Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 December	29 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Women in Israel. snow close (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusion of women in Israel[edit]

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

Merge and redirect to Women in Israel because this is a gross example of a WP:POVFORK and violation of WP:CONTENTFORKING, while the word "Exclusion" is clearly judgmental as well as provocative and an obvious attempt at POV-pushing and hence a violation of WP:NPOV and of WP:NOTSOAPBOX that reveals an almost exclusive obsession and focus on the attitudes of Orthodox Jews. Much of this material as well as the Hebrew "citations" are from the Hebrew WP where this is a hot social issue but does not have the same dramatic interest for outsiders as it does for Israelis caught up in this drama. IZAK (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Women in Israel per above. There are no similar articles, rather, there is Women in India (but not Exclusion of women in India); Women in Iran (but not Exclusion of women in Iran); Women in Nigeria (but not Exclusion of women in Nigeria) etc etc etc. IZAK (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Women in Israel per above. This is also a current events issue and maybe when the dust has settled, there will be reason for this article but not now. Joe407 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect WP:POVFORK and above. OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per foregoing. Not happy with much of the contents, but that can be resolved as part of the merge process - no need to delete outright. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Much of what this article covers belongs in the article for Women in Judaism. While some of the issues apply across the board, the article as it stands ignores many comparable situations regarding Muslim, Druze and Christian women living in Israel. While examples are provided of women being excluded from some roles in the Israeli military, the article continues to describe an increasing range of military roles being made available to women, including in pilot training and many other area where women had not previously been accepted. While women are still not yet eligible to serve in some military capacities, the scope and breadth of female participation in the IDF far surpasses that available to women in the U.S. armed forces, yet there is no Exclusion of women in the United States. What's left doesn't leave much of an article to support the systematic exclusion or women in Israel that the article seems to be describing. Alansohn (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. WP:COATRACK for recent events. JFW | T@lk 06:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Women in Israel per above, particularly Alanoshn's cogent comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Women in Israel per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ditto povfork -- Y not? 22:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Women in Israel (don't only redirect - ie. content should definitely be kept, but neither article is so long at present that there needs to be a fork). The article already has sections on gender segregation and on women in the military which could easily integrate all of this content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carishma[edit]

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

Non-notable musical artist that is currently the subject of a wide-scale advertising blitz but who has little or no press coverage. Fails to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Mgcsinc (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of stubs out there. As said in the article, Carishma knows a few important people in the business. Kim Kardashian had a stub after her relationship with Ray J went rather public, and nobody commented on that. Carishma might work her way up the fame ladder before anyone knows it. Besides, how many Snap-On Feathers commercials have been played over and over on our TVs? Trust me, this girl will go big. I will try to add more information. I don’t want to be too hasty with my decision but I vote on KEEP for now. Mattie604 (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I might have been too hasty with my decision. I added a few more details, but it was hard to find details on this person. Like I said, she might become a bigger star especially with her starring on all of the Snap-On Feathers commercials. I'd like to contact this user because I have found a wrong fact-on Carisha's MySpace it states she is 21 years old, which would mean she was born in 1990 but here it says she was born on 1995. Mattie604 (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails both specific WP:MUSICBIO guideline (a commercial for something with a Wordpress blog, how special) and general WP:GNG/WP:BIO with no coverage in reliable sources. "Keep" argument above is WP:CRYSTAL; we don't keep articles on non-notable people around just in case they might become famous in a few years or decades. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:MUSIC and lacks any notability QU ^TalkQu 23:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy - After searching, just not finding coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The non-notable argument is rather weak, and as far as stubs go, this is decently sourced.Pectore^talk 05:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just noting that the basis of this nomination is not that the article is underdeveloped or undersourced (although the sources are generally primary sources); this is a notability AfD. An article on a non-notable subject, even if it is sourced to high heaven, still merits deletion. - Mgcsinc (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient coverage to establish notability. She might "go big", but in the meantime, she hasn't. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vistagy[edit]

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

Non-notable corporation. Previously deleted by my prod back in Jan 2010. News mentions seem to be entirely press releases regarding being purchased by Siemens AG. Perhaps just redirect to Siemens? Syrthiss (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – National U.S. news coverage confers notability. This article could use more sourcing.

Associated Press (November 9, 2011). "Siemens AG agrees takeover of Vistagy". CBS News. Retrieved December 28, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but not multiple non-trivial news mentions. If all we can say is that it was purchased by Siemens, we might as well redirect it to Siemens. Syrthiss (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They cover their activities, making them notable. There are ambulant results from Google news archive search to weed through. [1] February 17, 2004 - Vistagy Inc. of Waltham, Mass., said it sold more FiberSim software and services to Northrop Grumman Corporation for automating design and manufacturing processes for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. Value of the sale was $1.95 million. Dream Focus 20:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has reliable sources and coverage, and two inline citations. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:09, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pachinko Sexy Reaction 2[edit]

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

I found zero significant coverage for this erotic video game. Fails WP:N SL93 (talk) 20:37, 28 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) 20:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even the external links provided within the article point to a distinct lack of notability. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pachinko Sexy Reaction[edit]

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

I found zero significant coverage for this erotic video game. Fails WP:N SL93 (talk) 20:34, 28 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) 20:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even the external links provided within the article point to a distinct lack of notability. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:25, 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. Combination of WP:IAR, WP:SNOW, and general principles of BLP1E and the general guidelines of BLP policy mean I'm deleting this early. Further, not one policy-based reason has been cited to keep this article, and no evidence of actual notability, not internet flash-in-the-pan notability has been presented. While we might be able to justudy a mention in Penny Arcade (webcomic) or even at a stretch an article on the drama, we cannot justify this biography. If you disagree, feel free to proceed directly to DRV. Courcelles 19:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Christoforo[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:BIO. This article doesn't meet the criteria for a significant person. It instead uses wikipedia as a platform in a PR war. Leondz (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Merge I agree with this being a clear case of WP:BLP1E, and the page feels very confrontational. However, couldn't it go with the controversies and legal issues of Penny Arcade? It did have enough impact that it might be something that could fit in there. The event was noteworthy as far as events involving the webcomic go, but the individual in question lacks the notoriety for his own page. I agree with renaming it though, maybe Ocean Marketing Controversy or something? Aircalibur421 (talk) 4:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete Article and person are not noteworthy (clearly part of a backlash resulting from one incident, which (probably) originated from Reddit). Request for deletion. Refer to WP:BLP1E. spykesinmahshoe (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a proper bio, it is a smear article; a result of a company's PR fiasco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinithehat (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]
Note please refer to the already contested deletion of this bio. the article is unbiased. and request for deletion from the party in question can't be allowed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Christoforo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdisand1 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Jdisand1 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is some sort of campaign based on original research to smear someone or something; it is not a biography of a notable person. The sources are simply excited echoes of a single incident and while the sources show there is a news event, there is no evidence of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. This article is bordering on being an attack page. No editing can make this into a biography by any reasonable definition of the term, therefore deletion is the best option. Quasi human | Talk 23:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BLP1E. A lot of coverage, but it's a single event, unlikely to have a lasting relevant impact on PR. Jarkeld (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sounds to me like the definition of WP:BLP1E. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is it one event, but it is not remotely sufficiently sourced to make allegations which are potentially adverse. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete. The person in question has become a Meme, cited in major business publications as an example of how to wreck your business through catastrophic social marketing. The sources being cited include State of Fla business records, court documents, and even the person's own words. All of these sources are highly reliable, and used elsewhere in Wikipedia articles and biographies. Example: The "Leeroy Jenkins" meme was created by a single event, and has gone on to be featured in many Internet and non-Internet cultural references. This bio about the person that spawned this event is (already) similarly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.110.108 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC) — 68.113.110.108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge/Redirect with Penny Arcade (webcomic). Obviously not something that should be a standalone article (no argument with WP:BLP1E being cited). But the issue has gotten some mainstream press with MSNBC, so a short write-up of the whole issue is appropriate. And since it was Penny Arcade that first latched on to the issue and sent it on its way to becoming viral, that would be the most appropriate merge target. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete. The subject has become an almost instant meme and has received significant coverage by reputable sources. It does, however, need to be re-written so as to be encyclopedic and to meet WP:NPOV. As currently written, it seems to be a pile on. MrX 02:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from WP:BLP1E: "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." I think this applies here. Even if the incident were notable (and I'm not conceding that it is), this individual doesn't meet general notability guidelines, and shouldn't have an article. Dawn Bard (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete Check the talk page for the article. It is filled with users who feel it shouldn't be deleted. While they have posted in the wrong place, they clearly want their voice to be heard, and I agree with them. Getting mentioned on sites like Kotaku and Penny Arcade and news outlets like MSNBC should be criteria enough for an article. --Tarage (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable BLP. Also violates WP:BLP1E. PaintedCarpet (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete The person mentioned in the article has been mentioned on MANY webpages, including major news sources such as MSNBC. He has become an internet meme, to delete would be irresponsible. 98.16.176.243 (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC) ^[1][reply]
Delete This man is not significant. The issue will likely not be a lasting piece of news, or mentioned much in a few weeks' time. If it is, then WP:BLP1E will no longer apply. News outlets are keen to pick up any article they can find, and it is not surprising that an isolate news event generate thousands of brief news articles and discussions. Having such large amounts of web pages on a single day's news story does not make this person any more important. Finally, being popular with Reddit, Know Your Meme or 4chan is hardly a basis for encyclopedic notability! 2.27.245.89 (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to some appropriate article with possible heavy-handed trimming. The person isn't probably notable enough for an article of its own, I guess, but the controversy got media traction, so it's probably worth mentioning somewhere. I predict, with my epic mental powers, that this will be a flash-in-the-pan meme. (Merging and summarising is pretty much standard operating procedure when there's a minor incident involving some non-notable person, right? Do we even need to AfD this stuff? Why am I here anyway?) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - textbook case of WP:BLP1E. This person is not notable by Wikipedia's guidelines. We should not have an article on every person who has briefly been the focus of the Internet's attention. Robofish (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - notability is not temporary. Roodog2k (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possible WP:CSD G10, classic WP:BLP1E Leondz (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete This article is in relation to a largely known and publicized event that has been covered by several news stations as well as a popular gaming culture wesbite (Penny Arcade). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.241.18.25 (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename The event is obviously notable, as it generated tons of press in the community. (I got here by threading though stories that started on Slashdot) I agree that the individual himself is not likely notable per the criteria via BLP1E, but the EVENT itself likely is. Even Forbes is covering it [2], and that is as reliable of a source as you could hope for. As to what to change the name to, that would better be on the talk page of the article, IMO, but input here isn't a bad thing either. Here is another link: [3] Dennis Brown (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares if Forbes is a reliable source or not? Nobody's arguing that. As for why he's in Forbes, well, that's kinda Forbes's job. But we are an encyclopedia, not a news source. WP:N directly refers to WP:NOT in its definition of notability, and I think it would be beating a dead horse if I started quoting things like WP:NOTNEWS to you. Do you honestly think you're going to remember this event a year from now? Five years from now? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read WP:NTEMP? I don't remember much about the French Revolution either, since I wasn't alive, but we have an article on it so I can read about it. Seriously, this argument doesn't even make sense. Do we only include events we remember? Only ones we think are important? No, we include that which passes WP:N, ie: significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, yes, I have. Also, you cut off the part of WP:N that I explicitly called out. Here, let me quote it for you. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Thomas Dzubin (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Ocean Marketing. While Christoforo was the lightning rod, he himself is not notable. The controversy is, and so naming it after the more neutral company name seems worth doing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, Ocean Marketing Controversy. A bunch of new articles have come out today, I can't see how the event itself can't pass wp:n now. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article should be Ocean Marketing Controversy, or something similar. This should not be a bio at all, but an article about an internet phenomenon that escalated from poor customer service. The current article even link to a criminal case involving Christoforo, which has nothing to do the event.MrX 01:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ocean Marketing isn't a notable company. Its only claim to fame is this incident. --George100 (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Intuitively, one very small company's PR implosion isn't noteworthy, even if it's getting temporary press in gaming/tech media (and some outside). I also agree with the WP:BLP complaint. At best this should be heavily abridged and moved into the Penny Arcade article, as Wwwwolf & User:Umbralcorax suggested. Pleiotrope (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While certainly an entertaining story, this event does not appear noteworthy. 12.169.164.5 (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The above vote is mine. I had forgotten to log in. Alyeska (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's the definition of WP:BLP1E. Nobody's going to know who this guy is in a year, and notability is not temporary. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be difficult, but your observation that "notability is not temporary" supports the idea to keep. You're the second to use this argument, but I don't think it means what you think it means. WP:NTEMP is where your statement comes from, and supports a KEEP, not a delete. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take it a step further. It's simple discrete math. If A implies B, then (NOT B) implies (NOT A). That is, if this is temporary which it is then he is not notable. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The policy on notability, and in particular WP:NTEMP has never been interpreted that way, and thankfully, never will because it clearly doesn't say that, and no amount of magical "math" changes that. You would have to be guessing what is important in the future. The policy clearly states that if it is notable "now", it is considered notable "forever". Dennis Brown (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curious though, someone appears to have removed the most important part. I will have to figure out where this was removed, and why. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Elements of this information could easily be added to the Penny Arcade article. Which is probably going to happen anyway. Alyeska (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Obviously WP:BLP1E and a potential WP:BLP violation. Kuguar03 (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under what criterion do you intend to speedy delete it? (Hint: there isn't one, unless you count WP:SNOW, which is not a speedy deletion criterion) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who regularly participates in AfD discussions knows exactly what I meant. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm just going to play devil's advocate for a second here. The one argument that has come up several times (including by myself) has been that this matches WP:BLP1E and I haven't seen anyone even attempt to contest that, much less do it well. Does anyone have a comment on why it doesn't match/should be ignored? If I could be convinced of that, I would probably be willing to back down, but until that happens, I don't see how any closing admin could ignore that point, and it's not even worth attempting to debate this further until that has been covered. (Note: I'm not advocating closing early, just saying "we're wasting time here if we don't talk about this") --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I'm not entirely clear on what your stance is that you would be backing down from. However, I don't feel that this is a person notable for a single event, because I don't feel that the event is notable. What's the event? A man who sell joysticks is a jerk, people who are interested are flabbergasted. Eh. ViniTheHat (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note however that WP:BLP1E provides an exception: "In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event." (emphasis added).

Although this event is not sports related, the exception still applies. The basic criteria for the exception is that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe this subject meets that criteria in abundance, notwithstanding the fact that there are also some non-independent sources. MrX 20:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I'm not entirely sure if this needs to be redirected (or more specifically, to where), but I think the event/company/individual is notable enough through coverage for the information to be worked in somehow. I think there's too much knee-jerk delete reaction involved. Will post something more thorough in the morning. Human.v2.0 (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename - The event is notable, even if the key players are not. Dwcarless (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete. This person/event has become part of the internet cultural zeitgeist and is vital to understanding a large event that took place therein. - Bagel7^T's 22:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Penny Arcade, which appears to be the main notable company associated with this situation. It could be added to the "Legal issues and controversy" section. --George100 (talk) 23:14, 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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Elaine[edit]

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

Non-notable person, article created by a PR agency (and dePRODed by a sockpuppet). Brief, routine coverage in one reliable source and only slightly more in-depth coverage in a possibly unreliable source don't pass WP:BIO. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ATTN: I am a third party, not the PR Agency list above. I have fixed the referencing problems for this article, as well as cited proper newsworthy articles as found online, relating to the subject, from verifiable sources, including Women's Wear Daily and CA Apparel News- not cited/mentioned by the PR Agency above. I will continue to add/correct referencing problems, as I find them. I am a knowledgeable "fashion fan", and advocate of this page, as a member of the Los Angeles fashion community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FashionFanCA (talk • contribs) 21:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — FashionFanCA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak Delete. Cleaned up article is better. I still slightly struggle to see how it passes WP:BIO, but I know we are usually very forgiving in relation to articles on photogenic Fashion Designer/Actress/Models, so I won't protest violently if a decision is taken to keep. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:BIO with sufficient coverage in 3rd party sources particularly Womens Wear Daily and other trade publications. RadioFan (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies GNG requirements. Cavarrone (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A developing name in the fashion world. Satisfies notability requirements. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several sources are given to establish notability. Meets WP:BIO criteria. Tinton5 (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Could even have arguably met A7 Qwyrxian (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vanthali Memon Association[edit]

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for notability for over 2 years. Also tagged as an orphan. Epeefleche (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sufficiently notable on so many different levels... --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:34, 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. Whatever this is, it's an unreferenced article with so little substance that it fails WP:CSD#A1, WP:CSD#A3, and WP:DICDEF. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IBA United[edit]

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for notability for over 3 years. Also tagged as an orphan. Epeefleche (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not sure where the line is for sports programmes affiliated with institutions of higher learning, but pretty confident that the soccer team of a business school in Karachi doesn't make the grade. Notre Dame football it 'aint. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:31, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dusanka[edit]

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for notability for over 3 years. Also tagged as an orphan. Epeefleche (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, what next, are we going to have an article of every given name on Earth? We aren't supposed to be onomastics dictionary, are we? No such user (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete- Not a trace of any notability. Vincelord (talk) 16:50, 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. Tiptoety ^talk 06:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Dancearts Academy[edit]

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

Exists, but lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for notability for over 2 years. Also tagged as an orphan. Epeefleche (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage of significance in reliable sources. I found an advert in a local paper, and a passing mention in a photo caption. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A pre=professional program, of the sort we delete unless there are really strong sources for notability -- and there seem to be none that I can find. A notable school of this sort would have coverage that could be found through the googles. This doesn't. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 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 speedy delete - complete copyvio. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pathak trust[edit]

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

Exists, but lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for notability for over 3 years. Also tagged as an orphan. Epeefleche (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing this organisation has going for it is age, but pedigree alone does not make a not-for-profit charitable. It otherwise appears demonstrably non-notable and time to put it out of its misery after 3 years. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio. The foundation section is copied from [4] and the lede is taken from [5]. Looking through the history, the entire thing is copied. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I suggest evaluating all of the sources listed, seeing if there's sufficient info that can be added to the article, and, if not, renom in a few months. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Technology[edit]

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

I'm struggling to find the notability of this company, the article certainly does not assert it. Also written like an advertisement, among other issues. Since the article has existed since 2006 I chose AfD. Thorncrag 16:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and I unable to find any among the Google results. Msnicki (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly non-notable. Not quite spam, but closer than I would like. Pushing otherwise non-notable products. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is one of those situations where I am personally familiar with the subject, but have a hard time finding the quality of sources that I usually expect. It's mostly just blog articles from a mix of mainstream and industry sources, which isn't surprising considering that this company mainly provides non-sexy infrastructure services. None of these would establish notability on their own but the breadth of coverage indicates that there may be something worth keeping here. For example:

PC World article about the sale of the company
PC World blog about Good Technology solutions used by T-Mobile
One-line mention in NY Times blog about Credit Suisse employing Good Technology products
Another mention from Forbes about how Deutsche Bank uses Good Technology products
TechCrunch article about an industry acquisition

Hence, weak keep. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Per sources:

Lemon, Sumner (Febraury 23, 2009). "Motorola Sells Good Technology to Visto". PC World. Retrieved December 28, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
Gohring, Nancy (July 21, 2011). "T-Mobile Securing Android Phones With Good Technology". PC World. Retrieved December 28, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Good Technology Buys Up CloudSync". Techcrunch.com. January 27, 2010. Retrieved January 01, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:45, 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denton E. Rebok[edit]

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

This person does not seem to be notable, or at least the sources are not there which establish that he is. I checked out Google Books and he does get a few mentions, but mainly in books on the history of his church. (Most often for his role as in leading a college in China, which is not even mentioned in the article.) I was not able to find any substantial coverage in secondary sources which is required by WP standards to establish notability. Of course it may well be out there in books, but until that is provided I don't think there is a basis for an article. BigJim707 (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Probably meets #6 of WP:ACADEMIC as president of Southern Adventist University. However, this isn't sourced in the article. 78.26 (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ACADEMIC #6. St Anselm (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I think on WP:ACADEMIC it is a delete, but clearly he is one of the more prominent apologists (always hated that word...) for Seventh Day Adventists, and on that basis is sufficiently notable. We don't have a WP:PRIEST, but if we did, I think this article scrapes by. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Dean of the Seminary an important person in the SDA church organization. Far more notable than high school and college sports stars found elsewhere on WP. Johnjonesjr (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as president of an academic institution, albeit, only a smallish one in his time. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina Tayler[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:BIO. The only claim to notability is that her husband—a real estate developer—named a street after her. Jeremy (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not WP:N as presented.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited. Nor is the fact that a person died a long time ago notable in itself. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability.Vincelord (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having a street named after her isn't the only claim to notability. Being a leading citizen of the city is also a claim. However, I cannot find any reliable sources writing about her that would indicate that she is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BuildMaster[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable software platform. Can not find much discussion outside of primary sources on Google. Only trivial or incidental coverage on StackOverflow.com. Does not meet the WP:GNG. Pol430 talk to me 15:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

As mentioned on User talk:Pol430... like most of the software platforms/tool, BuildMaster is most certainly notable within its own niche (some have argued that the niche itself is non-notable and should be merged into single paragraphs on the software engineering page), and virtually all of these are single-sourced from the project's own website or from paid listings and press releases. If these articles are unacceptable on Wikipedia, then most niche articles (see Comparison of issue-tracking systems, Comparison of revision control software, Comparison of project management software, etc) should be deleted too.Atpapa (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)— Atpapa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The fact that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is irrelevant at AfD. Msnicki (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage for this software. SL93 (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, there's nothing to be found in the Google results and nothing offered by the article itself. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I fail to see what "niche" this software is supposed to be notable in. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Nicholls[edit]

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

Living subject does not appear to meet notability requirements, article appears to be promotional in nature, with a full directory of external links to self- and blog-publisheed works and interviews. Notability, primary sources, and proposed deletion tags removed by involved user without correcting issues or explanation. Yworo (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I pointed out on the Talk:Graham_Nicholls page I found 3 books by other authors with references to Graham Nicholls, as well as two books by Nicholls himself. He has also appeared in articles in The Times, The Independent, The Telegraph, The Daily Express and on BBC radio and online. He has been a speaker or exhibitor at the Science Museum and The Cambridge Union Society, as well as other places. As far as I can see his inclusion is fair, as User:Ragesoss pointed out in 2009, stating "seems notable based on substantial coverage in linked interviews". There are some references to the subjects website (which is normal and not against policy) but the article does not seem overly promotional, could Yworo point out which elements he finds problematic and maybe we can remove or improve them? - Solar (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I think this fits under the category "slightly weird people who we would rather delete the article because otherwise people might be tempted to take them or their discipline seriously". But I think if they are sufficiently prominent in their field (even if is not exactly academically rigorous) they comply with WP:BIO. Having said that, it still looks like a borderline case. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- œ ^™ 09:55, 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 delete. CSD A7 for web content v/r - T P 15:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pofex[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable web site. Probably falls under CSD:A7 (no assertion of importance in the article) and CSD:G11 (clearly promotional), but CSD tag was removed and subsequent Prod was contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 13:05, 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. There is no evidence presented of a gene with such a name, and apparently no viable target for a redirect. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grim Reaper (gene)[edit]

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

Much as we may debate about whether all genes in all organisms are notable, this article is misleading. There is (as far as I know), no gene called Grim Reaper, but there is a gene called grim, a gene called reaper, and a gene called hid, all of which are closely linked and are involved in apoptosis in Drosophila.[6] Whichever gene this article is about, calling it Grim Reaper is misleading and confusing. Quasi human | Talk 12:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Quasi human | Talk 18:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect?. This has to be the most informative comment I have ever read on an AfD - thanks, User:Quasihuman (good name for talking about genes as well...). The article clearly ought not to stand in current form. However, would it be more productive to replace it with a redirect (not sufficiently familiar with subject to suggest a destination)? --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment! I can't think of a suitable target for the article to be redirected to. Possibly Apoptosis, but I'm not sure of the usefulness of that. If there were articles, Genetics of apoptosis or Apoptosis in Drosophila, they might be better targets, as far as I know, none of the genes I mentioned above have articles. Furthermore, while redirects are cheap, I'm not sure how useful any redirect would be given that the source first cited in this article [7] (this revision) does not mention the gene as Grim Reaper, but mentions reaper and hid, genes which I listed above. This article seems to be based on a misunderstanding by the creator, and is not really a plausible redirect. Quasi human | Talk 12:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A redirect seems reasonable per the above comments but what are the chances of anyone actually typing "Grim Reaper (gene)" in the search box. The lack of reliable sources, however, supports Quasihuman's analysis suggesting this article is either original research or at least, not very good research. Claret Ash 03:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drama (2012 film)[edit]

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

Article about a film which does not meet Wikipedia's rules on notability for films. The only reference is to YouTube and is not a reliable source. Prod removed, so bringing here for discussion. If proper sources that demonstrate the film's notability can be provided, I'd be happy to see the article kept, but unless they are added in the duration of this discussion, it should be deleted. Sparthorse (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Adding the duplicate article Drama(film) which is about the same subject with the same sources. If the result of the debate is to keep Drama (2012 film), then Drama(film) should be deleted under CSD:A10. If the result is delete, both should be deleted. Sparthorse (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Youtube video is that of a news channel and I'm still searching for today's paper where it has been published. The newspaper citation will also be added soon enough.11:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbblr0803 (talk • contribs)

As per the guidelines, the sources I have added are not connected with either the producer or any film crew but its a press release and hence I think they are reliable and not to fool around for Wikipedia.Abhiram (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As filming has not commenced, it therefore fails WP:NFF. It appears to have only been announced today, and if the only reports are based on a press release, then it fails WP:N#Events. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NFF. SL93 (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear WP:NFF. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per WP:TOOSOON. Redirect title to director Yograj Bhat#Career where his future plans may be spoken of in context IF sourced. Note: the redirect target has this film mentioned as Dharma. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taizhou high school[edit]

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

WP:ARTSPAM ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~speedy under G11: Spam~~ High schools are generally considered notable, but this is clearly spam and should be deleted. No objection to recreation as a neutrally worded stub. Note that the source used does not appear to support the content [8]. Yoenit (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the puffery, so it reads less lile an advert. Stephen! ^Coming... 14:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I finished cleaning up the article so it is a now a proper stub. Note that Hu Jintao is an alumni from this school. That name did not mean anything to me, but he happens to be the paramount leader of China. Now I am well aware notability is not inherited, but I would be very suprised if this school did not receive a fair share of media attention in China itself. Yoenit (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If it is verifiably a high school, then it should get the general assumption of notability per general outcomes of previous hundreds (or thousands) of AFDs over the past several years. My concern is that editors able to read Chinese verify that reliable sources support it being or having once been a high school. The Google translation linked above by Yoenit is mostly gibberish, but in some places seems to say it is ""Taizhou Middle School." but in other places that its graduates go to university. A middle school would not get the assumption of notability. Reliable sources are helpful, especially to avoid multiple articles about the same foreign school under various transliterations. Edison (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Seems to be somewhat notable in its own right. Ranked among the top 100 schools in China.[9] President Hu Jintao is apparently an alumni. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should this AFD be closed? The reason it went to AFD was because of the spam-like content, not because of notability. The article has been converted into a proper stub now, and notability doesn't appear to be in doubt. Stephen! ^Coming... 13:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I expect it could be snow-closed at this point, or the nom may wish to withdraw ... --Epeefleche (talk) 08:13, 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. CSD G3 v/r - T P 14:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daragonism[edit]

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

Original research. As the article says: "Daragonism has only been recently brought in the eyes of the public being mentioned the forenamed politician and Beppe Grillo(2011), but still only prevails as an underground Subculture and is not yet a subject of public debate". At least one of the sources don't mention Daragonism. The content is pseudo-science nonsense about consciousness and quantum mechanics. Prod contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do some research yourself before claiming such things. Calling De Broglie wavelengths and cymatics pseudo-science is intolerable. Moreover the two politicians DO talk about it. Do you speak Italian? Let people who know more than you judge please instead of making assumptions based on nothing. I agree Daragonians take scientific research out of context but this does not mean they do not exist. Far more senseless movements exist. XmoroX (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call either de Broglie wavelengths or cymatics pseudo-science. I called Daragonism pseudo-science. It clearly is. As I said above, at least one of the sources don't mention Daragonism, this one: [10]. Just because there are more senseless movements (there are) doesn't mean Wikipedia has to cover this senseless movement. Sparthorse (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is essentially pure pseudo-science (WP:PSCI) and original research (WP:OR). Wikipedia must not be used as a platform to promote such ideas (WP:NPOV). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it would be pseudo science if it claimed to be a science. it is a cult not a science. and if you had checked the in text citations you'd see that the link you refer to is connected to de broglie, not the movement. It is clear you are both people that jump straight to conclusions and get in the way of progress — Preceding unsigned comment added by XmoroX (talk • contribs) 10:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approve. The author is right, I took the time to listen to the interview and the monologue and they both DO mention it.

Luxoculi (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC) And you should stop interlinking to random guidelines to try and look more professional. The author was neutral in his article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxoculi (talk • contribs) 10:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/XmoroX - this contribution is highly suspicious. Sparthorse (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I was about to post the same thing. Both Xmorox (talk · contribs) and Luxoculi (talk · contribs) have been editing for less than two days, each of them has contributed almost exclusively to this discussion, and they are taking a similar stance. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability per WP:GNG, zero coverage online, probable WP:HOAX. Filing Flunky (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domenicism, created by User:Luxoculi. Filing Flunky (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not assert notability (in fact the reverse) and there is not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cusop Dingle (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious hoax Well, it's obvious to anyone who saw the now-deleted Domenicism article, which has similar baloney. Passing admin, please review Domenicism and act accordingly here. EEng (talk) 14:49, 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) 14:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colette Aboulker-Muscat[edit]

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

This biography is supposed to be about a Jewish mystic who started a therapeutic technique which has "been the foundation for the work of many Doctors, Psychologists, Psychotherapists, Artists and Healers around the world".

One fairly major problem: I can't find any decent sources to establish notability.

The sources that exist don't come anywhere near reliable: what exists on Google is of the self-published GeoCities variety. The article cites a book called "The Davidic Families and the Genealogy of Colette Aboulker-Muscat". After a bit of searching, I found out that it is a self-published source. According to the listing on the National Library of Israel catalogue, the publisher is one "Aliza Yehezkiel", who also happens to be the author.

As for other books? Google Books brings up a few things, but I can't find any significant coverage, just passing mentions of the fact that she existed, was some form of mystic and was based in Jerusalem. The aforementioned National Library of Israel list only the self-published 'Davidic Families' book as the only source in their catalogue on the subject. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After coming across the article through new page patrolling it was clear that it needed a significant amount of work: no sources (except for the mentioned "Lineage" section), lots of placeholders. I thought that it might be possible to find them, a quick search seemed to bring up a reasonable number of results; however it became very clear that none of these sources could be considered reliable. The Jerusalem post news sources, which could have potentially be used for asserting notability appear to be passing mentions only. --Mrmatiko (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search finds multiple published works by the subject and additional foreign language sources. A search in Google Books finds not only her works, but a network of references in books written and published by other authors that make notable mentions of the subject. The current article makes weak, but borderline credible, claims of notability and there is adequate material available to flesh out this article with additional sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references means NN and not worthy of separate article. Stub and merge into Gerald Epstein for his discovery. if someone wants to work on this article quickly, it might make a difference. --Shuki (talk) 19:00, 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. If anyone finds any references, please let me know and I'll userfy a copy for you. Without reliable verification, though, the article has to be deleted for now. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Elhariri[edit]

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

This dancer appears to be non-notable, as measured by the paucity of RS coverage of him. The article has zero refs, and is an orphan. Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Just doesn't seem notable from my research but if insinuations made in the article can be substantiated then it should be kept.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources, no assertion it passes any of the specific notability standards = gots-to-go Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:13, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The scrappy hints on the web suggest that El Hariri did exist and was a notable dancer. Since the pages in English are poor I think we should get a proper search in Arabic - given the number of performances and awards there must be good sources. Help please! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:58, 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) 14:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFFAIR Magazine[edit]

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

The article about this magazine has zero refs, and I can't find sufficient independent substantial RS coverage of the magazine to support a finding of notability. Tagged for notability and zero refs since May. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral if verified it should be kept as all magazines and newspapers are notable, if not then delete and recreate when that is the case. No significant edit history would need to be preserved.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:22, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not agree that "all magazines and newspapers are notable". Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:07, 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. Deautomatization is "a disturbance of the spatial, temporal, speed, and power parameters of movement in man". Ooooo-kay. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deautomatization[edit]

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

In dispute to the proposed deletion, the writer of the article requested to "check Google Books". Having done so (before prod, as standard practice), I still do not see a future for this article. While Google Books provides an initially impressive-looking number of hits ([11]), the term is generally mentioned very briefly and in passing by those books which use it, and those tend to disagree on what it means (one finds everything from New Age-style "mystical" use to what appears to be a term of convenience to describe a postulated psychological phenomenon). I can find nothing to indicate that this term has any particular significance in either the New Age/neopagan movements or in psychology, but rather stems from a 1959 fringe-ish psychological hypothesis that never gained much traction. Brief blurbs and passing mentions, even a lot of them, are not sufficient to sustain an article, and I can find no in-depth studies of the hypothesis. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:03, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The paper by Arthur J Deikman, "De-automatization and the mystic experience", where deautomatization is defined as "reinvesting actions and percepts with attention," has been cited in 333 articles indexed by Google scholar, including works by prominent researchers worldwide, rather than just by the original author and his students as one typically finds in some walled-garden niche concept in psychology. Edison (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be original research and thus the term has no relevance outside the context of one piece of writing, no need for Wikipedia to define it; seems only promotional here. kashmiri (talk) 16:12, 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. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hawatmeh[edit]

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

Zero refs; appears to be OR. An orphan. Tagged for zero refs and as an orphan for well over a year. Created by a 1-edit-ever-only SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per op. Cloudz 679 10:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Per such geneology websites as: [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16], I am lead to believe that this surname definately exists and is therefore not OR. However, I do not know what the criteria is regardiing articles on surnames. I for one have found it highly suspect that many more obscure surnames have their own Wikipedia articles. Whether or not they deserve an article is beyond my knowledge. I have simply brought new information to light. P.S. Nayef Hawatmeh uses the surname, so do Randa Hawatmeh and Iehab J. Hawatmeh.--Coin945 (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. FWIW, a fact may exist and may still be OR. I'm not sure those geneology sites, btw, are RSs. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow... can you explain the view that "a fact may exist and may still be OR"? Also FWIW, the first geneology website i linked to (MUNDIA) appears to be an offshoot of ancestry.com, which (I'm pretty sure) is the largest ancestry website on the internet. On first glance, I am unsure as to the reliability of the other ones... Also, out of interest, what does the fact that a few notable people have that surname mean for it's notability?--Coin945 (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~A search of the surname at ancestry.com yields 3,289,749 results.~~ The actual number of results on the page is only around 700. After page 14 (if you view 50 at a time), there doesn't seem to be anyone named Hawatmeh.--Coin945 (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material such as facts for which we have no reliable, published sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented. Thus, even if something is a "fact" -- if you lack RS support for it, it is OR.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outback Redemption[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and lacks references other than a youtube clip and own website. Promotional in nature. Cloudz 679 08:41, 28 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) 20:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfur (programming language)[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not for things you WP:MADEUP. Msnicki (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: May be it could find its way to Wikipedia one day, but it should become notable before. Currently I see no evidence of at least some coverage in secondary or third-party sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article seems to be an attempt to gain publicity for a newly-launched command scripting language. Whatever its possible merits, there are essentially no sources available, and the article (and a mention at Microsoft) imply this is purely promotional. Better wait until notability is established. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the current scope of this language, I doubt that there are any hidden secondary sources that we're not seeing. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage. SL93 (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:The main two points that I have against this is that it is WP:TOOSOON and that it seems to be mainly promotional.--CanvasHat 03:31, 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 New Windsor, New York. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph's School (New Windsor, New York)[edit]

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

School through grade 8; convention with such schools is to delete and or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the parish or authority which operated it, per common outcomes for AFDs of elementary schools, when we do not have refs to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district, Catholic parish, or locality (New Windsor, New York). Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, according to long established precedent 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) 05:45, 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) 05:45, 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 redirect to Girard, Ohio. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Rose School[edit]

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

School through grade 8; convention with such schools is to delete and or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no refs are presented to satisfy WP:ORG. No objection to redirecting if a suitable redirect target is identified. This is consistent with the consensus shown in hundreds of school AFDs for schools which do not go through grade 12. Edison (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Girard, Ohio per convention for primary schools with no indication of notability. RadioFan (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district, or locality (Girard, Ohio). Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, according to long established precedent 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) 05:47, 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) 05:47, 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 Youngstown City School District. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Christine School[edit]

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

School through grade 8; convention with such schools is to delete and or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no refs are presented to satisfy WP:ORG. No objection to redirecting if a suitable redirect target is identified (The Daughters of Charity mentioned as the organizing body is a disambiguation page). This is consistent with the consensus shown in hundreds of school AFDs for schools which do not go through grade 12. Edison (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect either to Youngstown City School District, or the localiity. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, according to long established precedent demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:51, 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) 05:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Layton, Utah#Education. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Davis Preparatory Academy[edit]

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

School through grade 9; convention with such schools is to delete and or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no refs are presented to satisfy WP:ORG. No objection to redirecting if a suitable redirect target is identified. This is consistent with the consensus shown in hundreds of school AFDs for schools which do not go through grade 12. Edison (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even after an active search for potential references to this school, I am unable to find anything that could be considered a reliable source. Deletion due to lack of notability certainly seems reasonable in this situation. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Layton, Utah#Education where it is already listed. 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) 06:00, 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) 06:00, 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 Moncton#Education. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest School (Moncton)[edit]

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

School through grade 8; convention with such schools is to delete and or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:56, 28 , December 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to an appropriate target, if one can be found. Otherwise, delete. Consensus has been reached, in my opinion, that such primary schools are rarely notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no refs are presented to satisfy WP:ORG. No objection to redirecting if a suitable redirect target is identified. This is consistent with the consensus shown in hundreds of school AFDs for schools which do not go through grade 12. Edison (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moncton#Education. 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) 06:02, 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) 06:02, 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]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Conseil scolaire acadien provincial#Région Centrale (Central Region). Nobody apart from Ebe123 is objecting to this outcome, and "it's information" is considered a weak argument. Hut 8.5 19:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

École Beaubassin[edit]

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

School through grade 5; convention with such schools is to delete and or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the school district at Conseil scolaire acadien provincial#Région Centrale (Central Region) where it is already listed, per standard procedure for non notable schools. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as recommended by Kudpung and per established consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hate that Convention: This place is to gain information, and deleting an article just because it is a primary school is incredible! Keep, per IAR. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 12:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AADD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but the convention is just so stupid it's incredible. Also, if this happens, why don't we just get A7 to cover this? ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 14:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's just an essay that I decided to not follow, like WP:DTTR. Get consensus to make them policy. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 14:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not the venue to debate the vallidity of policy, guidelines, practiced precedent, or what you decide to ignore. It's a place to implement what is generally recognised and accepted by the community.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no refs are presented to satisfy WP:ORG. No objection to redirecting if a suitable redirect target is identified. This is consistent with the consensus shown in hundreds of school AFDs for schools which do not go through grade 12. Edison (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Edison Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:22, 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 York Region District School Board. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King City Public School[edit]

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

School through grade 8; convention with such schools is to delete and or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to York Region District School Board, per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to article identified by Carrite, per established consensus on how to deal with articles about primary schools. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no refs are presented to satisfy WP:ORG. No objection to redirecting to the target article listed by Carrite. This is consistent with the consensus shown in hundreds of school AFDs for schools which do not go through grade 12. Edison (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to York Region District School Board. 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) 06:19, 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) 06:19, 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 !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge School, Doha, Qatar[edit]

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

School through year 9; absent unusual circumstances, we tend to delete and/or redirect such articles. Many of its refs are to its own publications, and many others are non-substantial. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is a school going up to year 13: it follows the National Curriculum up to Year 9 and then has a sixth form. Schools which cover the entire age range up to 18 are normally considered notable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it appears to educate past grade 12, although the lede states it only goes to grade 9. That is consistent with the de facto notability standard for schools established in hundreds of previous AFDs, but which we have never quite managed to explicitly add to WP:ORG. Maybe it is time to do so. Some cleanup is needed. Edison (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep this sort of school should have an article due to being a high school. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously, as a Grade 12/13 high school. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Clearly, I was confused by the article's lead.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:21, 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. Sandstein 11:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Luke's Primary School[edit]

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

Primary school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine of any new material that is rs ref supported) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete if no appropriate target can be found. Zero refs is not a good thing. Consensus is that primary schools are rarely notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There must be dozens, if not hundreds of primary schools called St Luke's. It would be wrong to redirect it to the list of schools for this ones local authority, as I don't believe it is the primary topic. The only other St Luke's with a Wiki article is this one, but this suffers from the same probelms as the one in this nomination. Lugnuts (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - these are the search results for St Luke's primary schools. Lugnuts (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article no longer has zero refs. When one actually takes the trouble to search for and read the sources, one finds that this has been quite a troubled school - an interesting example of one that was found to have failed but is now being turned around. Because of this, it has been the subject of close scrutiny and so there are plenty of detailed independent sources to be found such as this. Warden (talk) 09:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

England and Wales have over 16,000 maintained Primary schools. Every one of them has an Ofsted report. Cannot be used as evidence of notability.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability. Unable to find any reason to grant notability. As per other AfD in terms of establishing notability, I maintain that an Ofsted inspection report only confirms the school' existence. By all accounts being graded "unsatisfactory" (one of four grades awarded by Ofsted) isn't a point of note either. Reports suggest as many as a third of schools fall into this category. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district or locali. Non notable primary schools are generally neither deleted nor kept; 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). By the same token, references do not assert de facto notability unless the school is especialy notable. Disambiguate as necessary. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 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) 06:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Fmph (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Primary school says it all Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google search for the article title returns schools in Brighton, Islington, Newham, Kingston, Lambeth, Hampshire, Duston, Tiptree, Cambridgeshire and Frodsham - on the first page of the search results. A redirect in this instance is totally misleading - unless it's a redirect to a dab page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have multiple ways of addressing such issues here at Wikipedia. Deletion is nether an argument nor a solution for articles that might potentially have the same name. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So redirect to a newly created dab page then rather than just one of the obvious multiple possibilities for the name. A redirect to any specific location in this case makes no sense at all. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is 1) that dab is not a reason for deletion, 2) Redirect to school district or locality; so where is the problem? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's saying that it could reasonably be redirected to any number of localities or school districts, so a disambiguation page should be substituted for the usual redirect Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I'm saying. Redirects need to go to a sensible place. This page either needs renaming first (to "XXX Primary Schoo1, LOCATION") or needs to go to a dab page (in fact, it probably needs the content replacing with a dab page) which lists all the known possible St Lukes Primary Schools. If that's the best way of going about it then go ahead and do it - the page is going to be either deleted or redirected anyway. But the worst possible solution in this case (and cases like it) is redirecting to a single location. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG or school guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:22, 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 redirect to Koduvila. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis Upper Primary School[edit]

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

Primary school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine, though it has zero ref-supported information) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to locality. 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) 06:29, 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) 06:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Fmph (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agree with Kudpung. Should be preferably redirected to Koduvila. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trunks ishida (talk • contribs) 21:01, 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 since no-one has offered an argument against the idea. No target has been suggested and South Belfast is about a parliamentary constituency so I'm going to redirect it to List of primary schools in Belfast for the time being. It can be retargeted at editorial discretion. Hut 8.5 19:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael's Primary School, Belfast[edit]

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of why this school is notable. Couldn't find anything to grant notability Pit-yacker (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to locality or school board article. 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) 06:30, 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) 06:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Fmph (talk) 09:55, 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. Keep-arguments amount to "it's relevant" and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mothers News[edit]

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

I think it is probably too soon for this newspaper to have a Wikipedia article. I can't find any references on Google News or Google Books, and the sources in the article don't look sufficient to pass WP:ORG. One is from the Brown Daily Herald, a student newspaper (this may be enough to prove some local notability, but not the level of coverage that WP:ORG requires), and the other, the Comics Journal piece, is largely written by the Mothers News publishers. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I'm not really sure how the deletion process is supposed to be decided, but there's a few points that I think are worth mentioning and hopefully they will be relevant: 1. A comparable (and much less influential) monthly publication, Rhode Island Monthly has no sources at all and hasn't been deleted. 2. Publications are in a funny space generally because they tend not to be written about by other publications and therefore are under-reported on relative to impact. 3. Alternative and print-only papers in particular are less likely to have coverage from online, mainstream publications due to their subject nature. 4. Mothers News is particularly influential among notable artists and independent arts and music organizations: as these are not publications, is there another way to document their adoption / response? are blog posts from these orgs usable as sources? Disbooya (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Disbooya you certainly have good intentions, but Wikipedia is not just a place for any piece of information, WP:Notability and WP:ORG point to a much more indepth coverage of pieces. You have to remember that we need to be able to WP:Verify the information that we present to our readership in reliable sources such as newspapers with more editorial oversight then student newspapers, or regional magazines, in order to ensure that we aren't putting up any bad or facetious information, Sadads (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sadads, I appreciate your points, but as for verifiability, I think that everything in the article is either verified or verifiable to at least the level of most wikipedia articles. It doesn't seem like there is any question about veracity or sourcing, as Mothers News is clearly a real publication and there are no unusual or suspect claims made in the article. In fact, because Mothers News is itself a publication, claims about content are directly verifiable by observation of the paper itself. The involvement (through distribution or content contribution) of notable organizations and artists clearly establishes notability from my perspective, particularly in comparison to other significantly less notable and more poorly sourced articles about similar regional publications (such as Rhode Island Monthly and Providence Business News). It's very hard for me to see how those articles could possibly stay on Wikipedia while Mothers News is considered for deletion. Disbooya (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it may not meet WP:Notability for newspaper standards I see no harm in keeping the page, as it's a relevant piece of Providence art culture. Endlessmug (talk) 17:22, 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 List of Middle-earth weapons and armour. Merging and redirect target may be further discussed on the article's talk page. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Arrow (Middle-earth)[edit]

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

Someone prodded it as "There is no need for an article on such an obscure topic in a fictional universe.", but it needs proper discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't need it's own article. There is a list of middle-earth artefacts floating about somewhere, that's good enough. GimliDotNet (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone can add it to a list if they feel like it, but this doesn't need its own article - it's totally non-notable even in its own universe. Compare Glamdring, Sting, and Angrist, which are much more important and don't have articles - we just don't cover fictional stuff in this amount of detail. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is clearly notable being documented in detail in numerous sources such as The new Tolkien companion, Tolkien and the invention of myth, The forsaken realm of Tolkien: Tolkien and the medieval tradition, War and the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, &c. But the nominator provides no reason to delete and so there's no case to answer. Warden (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is nearly eight years old and uses only one source: a primary one at that. If it can be improved I may change my vote but I doubt it will be. GimliDotNet (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One appearance doth not an article make. I wouldn't even put it in the List of Middle-earth objects. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously haven't read the article as the arrow makes more than one appearance. Warden (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. So there were two. Whoopee. I knew what it was, having read LOTR umpteen times, and already had a pretty clear opinion as to its relative importance. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the argument to avoid of WP:IKNOWIT which seems especially weak when it turns out that you don't in fact know it. Warden (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm also a fan, but this is way too trivial for a general interest encyclopedia. (Sting does not have an article?) BigJim707 (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy is that Wikipedia "...incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias". It contains millions of articles on many minor and abstruse topics which are of no general interest. You do not provide a reason to discriminate against this one and so your opinion just seems to be a variant of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (Sting is a blue link: Sting (Middle-earth)). Warden (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a redirect to a list, which you would know if you followed the link. I'm calling WP:POT on this one :-D GimliDotNet (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The basic information is already given in List of Middle-earth weapons and armour. BigJim707 (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasons, Sadads (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Middle-earth weapons and armour, per WP:ATD. The material is sourced, but not notable enough for its own article. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Middle-earth weapons and armour. I see that an exhaustive guide like The Tolkien Companion only gives small coverage. Article has one scholar source explaining the historical parallel to an old poem, and that bit of info should be merged. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am a fan too, but can't say it better than "There is no need for an article on such an obscure topic in a fictional universe." --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Middle-earth weapons and armour per comments above. De728631 (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note People voting for a merge should know that the subject is already covered on the List of Middle-earth weapons and armour. --Bajazeth. And think to rouse us from our dreadful siege / Of the famous Grecian Constantinople 00:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Middle-earth objects. The topic meets all five criteria of the general notability guideline and there are two independent reliable secondary sources in the article right now. More could be added per Warden's comment above. So what if it will never be a 10,000 word article. Wikipedia is not paper, so we don't have to pick and choose what little articles we can include and which we have to cut—we can include them all. I agree that not much was said about the Red Arrow in LoTR. Because of this, significant coverage in secondary sources might mean only a paragraph or two, but it would be a shame to see that information lost. (Did you know there was an historical antecedent in Old English poetry? I didn't.) At the very least, it should be merged. Because it is a token and symbol—neither weapon nor armor—I think it would be perfect in List of Middle-earth objects along with the Arkenstone, Nauglamír, Phial of Galadriel, etc. Cheers. Braincricket (talk) 12:08, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Link Records[edit]

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

Non-notable record store/record company. Nothing to establish notability, not significant coverage in independent sources (as required under WP:N) or any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. GrapedApe (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article certainly needs work, especially with its references but its notability is established by its artist roster. A quick scan of Ian McFarlane's Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop provides The Boys Next Door/The Birthday Party,[17] The Bleeding Hearts,[18] Philip Brophy/→ ↑ →,[19] Dynamic Hepnotics,[20] and so on. Other sources include Ed Nimmervoll's Howlspace [21] and the National Library of Australia [22].shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources: Closing shop.[23], [24], [25]. Going digital.[26]. Shop/label.[27]. Shop.[28].shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The label was a key independent record labels in the late 1970s-1980s, producing some of the first releases from a number of seminal Australian punk, new wave and post-punk acts, including The Boys Next Door, Laughing Clowns, Whirlywirld, The Go-Betweens and The Birthday Party. The article as Shaidar points out needs some work but clearly is one of the notable Australian record labels of the era.Dan arndt (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone have access to Bob Blunts book Blunt: A Biased History of Australian Rock. If it's the book I think it is it should have a page on Missing Link. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the refs checked by shaidar cuebiyar Satu Suro 11:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article could do with some work, but there's no doubt that it's an important part of Australian music history Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hug a Ginga Day[edit]

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

Changed PROD to an AfD, as the article already had a disputed PROD in its history. Reason given in the new PROD: Obscure joke holiday. Singularity42 (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom was me. Thanks Singularity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A local radio station gimmick that's received some passing "human interest" and "slow news day" coverage in local papers, but not the level of significant coverage needed to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 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 speedy keep, nomination by a sock puppet of banned user Otto4711 (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 03:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rise of the Blue Beetle![edit]

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

Delete - at first glance this appears to be adequately sourced with four sources. Of the four: ToonZone describes itself as a "site run by a group of devoted animation fans" and doesn't appear to qualify as a reliable source for establishing notability. Same for Mania.com, which allows anyone to register and post reviews with little or no indication of editorial oversight. The Wired article, while a reliable source, is a general article about the series and not specifically about the episode. That leaves IGN. A single source is not good enough to establish the notability of the individual episode. Notability requires multiple independent reliable sources that are substantially about the episode. Lee Haas (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mania is for sure a reliable source. Staff reviews are separated from user reviews. The reviewer is "currently the editor of the comic book movie news at Mania.com." Having a panel of writers and three editors that have contributed to major media companies, this is reliable.[29] SL93 (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also really like this interview with the director talking about putting the episode together. SL93 (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found this. SL93 (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Toon Zone is used in 485 articles so it is possibly reliable. SL93 (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another interview mainly focusing on Blue Beetle in this episode and the pilot. The writer only did one other episode. SL93 (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Batman: The Brave and the Bold episodes. I don't see the multiple significant sources to support a separate article. Rangoondispenser (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weather and Climate during the Trail of Tears[edit]

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

Original essay/synth, "look at me I'm proving a point" and all; I don't see evidence that this is a topic discussed in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Historical revisionism not supported by reliable sources. In other words, pure original research by the creator of this article. Viriditas (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well written and well sourced, but subject is not inherently notable in itself, and there is a strong whiff of OR. The fact that it was written in a single purpose account doesn't push me toward giving it the benefit of any minor doubts. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though it is conceivable that there might be something to merge back to Trail of Tears or the articles on the individual removals. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 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. POV fork of Armenian genocide. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French Genocide[edit]

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

Misuse of term "French Genocide" and non-notable recent media event. The term "French Genocide" is rare in the literature, and when it does appear, usually refers to the killings in the Vendee region during the French Revolution [30]. Here, this term is completely misused. To the extent that the deaths of Algerians during the Algerian war of independence could be construed as genocide (which is generally not the case), the article should be entitled "Algerian genocide". But that term is nonexistant in the literature [31]. All we have here are the accusations of the Turkish Government in retaliation for the recent French law on the Armenian Genocide, which is not sufficiently notable to warrant an encyclopedia article. Athenean (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree : A short-lived thunderous political reaction, nothing else. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Media manipulation!

Delete This page English translation of tr:Cezayir Soykırımı. And this for Sétif and Guelma massacre in English Wikipedia. -- Esc2003 (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is political point scoring between a genocide-denying Turkey and the French legislature. If kept it should be "Genocide in Algeria". The killing of the Jews by the Germans is never called "German genocide" and the article on the Armenians is at Armenian genocide. History needs to be written by historians based on documents, not by policitians with a gripe. I am taking no view on whether the actions of the French during the Algerian war of independence do or do not constitute a genocide. I will merely comment that war is a nasty business, and particularly civil war, in which relatively uninvolved people get caught in the crossfire. We hear of millions having died in the recent DRC conflicts, but I do not think any one is crying "genocide", at least not yet. It is a pity that List of massacres in Algeria is not in chronological order. However, it seems that peopel were killed as a result of armed conflict, not merely becasue of their ethnicity, which is (or should be) the test for genocide. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: I am turkish and I can confirm that the turkish article about the french genocide is not the same as the article in english. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, where different views can be shared in one article. I invite the french and other europeans to update the article using the views of their leaders and historians etc. the following article en:Algerian_war on wikipedia acknowledges that nearly or over 1 million algerians died during their war for independance, while only 25.000 french found death. The disproportional number of algerian casualties against the french casualties shows that it is highly unlikely to be caused by warfare alone. the french should take their responsibilities for their own history first, just the same as turkey should take its responsibility. every country should at first clean its own dirty past. the article should be renamed "Algerian genocide" in contrast to the armenian sufferings. And so to avoid the french being constantly targeted. The name "French genocide" is too personal. removing the article would be inconsistant with wikipedia's principles. 178.84.115.162 (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Let the evidence speak for itself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm9uKjVyKoI , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L5DvaEjEGU&feature=related , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1U33-dpsJI&feature=related , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZiGYASeNf4&feature=related , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE68Rdb2tSA&feature=related, those are french soldiers gunning down unarmed algerian civilians. 178.84.115.162 (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What the sources demonstrate is that there is a controversy between Turkey and France, they do not demonstrate that genocide took place, and having an article on the subject (and the redirect Algerian genocide) gives undue weight to an idea that doesn't have sourcing, making it inflammatory. I have no idea what really happened, but this is not the way to document it. It only covers the accusations, and presents zero sourcing to facts. All I can do is look at the policies here, which seem to indicate that there is a shortage of real sourcing of the event, and only sourcing of heated exchanges between political leaders. I've watched the article since inception, and have no problem with it being recreated if real sourcing and evidence comes to light, but as of today, I can't find it and it appears others can't either. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to War in the Vendée which is what both google books & google scholar suggest in the find sources search above. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Dennis Brown Darkness Shines (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: This Article does NOT meet ANY of the Criteria for deletion, to delete it would be a violation of Wikipedia Policy. All this article needs is some time for more research and developement. To delete the article would be harsh and disproportionate, while not giving this important topic the necessary time and space to unfold itself in the due wikipedia process and style.
Delete per nom. Ankimai (talk) 16:40, 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 Keep - Criteria 5, page is on the main page; non-admin close

22 December 2011 Baghdad bombings[edit]

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

Why not list the obituaries of every person in the world that died? This is not a real encyclopedia entry, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjiird2011 (talk • contribs)

I am fixing the formatting of this AfD nomination; no recommendation on my part yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bud, Not Buddy (film)[edit]

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

This fails WP:CRYSTAL. I would say to redirect this to the notable (and great) book, but I found nothing that mentions this film including unreliable sources. SL93 (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I'm sure that this would fall under at least one of the categories for speedy deletion, although it wouldn't be a bad idea to redirect it to the book page if that's possible to do with a SD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete - I checked over the criteria for speedy deletion, and I'm not sure which one this would fall under, but it is quite blatant violation of WP:NFF. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 16:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reason 'Tokyogirl79' and 'Chris the Paleontologist' did not find a "speedy" criteria is because films are generally not speediable... BUT lack of any coverage toward a film adaptation of the novel,[32][33] indicates this article is unsourcably premature and a redirect unsuitable as the topic of a film adaptation is unverifiable. The book article will show up as a target option in a search for a "Bud, Not Buddy" topic, so we should not use a redirect from a completely hypothetical film title that is itself unverifiable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newark Boys Chorus[edit]

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

Primary school lacking in notability sufficient for an article. See WP:OUTCOMES#Schools. Suggest redirecting to the primary school section of Newark, New Jersey, which is what I tried to do. tedder (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Despite the admin/nominator's misrepresentation, the the article about the Newark Boys Chorus is about the renowned boy's choir, a grouip that meets criteria for notability.Djflem (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, when it was nominated, the article was about the school. It was your changes that "recast" it as the choir. tedder (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue to make misrepresentations. The article at the time of your nomination was about its title, the chorus, as seen in link you have provided above. In the future please include a rationale in your edit summaries. And please also open a subject or respond on a article's talk page as opposed to wagging as a first option to bring it here. If you were unsatisfied with referencing there are tags for that, too Djflem (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Undecided. The chorus has toured internationally, and performed at well known venues, but so have many high school choruses, bands and orchestras, and many college a capella groups, whose articles have been deleted. The article's subject seems "on the bubble" as to whether it satisfies notability, either through coverage as a school via WP:ORG or as a musical group via Wikipedia:Notability (music) . It has a stronger case than the average small private elementary school. Edison (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The group has toured internationally, and they have a bit more of a case than others to exist. They even have a famous alumni, although my high school chorus probably has more people who are famous than this one. Still, the page would be better off about the school itself with a mention of the choir, but that is just my opinion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Famous chorus, as shown by references. The chorus is more notable than the school, so this is the proper title. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amejo[edit]

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

Dictionary definition with no reliable sources. —Ryulong (竜龙) 00:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not understand how a published book by a journalist whose articles have appeared in the New York Times and other reliable sources and who is employed at Fortune magazine fails itself to be a reliable source. And the fact that the title of the article is a word does not, in fact, entail that the article is a dicdef. I see here a stub on a sociological phenomenon, which has real encyclopedic potential. Angr (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.I agree with Angr. I fail to see where there is a "lack of reliable" sources for this particular article.--Yellow Coyote (talk) 14:59, 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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Elementary School[edit]

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

This disambiguation page does not list any notable topics, and it only exists because there was once an article at this title that has since been at AFD. —Ryulong (竜龙) 00:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G6 -- all links are red, thus is an unnecessary disambiguation page. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, none of the content is irreplaceable by even a bot. Josh Parris 21:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Fmph (talk) 09:56, 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 Jiangdu . (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jiangdu Middle School[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Lacks sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 00:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jiangdu or an article about education in the area, if it exists. Consensus is that only the most unusual middle schools are notable, such as those of well-documented historical or architectural significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to locality. 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) 06:31, 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) 06:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chinese middle schools are secondary schools, equivalent to North American high schools, not junior high or other intermediary steps. It seems here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(high_schools) that these are usually kept.

123.118.81.178 (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nobody except the nominator advocates deletion and a merge/move discussion can be initiated on the articles talk page. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JetBlue Airways Flight 292[edit]

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

This incident doesn't meet the criteria for WP:AIRCRASH. It did get extensive news coverage, but that was mostly videos of the plane circling in order to dump fuel. Since then, coverage has been minimal. Remember WP:PERSISTENCE William 00:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 00:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -William 00:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 00:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom and the two guidelines mentioned by the nom (although WP:AIRCRASH is not an official guideline and WP:PERSISTANCE is merely a suggestion in a guideline) and easily passing WP:GNG. While there is absolutely no requirement in WP:EVENT or anywhere that news coverage must continue for a long duration after an event, this has continued to get coverage years later in books and newspapers. [34][35][36][37]. Passes the non-guideline WP:AIRCRASH's "The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry" as the NTSB, after extensive testing and research, determined that it was caused by fractured nosewheel lugs as well as "lack of procedure" to attempt to reset the the Brake Steering Control Unit under these conditions and that Airbus has made a design change to correct this issue as well as issued new flight crew procedures. --Oakshade (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - WP:ATA is only an essay too, but it gets used pretty extensively. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not copy some of the info to an article about Jet Blue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjiird2011 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Airbus A320 or create a new article Airbus A320 family landing gear incidents. This problem affected at least six other aircraft. This one just happened to be on a slow news day in L.A. Airbus had already identified the problem and issued a maintenance advisory when this incident occurred. Note that this has already been discussed on the article's talk page. Pburka (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's only occasionally do I come across the non-existent WP:SLOWNEWSDAY clause. Coverage wasn't just local to Los Angeles, but very heavily nationally and internationally (I guess Hurricane Rita [38], Simon Wiesenthal dying [39] and 12 Americans slain in Iraq is evidence of a "slow news day"). --Oakshade (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually the 3rd AfD for this. Please also see the article talk page where N419BH has ideas for merging the content into a more comprehensive article on Airbus landing gear failures. LoveUxoxo (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - this was a notable, significant incident. It probably should be merged into an Airbus landing gear incidents article when that is written, but that's outside AfD's remit - so keep for now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a well written article that has been edited and updated by numerous people on Wikipedia since 2009. Why delete all that work now? It was a memorable incident - particularly with the people on board being able to watch live videos of their own plane crash landing from the live news feeds. Anyone researching these sort of events would find this article a fascinating and informative summary of the event. It has been well edited by experts in the field since it was originally written. BritAirman (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whether the article is well written or not or memorable isn't the point. Is this incident encyclopedic? Most non-fatal airline incidents aren't. Some fatal air crashes, cargo planes or commuter planes that have articles at Wikipedia, should really merit a few lines in an article on the airport or the aircraft that are lost. They're written up because they happened in the last 10 years. WP is becoming a great chronicle of the last 10 years. Lexi Thompson who has won two major league tournaments has oodles written about her, Kathy Whitworth winner of 88 LPGA Tournaments between 1962 and 1984, not so much. A sense of perspective is missing but Recentism is not.- William 22:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comparisons to golf players might be interesting to some, but article topics that adhere to Wikipeida notability guidelines like WP:GNG (plus WP:PERSISTENCE which you valued in your nom statement) as this article does is what we use to help us decide article inclusion, not subjective "I don't think these type of topics are notable" generalizations. Some articles don't pass non-guidelines like WP:AIRCRASH or sub-guidlines but do pass WP:NOTABILITY and its WP:GNG which trumps the lesser ones, not the other way around. Feel free to make improvements to the golf player Kathy Whitworth article, but that has nothing to do with the notability of this one. --Oakshade (talk) 05:49, 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.

Attempted re-opening of discussion on 7 December.

JetBlue Airways Flight 292[edit]

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

WP:Aircrash, not notable as the nosewheel steering system was known to have weaknesses and the occurrence was not uncommon. Nothing came about due to the incident as remedial action was already under way at Airbus WP:NOTNEWS. The arguments for keeping the article in the previous nomination are very weak. At best this warrants a paragraph / entry in the A320s accident section. Petebutt (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above discussion. If you don't like it, make a third nomination. Epicgenius (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Speedy Keep - You need to make another (fourth) nomination and not tag a new one to an existing closed one. --Oakshade (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm collapsing in lieu of deleting this section outright. —C.Fred (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2013 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proctail[edit]

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

Alcoholic drink that fails notability criteria. A search for sources on "Proctail", "Proctail drink", and "Proctail cocktail" turned up no reliable, independent sources to establish that this meets notability criteria. Prod was contested on the grounds that it exists, but existence does not mean notability. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kuyabribri, Thank you for your feedback. I have included two references, including a maxim magazine article, discussing the cocktail. This should be sufficent evidence of notarity. The notability is light, as this is a newer drinking phenomenon, however light notability is notability nonetheless. I ask that you please remove the deletion. -crwcochran 22:21, 20 December 2011

I couldn't see anything mentioning "Proctail" in the Maxim link provided, and even if it was, that does not constitute significant coverage and it may not even be a reliable source. The country club is definitely not an independent source, because that it is where this drink was purportedly invented. Wikipedia is not here to spread the word about the newest up-and-coming thing; it only covers what has already been covered in reliable sources. I will not withdraw this nomination but will defer to community consensus as to whether the article should be kept or deleted. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 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) 00:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable / local. Found only one relevant ghit here http://www.mibba.com/journals/read/139822/ 7 00:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Tonywalton ^Talk I've removed the speedy tag as this is undergoing AfD, however
Delete as nn. This doesn't appear to be notable as a cocktail; as 7 says there appear to be no notable references under the given name, and searches for cocktails made from vodka and pineapple turn up no matches under this name. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya ERS-5600 Systems[edit]

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

~~Delete~~. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note – The above information is part of the nomination for deletion, and is not an !vote. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above not a !vote and Alan Liefting is a retired account. - Geek2003 (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are three ELs to IT trade journals that would seem to indicate notability by the classic route of significant mention in 3rd party publications. Why are you discounting them? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Added history section and references for notability. - Geek2003 (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTDIR. The product's introduction itself is hardly notable, and none of these secondary sources go beyond its introduction and announcement. There are thousands of hardware models which receive cursory, descriptive published coverage when they're launched. WP:GNG establishes a presumption, not a guarantee that a subject is suitable for inclusion. While these lists of features and press releases satisfy WP:V, that's not enough: this is not a catalog or directory. Some products like Cisco PIX or Nortel Meridian lend themselves to encyclopedic coverage because they're technically or historically important. Has anything interesting actually been said about this series of stackable switches which goes beyond simple description or press-release content? If not, it belongs in a list. – Pnm (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several articles and equipment reviews are now listed. - Geek2003 (talk) 17:06, 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 - T P 22:00, 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) 00:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very Weak~~ Keep – Per reviews and coverage in computer-related sources:

Preimesberger, Chris (12 Jan 2009). "Nortel Launches Line of 10G Ethernet Switches for Enterprise Networking". E Week. Retrieved 23 September 2011.
Bailey, Dave (14 Jan 2009). "Nortel switch targets unified comms market". IT News for Australian Business. Retrieved 24 September 2011.
Solomon, Howard (20 Jan 2009). "Nortel trumpets stackable Ethernet switch". IT World Canada. Retrieved 23 September 2011.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note those sources are in a single, short news cycle. – Pnm (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep google/yahoo searches establish have several reports for notability, agree more ref and expansion/ improvement is required. MLD7865 Auto (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Major additions and citations have been added to this article. - Geek2003 (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It gets coverage, is a real thing, and the article has ample valid information to sustain itself as a separate article, no need to merge it anywhere. Dream Focus 14:55, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hippos in Tanks[edit]

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

Too soon, one marginally known client, the rest are redlinks, one mention in FACT magazine. Doesn't pass WP:N for corporations at this time. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep redlink doesn't mean not notable. I could demonstrate notability for probably 9 of the 10-act roster listed. The FACT "mention" is regarding it being their label of the year in 2011. FACT is highly regarded. http://hipposintanks.net lists about 20 pages of coverage in sources like the New York Times, The Guardian, Pitchfork, Resident Advisor and so on. Easily meets WP:CORPDEPTH 86.44.31.213 (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument might be stronger if you provided actual links. All I see are a bunch of weak links and passing mentions. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it would be, but it's already much stronger than the nom. do you view the FACT source as a passing mention? And this is what you describe as marginally known? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to enter a pedantic argument over your perception vs. mine on FACT. If you have other cites that are as strong as you claim (ie: NY Times article where it is receives significant coverage), please provide them. Otherwise, I will leave it to others to draw their own conclusions. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you shouldn't frequent AFD if you aren't prepared to discuss points you make in your noms. 1) The FACT source is significant, non-trivial, reliable, and strongly indicates notability 2) Much of the current roster and several of the past are notable acts (This is easy, though tedious, to demonstrate, & I'll be happy to do so on request) You strongly suggest otherwise in yr nom 3) read wp:corpdepth, cited above. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 22:00, 26 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) 00:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources shown by the IP are all tangential, trivial namedrops, not enoguh to carry an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how cuddly we're supposed to be about these things, but that's an absurd comment. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please limit your comments in an AFD to the issue at hand, instead of personal attacks. Disproving the message is fine, discrediting the messenger is not. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed address the comment and not the commentator. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

31.213's response was meaningless, as it didn't explain why TPH's comment was absurd, but it certainly wasn't a personal attack. By the way, why not use [[WP:NPA]] when you're linking "personal attacks"? — Bility (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'twas an assertion in response to an assertion, certainly. i notice DB's link urges responsiveness to good faith questions! i notice too that neither DB nor TPH have declared that the one has selected and summoned the other to this discussion, which is extraordinarily sharp practice. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to assume good faith rather than canvassing. I do wonder why TPH was the only editor besides the article creator who was notified of this AfD and whether he had requested to be informed about discussions involving Hippos in Tanks or music-related AfDs. Only Dennis Brown can tell us why this one particular editor was chosen, however. — Bility (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TPH was consulted because I trust his opinion. He has a history of disagreeing with me as much as agreeing with me, but he is 10x the expert on these types of AFDs. When he disagrees, I dig more and find out what I'm missing. There are other editors and admins here I do the same with. A check of histories can easily show that we don't converse much here, I've just seen him around enough on music AFDs to trust his *opinion*. If I had contacted a few people who all agreed with me, then I would understand the concern, but in this case, I asked one person that has a documented history of participating in music related AFDs. I didn't think to mention I had asked him to participate, but then again, I asked him in a public way. I wasn't trying to hide anything. I understand the concern, but given the totality of the circumstances, I think it is clear that I wasn't canvasing. I accept that the concern was raised in good faith (I did ask him to look) but I only asked him, and made it clear in my request I wanted an objective opinion. Ask User:DGG, I've asked him several times to look at AFDs I've nominated and had to eat crow, so my history should indicate that I don't cherry pick input from people who agree with me, but instead from people whose opinions I consider expert in particular fields. When it comes to music, TenPoundHammer is one those I consider an expert on music policy here. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personally i accept that was your motivation, and perhaps it was not for you to note anyway, but the contact should have been noted here. perhaps i do him a disservice, but i do not think TPH's expertise extends to electronic music and its sourcing. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, I probably should have said that I asked him here, it just didn't occur to me at the time, thank you for assuming good faith. My faith in TPH is not based on his ability to source a particular type of music as it is to interpret the notability guidelines for music notability. He isn't the authority, but he is someone who I've seen enough times that I trust his judgement, as he has demonstrated many times a desire to improve the overall quality of music articles. Even when we disagree (several times) I never have questioned his sincerity or objectivity. That said, I still have concerns about the article, particularly since it hasn't been better sourced since the AFD started. It's fine that we disagree on the strength of the references, but it would be helpful if there were more than one to rely on, which would work toward satisfying the "multiple" part of notability, as long as both sources comformed to the significant coverage portion as well (which also states Multiple sources are generally expected.). Otherwise, I can't help but to conclude my first statement, about it being too soon still holds. I have no issue if someone wants it userfied until more sources appear. Who knows, next month, the New York Times, Rolling Stones or another major publication may do a story on the company. However, they haven't yet, which is the issue at hand. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Literally all of your concerns have been addressed prior to your your comment above, except that i am completely unconcerned with the current state of the article. AFD is not for improvement of an article while lazy, incompetent or uninterested ppl hold a gun to its head, wouldn't you agree? It's not fine that we disagree on the strength of the sources: the degree to which this issue is subjective is very limited. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not just spectating by the way, I want to give a rationale, but I'm unsure whether FACT Magazine and Alt Sounds are reliable sources or not. The mentions in unambiguously reliable sources are passing mentions, usually just noting Hippos in Tanks as the label the album or artist is releasing on. Here is the Alt Sounds article. If either one of those sources are notable, I'd keep the article, otherwise delete. — Bility (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Others may know different, but I make no claims for AltSounds, except that i found my visit just now quite horrible. FACT is a fine source, however; I'm quite busy just now but give me an hour or so and I will try to demonstrate that. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the idea that in notability terms significant treatment of the work released on the label in high-quality sources constitutes "passing mentions" is highly dubious! nonetheless, it would be a mistake to view KCRW music blog [40] or The Quietus [41] (or FACT, of course) as either ambiguous or passing mentions, and Dummy seems at most uncertain (i haven't looked into it). 86.44.31.213 (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It's a pain to research due to the influential '60s NY mag, the Bahraini fashion mag, Science Fiction Science Fact mag, the phrase "in fact", etc. etc. I sought to demonstrate reliability not notability, so i also excluded the Saatchi & Saatchi Doc Marten/Kurt Cobain advertising controversy. If it's only notability you're after, check the Da Capo cite, the two guardian articles and perhaps the salon article below. if that's not sufficient with all the cites, search said brouhaha.

Cited in

Simon Reynolds' Retromania: Pop Culture's Addiction to Its Own Past. Faber and Faber Ltd,2011, 978-0571232086 in Italian translation
in UC Irvine professor Peter Krapp's Noise Channels: Glitch and Error in Digital Culture, [42]
in Da Capo Press's Best Music Writing 2010, ed. Ann Powers, [43]
in Adam Harper's Infinite Music: Imagining the Next Millennium of Human Music-Making, [44];

Cited by The Guardian [45] [46], Rolling Stone [47], by Reynolds again in Salon.com [48], Resident Advisor [49], T (New York Times) [50], in the Washington Post Express by Washington Post writer Christopher Porter [51]; its writers have contributed to publications like The Wire, Sight & Sound, Frieze [52] and so on. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the research. I think you've established that FACT Magazine is reliable, and I found one of the other sources you provided convincing as well. — Bility (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The combination of the FACT article and one of the other sources given by 31.213 establishes this company's notability. Other concerns, such as quantity of sources or amount of content, should be handled on the article, not at AfD. — Bility (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Towards notability, here are some other sources: electronicbeats.net and dazeddigital.com. — Bility (talk) 23:52, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solarminite Productions[edit]

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

Promotional article written for a new/unestablished company.
No third-party references, only links to video hosting sites.
They claim to be in the web business, but they are "currently in the process of creating it's own website, but does not currently have a web domain." Senator2029║talk 19:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable spam. SL93 (talk) 23:58, 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) 00:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Left a message for Numenlad (talk · contribs) (the article's creator) inviting him/her to leave his/her comments here. Senator2029║talk 03:00, 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 Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport#Accidents and incidents. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines Flight 516[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH criteria for a standalone article William 00:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 00:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -William 00:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 00:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not meet WP:N, as no deaths nor injuries occurred. In addition, this was created by a banned user. HurricaneFan 25 — 00:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ryan wasn't banned (or even blocked, obviously) at the time it was created - G5 isn't retroactive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:AIRCRASH (no fatalities; aircraft wasn't written off; no subsequent precedural changes). --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport - seems worth a mention in the airport article, but fails WP:GNG for a standalone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 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, but I took the liberty of redirecting this to Indic computing. Article was about computing in the Gujarati script. My understanding is that all of the Brahmi-based abugida scripts of India (and Thailand, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Bali, and elsewhere) share common features (ligatures; diacritical vowel marks) and could be viewed as graphical variants on a shared underlying system. This was referenced only to primary sources and a blog. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarati computing[edit]

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

Advert for a blog and library masquerading as an article. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete No evidence of notability, nor even any coherent content about the supposed topic, rather than plugging a website. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neither an advertisement nor promotion, but an article about the subject specified, including,as it ought, information about various resources of computing in that language.. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps this could be covered in a section on computing in Gujarati language but only if there are sufficient 3rd party reliable sources to base it on. This article is nothing more than a collection of links and reads like an advert.--RadioFan (talk) 23:52, 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, BusterD (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Content is not encyclopedic, but essentially a list of some links that may be helpful in dealing with Gujarati in computing. Wikipedia is not a link repository. I suspect (but can't check) that this is essentially a recreation of List of free gujarati tools. Perhaps some of the content could find a spot in a language-specific subsection of Indic computing. --Lambiam 09:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. OK, it is collection of links but it is necessary for this article. Because the article is about APIs/JavaScript Library/.NET Component for Gujarati Language. It will help Gujarati Computer Programmer or Developer to find apis easily.--Nilesh Bandhiya (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in particular the section It's useful. --Lambiam 14:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Does not give any introduction, history or summary. Does not give any significance. Does not identify itaself as a seperate article. There are 3000 Languages around this world. Should we have stubs for each of hem or shouldnt a page about Native language interfaces be enough ? 0police (talk) 20:54, 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. Consensus of the discussion was that the article lacked sourcing that would allow it to meet the general notability guideline. It also appears to fail to meet the AIRCRASH essay. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 06:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USAir Flight 499[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH criteria for a standalone article. William 00:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 00:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -William 00:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 00:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although it does need additional sourcing, stat. However this was more than just a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL accident. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comparatively minor incident. --Lambiam 09:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cannot find significant coverage. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:56, 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Level and Incline Running[edit]

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

This article should be part of the article on running, not a stand-alone article. It is identified as being part of a seminar. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without voicing an opinion on the notability of this particular subject, I'm a bit troubled when articles are created as part of a College course, since such articles usually aren't created with knowledge of what Wikipedia is and isn't. Perhaps someone could reach out to the school mentioned in the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Possibly merge to running, but what is here is well referenced. Might not be possible to merge due to length, in which case the ancillary article is fine. (Im a deletionist, so double count this vote :) ) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak delete~~ It really is very well-written, but also seems an unnecessary split from running and not particularly well-integrated into wikipedia. Following the links through, it looks to me as if the author(s) have written a number of pretty specialized articles which (perhaps) ought to have been part of other articles but which are so well-written and researched that deletion seems extreme. Upon consideration, I would be uncomfortable recommending deletion; a long-standing editor with a project-wide view ought to review this situation. If it's not unique, then precedent can be used. If it is unique, then more experienced eyes are needed. I just don't know what to say about a college lecture series in wikipedia, is all. TreacherousWays (talk) 14:56, 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) 00:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So far as I can tell, the nomination and discussion relates to whether this article establishes notability. It seems to me multiple independent reliable sources are used as references which provide significant coverage to perfectly well indicate notability. Hence, the article is permitted in its own right and so whether it might better be merged elsewhere is purely an editorial matter. A merge with running would unbalance that article and, moreover, the present article seems to me very satisfactory in its present scope. The title is not ideal but that is not a matter for AfD. I am not too comfortable with the talk page linking in a rather promotional manner, but the article itself does not suffer from this defect. Thincat (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article provides comparisons between level running and incline running. The sourcing is academic in nature, and the article itself has sufficient inline citations, although the addition of more would benefit it. Merging to the Running article would make that article even longer, whereas this article is a reasonable content fork of the running article. Furthermore, the article is well-written and encyclopedic. Despite the fact that it was contributed by a specialized seminar group, the article is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:50, 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 merge to Tupac Shakur. Probably selectively. Sandstein 11:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Garland (Ex Black Panther)[edit]

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

References don't pan, but still he is best known as the father of Tupac, and notability isn't inherited. Being an ex panther is also not notable by itself. Considering that this is a living person, the unreferenced claims are a problem as well. Even with some incidental mentions, notability isn't established. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ought to be speedy for WP:Notable TreacherousWays (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable within the context of a well known rapper. He's been mentioned in a number of books and seen in two well known documentaries. CocoLumps (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Within the context of a well known rapper? You mean being the father? As for documentaries, what notable documentaries has been been the subject of and not just "mentioned" in? Dennis Brown (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two notable documentaries He was featured in were Tupac: Resurrection, and Biggie & Tupac. There's even a “Vibe” Magazine Interview of him talking about reconnected with his son less than two years before he was gunned down. CocoLumps (talk) 12:29, 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, BusterD (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in two documentaries as the father of someone famous is what WP:INHERITED covers. And please, please, take the time to learn how to do a proper signature. Your signature links to a non-existent user. CocoLumps (not really you) is not the same as CoCoLumps (you). Names here are case sensitive. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tupac Shakur. Being a Black Panther activist and a father isn't a sufficient notability hook. Carrite (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. I agree, all the coverage of the subject is derivative from Tupac - it is intended to give the reader a better understanding of how Tupac came to be the person he was. This is best covered at the Tupac article.

Above comment was by ‎ User:Xymmax 06:35, 6 January 2012. Carrite (talk) 06:43, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modelio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Product does not demonstrate notability. It seemed to have a lot of references but when I followed them, they were either 404s or placed announcements (advertisements). The remaining links are simply announcements and company releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As suspected while I was doing this edit, this article has been nominated and deleted twice before. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello, I’m the page creator. I looked through the original references and realized that there were errors in some source URLs, hence the 404s. I’ve corrected and added them back for your review. I wouldn’t agree that these are advertisements (with the possible exception of one questionable source which I’ve now excluded) as they include third-party writings about Modelio in reputed, independent press publications like Datamation (English technical magazine) and in the French media (ITProNews IT news website). I also considered some other articles in the same category eg. Borland_Together, Poseidon for UML, Papyrus_(software), which have 0 references, and Enterprise_Architect_(Visual_Modeling_Platform), Dia_(software), PowerDesigner where the majority of the references are self-published. In contrast, the references in this article are current and from third parties/independent journalists (not self-published sources) therefore I'm hopeful that they qualify as suitable sources and enable the article to meet the notability requirement. Armand3496 (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As you commented, the article has a previous history of nomination and deletion. I was aware of this when creating the page, therefore I tried to be as objective and conservative as possible when creating the article text. Specifically, I only included content that could be read in external independent sources and omitted all discussion of features etc, although these can be found extensively on the product website (as my understanding is this is a self-published source). I’m new to Wikipedia and tried to read through all the relevant docs before posting the content. In case the above isn’t sufficient to remove the AfD tag, please suggest what else I can do to clean up the article and ensure that it isn’t deleted a third time. Thank you for your time.Armand3496 (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the references show enough notability. Walter Görlitz, please do more research before nominating something. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did my research. I actually read every press release listed as a reference, and general story where the subject was mentioned off-hand. There are no feature articles on the subject. Would you care to change your vote after reading the remaining, non-404 "references"? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:45, 30 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) 12:14, 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) 00:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added references to various scholarly articles and papers that reference Modelio and its features. Armand3496 (talk) 13:11, 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.

^ http://ingame.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/28/9770514-chastened-gaming-rep-responds-to-internet-infamy

[1] ttp://ingame.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/28/9770514-chastened-gaming-rep-responds-to-internet-infamy

[1]