talk) 06:13, 5 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. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anubhava kannada film[edit]

Anubhava kannada film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability under WP:Notability (films). Unreferenced.    Thorncrag  03:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I couldn't find anything that showed that this film was particularly notable. I did try to do a search in Hindi, but couldn't find anything. Whether that's due to bad translating or it just being a non-notable film is unknown, but I still didn't find anything. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I do not speak Kannada myself, but the text both in this page and in Kashinath (actor) suggests that this was a widely successful film. It was also apparently the first acting gig of Kashinath, who went on to become a very popular actor. Regarding the above, searching in Hindi would be useless since this film is a Kannada film (Hindi is only one of the many languages of India). In my opinion, this article only needs a competent Kannada-speaking editor to add more information and references to it. SundaraRaman (talk) 22:51, 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. No prejudice to recreating the article should coverage in reliable sources be found. Mkativerata (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


KARVALO - kannada novel[edit]

KARVALO - kannada novel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability under Wikipedia:Notability (books). Unreferenced.    Thorncrag  03:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources to show notability outside of the author, although there might be something in the author's native language. If anyone can show reliable sources, I'm willing to change my mind, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no significant claim to notability, and concur with Tokyogirl's assessment, Sadads (talk) 16:19, 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. The argument that WP:CRYSTAL applied was rebutted, leaving "weak delete" and "weak keep" arguments. I considered relisting, but frankly, a foreign language film that most native English speaker can't even pronounce is unlikely to draw much participation. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 06:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Ujwadu Konkani Film[edit]

Ujwadu Konkani Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability under WP:Notability (films). References included are either not reliable or are non-germane.    Thorncrag  03:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. It looks like this has gotten some coverage [57], but not enough from reliable sources to show notability. I have a feeling that there might be a lot more in the native language, however, so I'm of the "weak delete" opinion. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-game[edit]

Non-game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable invented video game genre based on one line from one speech a Nintendo executive gave in 2005. Tons of Google hits for "non-game", although the vast majority are just to explain things that are literally not games (i.e. "favorite non-game apps" or "non-game usage on PS3"), 10% seems to be about Fish & Wildlife, and the few remaining are blogs and download sites using the phrase in the current context. Seeing as how this article has been up since 2007, it's no surprise that some people have started treating this like a real genre. There are certainly not enough real reliable sources to justify inventing this genre, and the longer it is up, the longer people are going to take it seriously.

Curiously, the article was written first on DE by a German SPA (de:Spezial:Beiträge/Klaus1000) who then translated the article and posted it here, and never touched another thing since 2007. I don't think this really has any bearing, I'm just pointing it out as it seems odd. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC) ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While there are certainly concerns about the uniqueness of the term's usage and the reliability of one of the major sources, I believe IGN is a reliable source and uses the term non-game in at least three of its article titles (including the one cited, from 2006). The term is also seen peppered across the Google search including as a category at Games For Work. It's not very popular as a term, but it's unfair to say that a single editor invented it. I say it's notable enough to keep. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 11:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • They use it in many titles (see http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aign.com+intitle%3A%22non-game%22) to refer to things that, as I said, are not games. Square Enix goes non-game - meaning that they are releasing things that aren't games. Read what the Wikipedia article is about, it is about a specific concept, a genre of games without gaming qualities. The articles you mention are simply about things that are not games. We can keep the article as a dictionary definition of an item that is "literally not a game", but I think that is rather what Wikitionary is for. Besides, even if the articles were using the words in this context (which they aren't), using a phrase over and over isn't significant coverage, it's simply repetition. They use the phrase "and then" 2000x more in article titles (http://www.google.com/search?q=site:ign.com+intitle:%22and+then%22), but that doesn't make the word pairing notable. To use the words "non game" together only 54 times in article titles is actually rather low for a video game site, and still they aren't talking about the same thing as the topic of WP's article. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 12:14, 18 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) 16:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 21:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change the fist sentence to read "is software used for entertainment purposes but not considered a game" (or something similar), scrap the dissertation, and use it to describe things that are not games. Are you arguing that "non-game" is a neologism? I thought at first you were just saying it's not notable.Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 21:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I forgot about that word. I am not saying that these types of programs are not existent or not popular or whatever, just that this grouping of these programs with this phrase is an invented genre. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Read the article, this a real thing, getting coverage. If a better term for it comes up, then rename it of course. Dream Focus 22:47, 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, Drmies (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the focus is narrowed (and perhaps renamed) to non-game programs on gaming platforms. Obviously most PC software are not games.BigJim707 (talk) 05:07, 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 delete. Clear consensus that this fighter is not notable. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 06:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Epstein (fighter)[edit]

Mark Epstein (fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a retired fighter was PRODed 3 years ago and recently restored. The fighter fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:MMANOT and the article's only source is his fight record at Sherdog. Jakejr (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep he has held three major titles in Cage Rage - a second tier organisation, and because he has won titles with them he passes the majority of the fighter's criteria for notability in MMANOT. BigzMMA (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he meets none of the fighter criteria at MMANOT. The article's only source is his record on Sherdog, he hasn't fought for the title of a top tier MMA organization, and he has zero fights for a top tier organization. Jakejr (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm finding little significant coverage of Epstein. Pretty much all I can find are the standard fighter profile/records, videos, and basic fight results. Therefore, IMO, fails WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am also finding little mention of Mark Epstein (fighter) on the internet outside of You Tube, Twitter and Facebook--but a fair bit of mention on Mark Epstein M.D. and Mark Epstein the poet... Pol430 talk to me 22:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a poorly sourced article that fails to show he meets any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 03:07, 6 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. Mkativerata (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Evangelista[edit]

Jorge Evangelista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about an MMA fighter that fails the notability criteria. The article also lacks sources that show significant independent coverage. Jakejr (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Few fights for top-tier organizations and can find no other evidence of notability. Fails WP:MMANOT and WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, following the comments above. Janggeom (talk) 14:21, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan25 — 00:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josip Radošević[edit]

Josip Radošević (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP is missing it's crucials: No reliable sources; therefore no notability. Article is also very short... -- MST☆R (Merry Christmas!) 00:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Croatian Football Federation has had an en.wiki article for 7 years; the two external links in Croatian have had articles for 4 years. While they are not completely independent (CFF is supervisory), they are RS, although not cited as references. None of the information in the article is contentious, and can all be cited. Dru of Id (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article passes WP:NSPORTS since Radošević has played in the fully-pro Croatian top flight and it should easily pass WP:GNG as well. I spent one minute searching for a reference and added it to the article; it will be easy for someone to add others based on the number of google hits. Jogurney (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Having played in the fully pro Prva HNL, he meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has played at a notable level. Article size doesn't matter. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - since he meets WP:NFOOTY, we should rather use our time to expand his article.. :) Mentoz86 (talk) 00:45, 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 keep. Snow keep. Deletion concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Barišić[edit]

Marko Barišić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP is missing it's crucials: No reliable sources; therefore no notability. Article is also very short... -- MST☆R (Merry Christmas!) 00:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Croatian Football Federation has had an en.wiki article for 7 years; the two external links in Croatian have had articles for 4 years. While they are not completely independent (CFF is supervisory), they are RS, although not cited as references. None of the information in the article is contentious, and can all be cited. (copied own post from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josip Radošević). Dru of Id (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 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. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Cusack[edit]

Susie Cusack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted via PROD and recreated, so I'm treating this as a contested PROD and taking it here. Fails the notability guidelines. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources presented in the article to establish notability. Her family ties are interesting, but notability isn't inherited. Hot Stop UTC 01:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note also Bill Cusack, whose article similarly claims only inherited notability, and whose career seems to be a few minor "man in hat" type roles. Testovergian (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - AfD is not for cleanup. Sources exist, and they only need to exist out there to satisfy notability. The article does not need to actually have them (that's for cleanup/improvement). In any case, Cusack was profiled by the Chicago Tribune along with her two sisters back in 1992 and I've added a couple of references to the article. Night Ranger (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read the abstract from the article you mentioned, and it sort-of proves the point she isn't notable "It was hardest on Ann...and on Susie, who says she learned to fight for family attention in "a dynamic" in which two of the older kids had become larger than life-at least outside the confines of the house in Evanston." [60] Hot Stop UTC 12:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encyclopedic content exists so an article should. I have done some digging through the sources and I am not sure if the minimum levels of sourcing are available to support WP:N. Almost all roles are minor and WP:GNG is weak.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, soft news coverage generally is either insufficiently substantial or fails the one-event guideline. Nyttend (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We do have two major award wins, a Chicago Film Critics Association Awards and a Golden Globe that would seem to push at WP:ANYBIO, unless we wish to ignore them becase the awards and recognition was shared with others. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am copying what I said on your talk page here: "I am not so sure we get WP:ANYBIO out of her awards. The GG is a special award not even included at 51st Golden Globe Awards. The other one also seems a bit trivial."
  • Keep I have found, what I believe to be the bare minimum to survive notability by expanding my search to "Susan Cusack".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The nature of her award wins is really problematic. Both awards are collective, The Golden Globe is a special award for the Short Cuts cast, in which she appears to have a less-than-minor role, and I'm not sure we should consider any credited and uncredited actor in the movie as eligible for point 1 of ANYBIO. The Chicago Film Critics Association Award is also a collective, special award to the Cusack family, shared with Dick, Nancy, Ann, Bill, John and Joan Cusack, and the rationale behind the award ("Commitment to Chicago Award") does not seem connected to artistic merits. Cavarrone (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How does a well-known and notable award becomes less well-known or significant if it is shared by others? As any such award is given in recognition of creative efforts, you offer a conundrum. When a notable organization wishes to recognize and award creativity, they award those reponsible... whether one or five. An award is not neccessarily diuted if shared. Or would we now think an Academy Award become less well-known or significant if it is shared? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
    The Short Cuts cast probably includes one hundred of actors, many of them don't appear on the screen for more than a couple of minutes or aren't even credited, so are all of them eligible for an article on Wikipedia, are all automatically notable? I sincerely doubt that... an Award does not become less significant in itself if it is shared, but the Award-winning is probably less notable if he/she shares the award with an half hundred of other actors and if his contribution to the award-victory is less than minimal or even nonexistent.
I would not have doubts if Susie Cusack had a significant role in Short Cuts, or if she had been explicitly named between the awared, or at least if the collective award had included a minor number of winners, but under these circumstances I don't think we should consider this Golden Globe in order to estabilish her notability and the notability of anyone else of the hundred of actors that had starred in that movie. Per "common sense". Cavarrone (talk) 20:06, 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. No prejudice against recreation of a non-promotional article should reliable sources be found and used. Mkativerata (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Petrakis[edit]

Mike Petrakis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This artist appears as if he should be notable (especially given that he's quite talented), but I can't find any reliable sources showing that he's yet received any third-party notice. I also can't find any third-party notice of the shows listed in the article. The only references given in the article are not independent.

Google brings up a ton of self-published and non-independent references, but nothing that's independent and reliable. The article doesn't make a good argument for his notability and appears to be mainly promotional. ETA: I should mention that this was a declined A7 speedy (not nominated by me) from about a month ago. NellieBly (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ignoring that this article was created by the artist himself and that it's written like a promotional resume, I'm unable to find any reliable sources that show that the artist is notable. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete Would need to be completely re-written to be salvageable. Promotional article. Notability not established.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:54, 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.

Dear Wikipedia authors, please let me know what was the problem of the page Mike Petrakis, I send you several links from independent webpages, also you can view at www.m55art.org that this artist - me, having an exhibition know in NY. Also I could send you via email some more information about the publications and more, most of them are in greek language. Please let me know also help me to create a well created page, is not a promotion page also all my art career and other staff are a true facts, as well my creations.I'm wishing a wonderful new year and waiting your response. By user Mikepanic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikepanic (talk • contribs) 04:28, 5 January 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 Delete. Hut 8.5 12:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MarketPlace Leichhardt[edit]

MarketPlace Leichhardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local, non notable shopping mall in a surrounding suburb of Sydney. Of the six references that are in the article, five are primary sources from the official website and one is a PDF file (which is a dead link). Till I Go Home (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete run of the mill small shopping centre that fails WP:GNG. No coverage to establish national significance. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking independent coverage in independent third party sources, as per WP:RS. Feel free to ping my talk page if such sources are included in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:52, 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 prejudice against editorial merges or redirects. causa sui (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Face of the Enemy (Babylon 5)[edit]

The Face of the Enemy (Babylon 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability is discussed or established in the article. No references are given that establish notability either. The article is only a plot summary. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources exist, but B5 exists in the time period before most of the reviews, etc. are online. My Babylon 5 reference works are currently packed away, but I can find enough to source any of these episodes. Consider what I've documented at Spoo, for instance. Doing a search for online sources for this specific episode, there is this, as well as at least 3 other sources that appear to be behind paywalls or not fully previewable on Google Books. Failing a keep, this may be redirected to a Season 4 article until such time as someone can source it appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that is is a section discussing the episodes in which Ivonova's bad-assery was at its peak. It isn't about the episode itself. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't claim it was sufficient by itself, or the best source, but merely that it demonstrated critical reception exceeding what is currently in the article. Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to Season 4 article. I will go toe-to-toe in B5 trivia and lore with anyone, as I watched this show religiously, but at the end of the day it is just a plot rehash. I'll go to the old midwinter archives for that. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Informal and at a time before stuff was posted on the internet, this is the same as any other episode article. GuzzyG (talk) 02:42, 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. causa sui (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stockland Glenrose[edit]

Stockland Glenrose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable shopping mall with no assertion of notability. Till I Go Home (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable mall, with no independent sources or other evidence of notability. Disclaimer: I tagged the article for notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:15, 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 verifiable and reliable evidence for notability was presented. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie Stumbler[edit]

Cookie Stumbler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Software package of questionable notability, borderline advertisement. Contested prod. Google news search on "Cookie Stumbler" shows only 5 results, none appear to snow significant coverage from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I've included two independent reviews in my article. You may not be aware that the majority of reviews in the software business aren't done for free, you tend to have to pay to get a mostly dishonest review that'll be overly positive just because you paid them money. Nothing is free in this business. The two sources I have included are independent, with one being positive about the application and the other being more critical with it and discussing if there's even a need to maintain your cookies. Sorry the app wasn't on CNN newsflash, but if you look here you will see that this application is one out of two applications for Cookie Management that are actually maintained, which definitely makes it significant for the Mac world. WriteIt! Studios's website had ~26000 visitors since it opened in May 2011, so I wouldn't exactly call it "not notable". Also, the Wikipedia article on EverCookies states that these Cookies are a great risk to users and there isn't a universal way of deleting them. This application my article is on can do just that, which I think makes it very notable. Davidschiefer (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2011 (GMT)— Davidschiefer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found way more results by searching "cookie stumbler mac". I found this review. Although it has been considered reliable, one source is not enough. SL93 (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


@SL93 - There's another independent review here. (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2011 (GMT)— Davidschiefer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That website is self-published by the author of that article. SL93 (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I think the article's author makes a good case, although it would help if the "Notable Features" section were re-named and -written (using prose rather than bullet points) to make the article feel less promotional. It Is Me Here t / c 10:38, 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 delete. Mkativerata (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brick Engine[edit]

Brick Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found zero significant coverage for this software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 27 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) 00:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional article. No independent sources. Notability not established.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No specific information or relevance given, as well as the fact that this article is an ophan, which leads me to suspect that it is a promotional one. There is some information, which, if it was referenced, could pass as a Stub-class, or even Start-class article. However, there are zero references, so that's out of the question. Until references may be provided, I must favor a deletion. DarthBotto talk•cont 11:33, 03 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_December_27&oldid=1142638800"