Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 December	9 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bel Geddes[edit]

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

"Bel Geddes" is not a surname AFAIK, but merely a middle name and a surname. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, there are only two articles being disambiguated here, so could we use the "Not to be confused with" template instead? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 00:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have Allan Poe or Fitzgerald Kennedy for a reason. People don't generally search by middle and last name. We do have Amadeus Mozart, however. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but not per nom. At least for Barbara Bel Geddes, "Bel Geddes" was her surname and functioned as such. However, the only two people listed here are Barbara Bel Geddes and her father, Norman Bel Geddes, so the texts of the articles serves to link the two of them already. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although nominator is in error. "Bel Geddes" is a surname, created in 1916 by combining a husband's surname and wife's middle name. As there only two notable people with the surname, father and daughter, the article is not necessary. However, several descendents of Norman Bel Geddes use this surname, and some are marginally notable. Perhaps an article on the surname may be appropriate if we have other Bel Geddes biographies in the future, but not now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move Bel Geddes (disambiguation) and redirect this one to whichever is the more notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Depends if there's a clear primary subject. If so the appropriate page shuffle per Stuartyeates, otherwise keep. Rich Farmbrough, 16:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I'm guessing the actor, since she was in Dallas. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need for a DAB page with 2 links. Just use the "Not to be confused with" template. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Decommissioning of Russian nuclear-powered vessels. Kudos to Clarityfiend for writing this new article. Sandstein 12:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dismantling of Russian Nuclear Ships and Submarines[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article does not follow its title, being merely a partial list of Russian nuclar ships, and has been left incomplete for over a year. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and rename Decommissioning of Russian nuclear-powered vessels (nuclear wessels for Star Trek fans). This is a major issue. See [1][2][3][4]. Delete. On second look, some of the listed ships have been scrapped and others are in active service. I'm going to start a new article on the decommissioning problem. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is not about the subject at all; it is a half-built table that says nothing about decommissioning. The subject is likely of insufficent notability to merit an article of its own vs. a section in Russian Navy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - While his English is poor, I think the creator was trying to indicate on his talk page that he wants to continue working on it. I agree that as it is now, the title and content don't really match or add to WP, but I see no reason that the creator shouldn't be allowed to keep working on it in his user space to see if it can develop into something a little more meaningful. – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Looks like Clarityfiend's new article is on-track, and by only redirecting rather than deleting, the author of the original article can more easily go back and copy any relevant information out to the new article. – RobinHood70 ^talk 23:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Userification would be OK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userify the topic is very likely to be notable, lets encourage someone who clearly wants to write the thing. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userify Brad (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've begun writing Decommissioning of Russian nuclear-powered vessels. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the new (and very good looking) Decommissioning of Russian nuclear-powered vessels article. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above - great work Clarityfiend. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Virginia Tech shooting[edit]

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

Unremarkable news event. Belongs on List of attacks related to post-secondary schools but isn't notable enough for its own article. Wikipedia is not a news site. Go to Wikinews if you want a journalistic article. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 22:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but change title - rather not related with Virginia Tech Every human life, especially forcefully given is worth mentioning in Wikipedia. All murders are always inspected by lots of people, and also often for psychological resources given as examples. Even the highest criminal in most countries is the killing someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.70.254 (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now Major news event, the deletion of which probably might be slightly negative for Wikipedia. Delete in maybe a week or so, not hours after the event. Buggie111 (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion will likely run for a week anyway.--RadioFan (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In that case, this vote means nothing. But in all other cases involving this ending rather soon, it means keep. Buggie111 (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, AFDs can be ended early with the outcome being delete. But only when there is clear policy to back it up. Though this is a case involving news, it's more grey so the AFD will likely run a few days at least before an Admin will even want to touch closing it.--RadioFan (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now Too soon to know if article should be deleted. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Way too soon to determine this. We need to wait and see if it has any longer lasting effects, like the prior shooting did. If nothing comes from this and the news trails off after this burst of activity, then an AfD would be appropriate. Silver seren^C 23:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's too soon to determine this. But this story may as well as much attention as the Virginia tech massacre.Bless sins (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, if there are another 30 as yet undiscovered victims from today's incident. Otherwise its an officer-involved shooting during a traffic stop. LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Double murders are not worthy of Wikipedia articles, and the particular location of this incident shouldn't change that fact.
- "Delete" Agreed. Nor should any history of the location influence it. KirkSFW (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please see WP:NOTNEWS, every other !keep vote is some variation of "it's in the headlines" or "major news event". What presumption of notability do you think applies in this case? Every "too early to tell if this is notable" !keep vote I feel is a "too early to have this article" argument. The onus is on the article to clearly show notability, now. If there was some reasonable chance that this incident would be notable a year from now I'd be open-minded. But there isn't, and no expertise is required in appreciating that - it's the way the news and world is today. I blame Jimbo Wales for lack of sufficient branding of Wikinews, where an article on 2 related deaths by firearm (OMG!) created hours after the event would be less inappropriate. LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now I have to go with this too, it currently is not worth having its own article but there is a possibility it could end up getting a lot of coverage because of the massacre in 2007 or so (or it will just be forgotten about right away)Glacialfox (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ~~Virginia Tech massacre~~Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University as a subsection — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 23:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I second this Glacialfox (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

....their not exactly related, barring the fact they occurred at the same location, more or less. Probably just add this to the U's page, if anyone's thinking merge. Buggie111 (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This really has nothing to do with the other shooting. Silver seren^C 23:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I've altered my vote to place it as a subsection at Virginia Tech's school page instead. There's not currently a subsection for the Virginia Tech massacre there, but we can add subsections for both incidents, one after the other — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 23:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning it at all in the article on the school would give the incident undue weight. Do you propose that every murder case at or near every university should be listed in the article about the university? That would amount to dozens of alleged murders for the average large US university, over the years. If I pick a random university, Ohio State, then its article would have to mention alleged murders on or near campus in at least 1919, 1925, 1929, 1949, 1966, 1984, 1997 (the last the killing of a police officer), 2007 and 2008. Some of the earlier crimes were multiple murders. Such a crime listing would be clearly inappropriate in a university article, even though some of them got national coverage. It is only "recentism" that makes it appealing to have an article about every violent crime we hear about in the news. Edison (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikkipedia is not the newspaper. A single murder by someone who in turn dies of gunshot wounds is not a worthy encyclopedia article. Notability is not inherited, so this shouldn't ride on the coattails of the 2007 massacre, and the two are significantly different, so this shouldn't be merged to the other article. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Merge with the 2007 shooting article, as "2011 Shooting" or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.227.116 (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you mean Virginia Tech massacre? Today's incident doesn't compare with that in any way other than the zip code it happened in.--RadioFan (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Virginia Tech Police Department as this was a killing of an officer of that department.~~List of attacks related to post-secondary schools, killing of an officer and subsequent suicide by the murderer. While tragic, does not rise to the level of notability for a dedicated article. RadioFan (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or with Sunny, the weather at that time :p. Seriously though, I think the police department page would be not the best location for this. Better keep it in the school's general history section. Buggie111 (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Despite the considerably smaller scale of this, I think that this warrants an article, considering the location and circumstances surrounding this event. DarthBotto_talk•cont 01:03, 09 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment The main university article had a single sentence on the 2007 incident yesterday. This is far more appropriate for the article on the police department than the university.--RadioFan (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Add the information to the main VT page. There is a Wikinews site for reporting events. Articles are meant to be permanent, not fluid pages that pop up as discussions come and go, and I don't think this will stand the test of time enough to have a permanent article. DavidSSabb (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silverseren. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 02:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with another article) Zeryphex (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, let it sort itself out. Then have whatever merge/delete discussion is appropriate in a couple months. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, time is needed to determine the notability of this event...--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Latest news confirms that this is a case of an officer killed during a traffic stop who then killed himself.--RadioFan (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Considering the circumstances and location of this event, I am of the opinion it warrants its own article. Additionally, very few officer involved shootings generates such widespread national media attention, making this more notable than most. Tiptoety ^talk 04:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notable and newsworthy are not the same thing. That's why we have wikinews. The widespread media coverage the keep !votes are pointing to is largely reprints of AP articles and 24 hours later and all but the local news sources have forgotten about this story. Had students been involved or the alert system which was put in place after 2007 failed this might be noteworthy, but it's not. There isn't a dedicated article titles 2006 Virginia Tech shooting for the deputy that was killed by a fugitive near the campus.--RadioFan (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. ^GB86 05:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with the reasoning above, if this happened at any other university, then maybe delete, but the fact that this occurred at same place and have backstories and tie-ins to the original event have made this a very long-term notable article. 완젬스 (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to the association with the 2007 shooting. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be "one murder plus one suicide=non-notable." See WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If someone killed a police officer and himself at some other random university, or in some other random city of the world, would so may argue for the event having a stand-alone encyclopedia article? Notability is not inherited from the scene of the crime, or from some other shooter committing a notable crime nearby years earlier. Being in the newspapers for a day does not make a crime encyclopedic. Many things are in all the headlines without being remembered for long.Edison (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons mentioned aboveRacingstripes (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a proposed article title change under discussion in the article's talk page, please share your thoughts there.--RadioFan (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now I propose keeping the article if the incident develops more and a merger to a suitable article if there are no further developments. Also wasnt there another incident at this school involving a beheading? Eopsid (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for the time being. I think it is at least somewhat notable for occurring on the same campus as the shooting from 2007. Master&Expert (Talk) 15:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a random act of violence during a routine traffic stop. Not related to Virginia Tech outside of it taking place on campus. A title change would be in order if it passes. --Possum4all (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does this [5] news story about a beheading at Virginia Tech have an article or any mention on Wikipedia. I believe the coverage of the news story I linked should be similiar to the coverage the subject of this article receives. That news story does have an article on the wiki see Murder of Yang Xin therefore I believe this article should remain for the sake of consistency. Eopsid (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would not be a Wikipedia-worthy event. It only gained national news attention because of the location. BillCCHKK (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than being at Virginia Tech, this is not a notable event. --synthem3sc (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random act of violence. The location is incidental and there are no tie-ins to the original event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuboo (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a random act of violence that has nothing to do with the events on April 16, 2007. The shooter had no ties to Virginia Tech whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.17.178 (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Virginia Tech Police Department. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major news story with bigger implications because of the 2007 massacre. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentContinuing to use Virginia Tech in the title of articles is going to create countless disambiguation problems as time progresses. Look to some point in the future and you'll see that there could be a whole collection of location events on the Virginia Tech campus. Also it's important to remember the neutral point of view policy...what's neutral about the location -- it's as if Virginia Tech controlled and was accountable for the event -- which it wasn't. It was a murder-suicide. --Possum4all (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, move discussions should come after the delete discussion if the article is kept. Also, we don't really know who the gunman is. Is it a student with maniacal intentions hwo decided that his goal of killing hundreds was unattainable due to police presence and then shot himself, was it suicide by cop or was it some guy who robbed the rest stop down the road the day before. Tech could have actually been at least somewhat responsible for the incident, depending on the perpetrator and his mental condition. I'll go googling now for the guy's ID. Buggie111 (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
K, according ot this, the guy seems to be the robber from Radford (good movie title there, if anyone's interested). The article says he changed clothes in a greenhouse with an intent to continue shooting or running by was spotted by cops and comitted suicide. Buggie111 (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why does it need to be included in all these other places?--Possum4all (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural. Buggie111 (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Shooting made national headlines and received a lot of attention. Dough 48 72 20:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - one could argue that had this been a story from any other nation it wouldnt be this "american is automaticly bias" but now I can agree that the event has reache both national an international headlines because of previous event at virginia tech. weak keep for me.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, see this, for example. Buggie111 (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment a blip on the news radar. Even in the U.S, the media has moved on. The story of course appeared in the morning newspapers since it took place around 12:30 EST the previous day and was pretty much wrapped by a news conference 4 hours later.--RadioFan (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is it currently still the top story on Google News? Silver seren^C 00:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there are still plenty of articles/media being generated from this incident [6]. Tiptoety ^talk 05:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is certainly not an event worth having a dedicated page to on Wikipedia. Are we going to start creating pages for every police officer who gets murdered? Or every murder or killing that happens on or near a college campus? Marty Martin (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Today in the Almelo, the Netherlands a police officer in training shot and killed his girlfriend in a supermarket where she worked as checkout girl and then killed himself. Should we have an article about that as well? The Virginia Tech shooting is in the same order. Just that it is near a location where a previous massacre happened doesn't change that. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 00:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did the store and 31,000 people go on lockdown, followed by almost five hours of searching for the killer by heavily armed "caravans" of SWAT teams? Buggie111 (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"31,000 people" did not go on "lockdown", I believe you took the total enrollment for VT and assumed, incorrectly, that every single person was in class at that time. Anytime in America today when there is a shooting at the Quickie Mart, all schools in the area will be locked down - standard and routine. Along with SWAT and searches and everything else that happens in an act of violence that, while tragic and every human life matters, is non-notable. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Tech requires only freshman to live on campus so that number was probably slightly larger than 1/4 of that. It was reading day with no classes in session so the number of faculty on campus was limited. Yes a lot of people were "locked down" but more were locked down in the 20 schools in the Montgomery County School system that day as well. Should this article be called 2011 Montgomery County Schools shooting? The media wanted (yesterday at least) to draw parallels with 2007 that just aren't there. Wikipedia shouldn't do the same. It should be better than that.--RadioFan (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of people on lockdown or the actions of the police therein don't have to do with anything. And any comparison to other deaths and/or suicides in the world is spurious, as all we care about is the coverage. If the coverage is ongoing and/or there are specific results that come from this incident, then it is notable. As coverage is still ongoing, it is impossible to tell if this will be notable or non-notable in the long run. That's why I voted that this AfD should wait a few weeks, to see if coverage continues or not. Silver seren^C 02:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consider moving this to Murder of Deriek Crouse, the police officer,consistent with other articles about murders, and getting rid of the misleading notability-mooching title. Edison (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good idea. I strongly doubt that the current title would have been used if it was not for the original shooting. I also am against a merge to the article about the massacre since there seems to be no link between the two other than location. (Ie it was not a copycat, homage, or even someone connected to the school).--199.91.207.3 (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to List of attacks related to post-secondary schools. Not notable enough for stand-alone article per WP:NOTNEWS, and has no connection to the 2007 massacre other than the location of the incident.--JayJasper (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)4[reply]

I agree with this. The fact that it happened at Virginia Tech, where the 2007 massacre happened, warrants no reason for this incident to have its own article. Murders happen every day and this particular one should not have its own article. — WylieCoyote (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without deleting Redirect to List of attacks related to post-secondary schools. The event happened two days ago and we still don't know if more information will be found. As it stands right now, it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would agree with BabbaQ. The article has been a top news story around the United States, as well as around the world. -- Luke (Talk) 17:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Nyttend. One time news event, not worthy of an encyclopedic entry. This a circular wire story that sold well with media around the world because of the Virginia Tech massacre. It's already off USA Today's main page, nowhere prominent on FNC's and the eighteenth headline on CNN's. Double-murders happen all the time. WP:NOTNEWS. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 17:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of attacks related to post-secondary schools. falls under wp:notnews imo. The article on the 2007 shootings has a note on this too but is too confusing and inaccurate a target for a redirect. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Three step solution: First, move Virginia Tech massacre to Virginia Tech shootingS [no, I don't actually want to capitalize the "s", I just want to make note of the plural], Second, merge material from this article into the newly titled Virginia Tech shootingS, Third, add a listing at List of attacks related to post-secondary schools covering this new event, and redirect this to the list article. This is superior to merely redirecting because someone who happens to type in Virginia Tech massacre or Virginia Tech shooting will arrive at an article that covers both subjects and will thus avoid any confusion about what event is meant. Think about it: A twelve year old today doing research on this subject for their social studies class may be completely unaware of the earlier shooting. We need to make sure he or she knows about both regardless of what article they land at. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Long, but great idea. Someone's probably gonna step in and say that the shootingS article should cover that shooting that happened sometime, at someplace near the campus, in at least a general sense, that no one remembers bar one source but which still has to be added into the article, which means adding it with just these two shootings would give them undue weight. Great idea. Buggie111 (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: First, Keep this article, then move it to Virginia Tech massacre and rename that page Virginia Tech shootings. Two articles, same situation (shootings), thankfully two completely different outcomes (though the officer passing away the other day is sad). I think, this way, this will encompass the 2007 incident and the 2011 incident (and God forbid any others) in one article. Plus, with new information coming out on the shooter and just why he stole a car in Radford, Virginia and shot a VT cop on campus (remember, it was on campus and a Virginia Tech cop) still hasn't been either learned or released, so new information is still to come out on this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vehemently oppose renaming this article to Virginia Tech massacre. Murder of a police officer followed by suicide of the murderer != massacre. I hope I'm misunderstanding the above. --RadioFan (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are. Misunderstanding it, that is. The users above want to move the Massacre article to a more general Virginia Tech shootings article and then merge this one into that new general article, which would cover the massacre from 2007, this new shooting, and any more shootings that might happen in the future. Silver seren^C 04:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silver seren is correct, I am only suggesting a merger of the Virginia Tech massacre and 2011 Virginia Tech shooting articles into one and then renaming the combined article as Virginia Tech shootings.

Also, someone else already had the same idea. That's what I get for posting before reading what is already posted. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" ... and any more shootings that might happen in the future." Oh, Silverseren, yes, of course your statement is accurate, but did you have to say it? Just too horrible to think about. Anyway, my sincere thanks for accurately expressing the idea that Neutralhomer and I came up with independent of one another. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, While I acknowledge that incidents such as this are tragic, I do not think a stand-alone article is warranted in this case, but the most appropriate place to mention this incident on Wikipedia would be the "History" section of the main Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University article, whereas the Virginia Tech massacre article should remain separate due to the historic scale of the 2007 shootings. --TommyBoy (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I cant see this AfD ending in anything else but an No consensus decision. There are so many very different opinions that its unlikely that anyone could claim there is a consensus for either keep or delete or merge.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not so sure an experienced admin cant find a more specific outcome and explain the decision well. If you look at the 'keep' !votes, nearly all argue that it's too soon to delete. By the time an admin acts on this, more time will have passed and we'll have a better idea about whether this is touchstone event or just another tragic loss of a police officer. The closing admin will also take into account the weight of the arguments being made. The 'delete' and 'merge' !votes are generally making specific arguments often tied to wiki policy and guidelines. The 'keep' !votes are generally pretty vague and those editors should really expand on their thoughts here, preferably similarly tied to policy and guidelines. In short, delete because of this policy holds far more weight than keep, just 'cause. But there is still time to change minds.--RadioFan (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i dont agree there, I think that those saying delete are quite vague while the Keep !votes have more weight and substance when reading them overall.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a whole lot of "too soon to delete" and "it made headlines" and not a whole lot of "this article meets policy X,Y,Z"--RadioFan (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the comment made by User:TommyBoy: "While I acknowledge that incidents such as this are tragic, I do not think a stand-alone article is warranted in this case, but the most appropriate place to mention this incident on Wikipedia would be the "History" section of the main Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University article, whereas the Virginia Tech massacre article should remain separate due to the historic scale of the 2007 shootings." Boneyard90 (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-Up Comment: Let me again explain. User:HuskyHuskie and I's idea is not to move the 2011 Virginia Tech shooting article to Virginia Tech massacre. The idea is to merge the two together (since they are both about Virginia Tech and both happened on the Virginia Tech campus) and rename the combined article (both the 2007 and 2011 events) as Virginia Tech shootings (currently a redirect to the 2007 page). The new page would have all the information in the 2007 and 2011 articles, but in one place. Remember, the 2011 shooting just happened on December 8th, 3 days ago, so information will continue to come out (probably for weeks to come) on motive, ways to make the campus safer (which happened after 2007) and so on. This isn't a "done and over with" situation and won't be over with in a "few days". This isn't CSI and we don't get all our answers in an hour. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understood your position, but I'd be against merging the 2011 article in with the article on the 2007 shooting. The 2011 incident is not connected to the 2007 shooting in any way. There are one or two parallels (they both happened on the same campus), but the 2011 incident should be nothing more than a footnote in the university's history, barely worth mentioning except that it was a police officer who was killed. Also, I know that more information (though it appears unlikely at this point), and (haha), this isn't CSI, which is why these articles are frustrating, and I don't think this article should have been written just yet, as it is still "news", but it seems there are editors who can't wait to be the first to write up a new article, and Wikipedia doesn't yet have an effective way of dealing with the issue except for the policy WP:NOT#NEWS.Boneyard90 (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, it isn't to the scale of the 2007 shootings, but it was on the VT campus and it was a Virginia Tech police officer. A weird oddity in the day of the 2011 shooting was that the University President, the Virginia Tech Police Chief and other university officials were on Capitol Hill in relation to the 2007 shootings. So, while it is remote, there is a connection between the two events. An article can be written at anytime after an incident, an hour, a day, 2 weeks, whenever. There isn't a rule that says that the article has to be written after the "final word" is written. If that were true, we wouldn't have half the article we have on infinite subjects. I don't agree that the "final word" has been written in this one. Remember, we don't know why this guy somehow robbed a real estate office, stole one of their cars in Radford, Virginia (a town near VT) and then just disappeared for 24 hours before appearing on the campus the following morning and for no reason (that is currently known) shot a VT cop and then killed himself. That isn't known yet and investigations take time. There is the incident, the flurry of activity and posts, then nothing, a week later there is more news and that happens about once a week generally. Then the final reports about a year later (give or take a couple months). So this isn't the final word. Remember, University officials were in DC in relation to the 2007 incident...that's 4 1/2 years ago. Not the final word there either. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You make some points worthy of consideration, but I'm still not convinced. My opinion stands: delete the article; mention the incident in the university "history" section, and any relevant lists. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I gave it my best shot. :) With that said, I respect you !vote (had from the beginning). :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are already so many shootings on this wiki with just one or two deaths, even a few that have none, so it makes sense to keep this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.227.116 (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I could easily use those reasons in support of a delete: "There are already so many shootings on this wiki with just one or two deaths, it makes sense to delete this article, and move to delete some of the others too." Boneyard90 (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Boneyard90: First of all, I disagree with Neutralhomer's sincere attempts to demonstrate a connection between the two shootings. His reasoning is tenuous and irrelevant to our decision here. This should be about our readers. Let me explain:

The 2011 incident is not connected to the 2007 shooting in any way. Boneyard, to someone with the information you and I possess, that statement appears reasonable. But to a young person trying to learn about the shootings, such a statement is not only not reasonable, it's asinine. Imagine a 12-year old who has heard this news coming to Wikipedia and typing in Virginia Tech shooting. He's going to learn about the 2007 shooting, and he'll be totally confused. Why? Because these shootings are connected in at least one (arguably superficial) way: They are both shootings that took place on the same campus and made national news.

This shouldn't be about parsing Wikipedia policies to determine what is "correct", this is about making sure our first mission--providing accurate information to our general readers--is upheld. Personally I don't think this most recent shooting would have even necessarily made national news except for the fact that it was at VT. Had this taken place at Western Illinois University it would have been a local story. But another shooting at VT (or NIU) is simply going to resonate with the media and get coverage.

Anyway, I believe we have consensus that a separate article for this shooting is not warranted. So the question is, should this information be included somewhere in Wikipedia? Again, there is clear consensus that is should be somewhere. So the question is, where will this information best serve the reader? If you separate it from the 2007 shootings altogether, you will confuse at least some readers. I would also argue that it's simply too insignificant to include in the main Virginia Tech article. (Yes, it was tragic that a person--one person--was killed. But you know what? That's happened other times at VT and we're not going to include all those in the article.) I believe the best choice is the HuskyHuskie/Neutralhomer proposal, which organizes information with the reader in mind, making this new story a minor section (but touched upon in the lead section) of a combined article. This will best help our readers find clarity. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- In those cases the person(s) who were attacked were probably famous people or there were special circumstances making the case notable. E.g. Murder of Meredith Kercher. This case is just one of many double murders, the only thing that draws (sensationalist) media attention to it is that it took place at the site of a massacre. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 03:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Neutralhomer's proposal of "03:16, 11 December 2011"--Jax 0677 (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When one says "another shooting" it really is inaccurate regarding the true crime stats at Virginia Tech. There have been maybe two alerts since 2007 regarding shots fired. And one of those was a false alarm, another was related to a suicide, if I'm not mistaken. You guys are buying the hype and misinformation. The crime stats don't reflect the stuff you're writing here as reasons to support a stand-alone article. In fact, compared to other campuses and communities, this campus is relatively quiet. It's hype... sales papers and gets viewers on TV, but it's not FACT. VT PD Crime Stats. This is somehow becoming the benchmark and the gold standard of violent crime on campus, though the crime stats don't reflect it. There are more violent crimes at VCU or other urban school around the world than in Blacksburg, VA. Hype, plain and simple. --Possum4all (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possum, I think if you'll carefully read the second half of the comments here, you'll see that the consensus is moving away from the notion of keeping a separate article. The question now seems to be, where should this information be placed? HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fair enough, but I want to add that the above phrase reflects a "bias" here that's not true. It's a similar bias reflected in the title for the April 16th shooting, too, I think. I just want to remind folks that there hasn't been "another shooting" at Virginia Tech in four years that's outside of the typical crime stats for similarly sized towns, cities and campuses. Also, the stats and data are very transparent for all colleges and especially Virginia Tech. Crime Logs So it would be very helpful if folks steered clear of conjecture about the culture, and maybe just read the crime stats without a full picture of said stats.--Possum4all (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is ultimately the murder of a police officer, it should be covered in the article on the department.--RadioFan (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal:Why start another page or include this in the History of the main VT page? It's being ruled a murder-suicide by State Police and is nearly 5 years after the April 16th shootings? As I said above, I don't think it should be listed, nor should it have it's own entry. Maybe, though, there SHOULD be a Virginia Tech Police entry and info surrounding this story could appear there along with substantive links / info about VT's Cleary Act data, the VT Alerts system (which is being championed for working well in this case) and included information about the Department, Fallen Officers, etc..--Possum4all (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Keep as per Corey Lidle, a 'second incident' deserves at least 3 weeks inclusion. ---WikiSkeptic (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I dont think Mr. Lidle has weighed in on this topic. This !vote reads like an argument without an argument.--RadioFan (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means this. Buggie111 (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked Cory is a girls' name. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly OT: I've seen guys named Cory as well. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. Cory Doctorow S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 13:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and weak keep for lack of anything suitable to merge it into. I don't especially want an article violence at Virginia Tech. We have separate articles for William Morva and Murder of Yang Xin, the latter of which is far less notable than this one. All three cases seem to have garnered enough national attention as to pass notability with flying colors. --B (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well those are pretty weak on notability as well. Those cases didn't spark a national debate or led to changes in legislation or public opinion or something like that, giving them lasting notability. If they went up for AfD I'd be inclined to support deletion. Although Yang Xin's murder is unusual because of the way he was killed, after all how many people are decapitated? S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is not temporary. The murder of Officer Crouse was covered by every news outlet in the country. While it's true that if the same thing had happened at, say, Old Dominion University, where there are frequently murders nearby, it might not even be the lead item on the local news, that doesn't really matter. Wikipedia reflects what is notable - it doesn't confer that notability. The media has decided that this murder matters and so at Wikipedia, that means we have an article on it. --B (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yesterday's newspaper will be used to wrap up today's fish. Most news is fleeting. So even widespread coverage should be treated with caution. If a case is notable it should still be of interest to people reading about it in 5 years time. Let alone 100 years later. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 00:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It won't be any interest to anyone in two months' time, never mind five years. This AfD would pass by acclaim then when WP:RECENTISM isn't such a factor - no crystal ball necessary for that prognostication. Many editors have come to this AfD because they came to Wikipedia that day desiring to read more about a news event, and are reacting to having that utility taken away from them - an understandable, if incorrect, reaction. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        And you can tell that this wont be news in 5 years.Ok so you own a crystal ball? Can you share it? Less speculations please...--BabbaQ (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The media is losing interest in this story the spike on Dec 7 and 8 was waned much more quickly than it did in 2007. The 2011 incident wrapped up quickly, turned out to be more comparable to the murders of police officers in any environment (not just a college campus) and had few salacious details to continue reporting on. It's also worth considering the news media's interest in a subject (i.e. count of news articles published) vs. the public's interest (google searches) here. They dont always match up, especially days and months after an incident.--RadioFan (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well of course the news media loses interest more quickly than they did in the 2007 shooting. The 2007 shooting is the worst school shooting in history, whereas the murder of Officer Crouse was only the murder of one police officer, which according to CNN, has happened 62 times this year. Most of the other 61, however, didn't make national headlines at all. The fact that Officer Crouse's murder was widely covered in every media outlet makes it pass the notability criteria with flying colors. --B (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well the Bath School disaster had more victims but wasn't a school shooting. Anyways the only reason why Officer Crouse's murder got so much attention in media is because it happened near the location of the Virginia Tech massacre. We should use a loose interpretation of WP:NOTINHERITED for this case. Otherwise every murder on the Virginia Tech campus could get its own article referring the 2007 massacre. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 22:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although horrible, it is just one of the many shootings the occur yearly in the United States. As so, it is not notable. Besides that, it is proof of the systemic bias of Wikipedia towards subjects related to the USA. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as a G11 promotional article by Orangemike. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 00:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intent Community Participation[edit]

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

giant OR ESSAY, by author with related user name. Seems like it might be a subtle linkspam or dump from the organization's manuals. Reads like copy-vio, but couldnt find any. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:24, 8 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. Sandstein 18:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protected![edit]

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

I found zero significant coverage for this film. Two of the actors are notable, but WP:NF says "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. SL93 (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This film is not notable per WP:NF, and the only two cast members who have Wikipedia articles are not famous enough to transmit notability to the film. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The film was one of those speedy-created for a 48-hour film project[7]... where a filmmaker has his writers and cast all lined up and waiting... And is then handed a few details which must be part of the film, such as genre type, prop to use, and phrase to include. Once getting the information there is a mad rush to write their script, shoot their film, edit the project, and then submit a completed film... all within a 48 hour period. Been in one myself,[8] incredibly frantic pace but fun to do. But RARELY do such ever gain required notability for inclusion herein... and this is one of those that does not. It exists, yes. But no awards and no coverage means no notability per WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stuarteates. Crappy videos have ended up becoming notable as a first project of a notable director or actor (see The Journey of Jared Price), so this could be notable, but I see no evidence it's there. Bearian (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DaveApter (talk) 20:52, 15 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. Sandstein 18:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wingspan (Student Publication)[edit]

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

Promotional article on a college newspaper. The article creator (since blocked as a user name violation) left a message on the talk page stating that this article was made "to reach out to more of an online focus" and that everything in the article is sourced to primary sources, specifically "our self made, self archived handbook/textbook". I think that with the awards this newspaper has won, particularly the National Pacemaker Awards (which I have been able to independently verify here), that one might be able to make a case for notability here, but this article needs to be blown up and started over if that's the case. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a notable enough student paper for inclusion (for example, here's another verified award from the Scripps Howard Foundation), but there's almost nothing worth saving in the current mess. Hard to believe that award-winning student journalists could produce such a turgid piece of self-congratulation. Filing Flunky (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: I should also note that despite the fact that the COI creator's last edit was in March 2010, the article at present is not all that different from the last edit made by that account: [9]. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails at WP:SPIP and notability criteria for print media. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:28, 10 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Boquin[edit]

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

Highschool footballer, not notable Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologize for my initial poor explanation; however, this player does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL. The requirements are generally that they have either represented their country playing football or have played on a professional team. There are no options for high school players. Speedy deletion as an advertisement might be appropriate as well. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, Wikipedia:Notability (people) allows articles on people significantly covered by reliable sources, irrespective of any inability to meet a subject-specific guideline. High school players (who receive media attention as such), aren't notable, ever? Come on. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage that was received was primarily coverage of the team or related to his eligibility controversy. It is primarily about the team so he is not the subject of those sources. It has been a fairly consistent viewpoint around this issue that high school players are rarely notable and I do not see this player achieving either WP:GNG or anything in WP:NSPORT. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Sorry I wasnt finished editing his page. He did participate in the NPSL with the Minnesota Kings, would that help note his Notablity? Thanks Darbaki7 (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, would playing in the NPSL proove his Notability as an athlete? If so, could I take away the "AfD" box at the top of his page?Darbaki7 (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darbaki7 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so because the NPSL doesn't appear on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, So I'm guessing that his notability has been proven because he played in a professional league, am I correct?Darbaki7 (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it hasn't been proven, because his involvement with the NPSL isn't even mentioned in this article yet, nor has the NPSL been established as being a fully professional league. (In fact, the league's web site says that the teams are "comprised of players holding amateur playing status".) The "AfD" box at the top of the page should not be taken away until the deletion discussion is complete, which normally takes one week. If the discussion results in a consensus to keep the article, the administrator who closes this discussion will remove the AfD box at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the NPSL is the hightest non-fully pro league in the US, meaning that playing in it does not confer notability per WP:NSPORT, and the coverage he has received has been incidental, i.e. insufficient for notability under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Ryan, it says at the top of the page that the list of pro leagues isn't fully completed, also to note that it doesn't even have Liberia's top league in there. Liberia's professional league has produced many top players in Europe and Wikipedia doesnt have it listed? The wikipedia list is unreliable. Thank you Darbaki7 (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the leagues listed under the United States you will notice that they are all from the top three tiers of the United States soccer pyramid. NPSL is on the 4th tier. The page about NPSL states that the league is comprised of players holding amateur status. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY as a player with no significant media coverage who has yet to play in a fully professional league. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 13:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable. DaveApter (talk) 20:53, 15 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. Sandstein 18:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

INVEA-TECH[edit]

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

I don't see how this company can meet basic notability guidelines. Every source I can see is either by the company, reprinted press releases or directories, and there are no assertions of importance in the article. — Coren ^(talk) 20:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Company is the first spin off company in the Czech Republic with universities as shareholders. It is quite unique in the Czech Republic, company is popular, growing and is used as example for other R&D projects to decide spin off company establishment. - Springl (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a business working as a vendor in the field of network monitoring, network security and high-speed packet procesing. Being spun off from a university does not establish that this behind the scenes IT business has had any significant effect on history, technology, or culture. All Google News hits that I can read are press releases, or look like press releases in Czech. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all. Thank your for your feedback. I rewrote the article (history and references added and other fixes) and hope it will now meet WP requirements to be here. Could you please reconsider it? And if you see there still things which should be fixed please let me know. Springl (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still lacks independent secondary sources. a13ean (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was pinged on my talk page to take another look. I can only echo a13ean's comments about the independence of many of the references. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mafia (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. No references. No links other than IMDB, which is not a reliable source. Barely any information, other than a basic definition and the year it was made. Stedrick (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage is bad, agreed, but so is coverage generally of the dark period of Bollywood in the 80s to mid 1990s. Dharmendra is one of Bollywood's biggest actors. I believe what the article now has will suffice.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has been improved and sources added. BollyJeff || talk 20:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes coverage in google books is virtually non existant, but I have a feeling quite a lot of Bollywood films of this period are the same. Maybe it was also released in a Hindi title?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That older Bollywood films of this period do not have extensive internet sourcability is a problem that WP:N recognizies.(See WP:ATTRIBUTES) But that it had theatrical release in India in 1996, AND a commercial re-release on television 10 years later in Canada meets one of notability considerations of WP:OEN. It has been improved enough so that having it remain and be further improved by those more able to find Hindi-language sources is reasonable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per MichaelQSchmidt. If the movie had theatrical release in India in 1996, and a commercial re-release on television 10 years later in Canada, then it definitely meets one of notability considerations of Wikipedia:NF#Other_evidence_of_notability. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 13:17, 11 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 Redcliffe City, Queensland. v/r - T P 03:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redcliffe Central Business District[edit]

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

Not-notable district due to lack of coverage. Can be merged to Redcliffe City, Queensland. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Couldn't find anything to prove that it's independently notable. Normally I'd suggest a merge, but no referenced content = nothing mergeable. Jenks24 (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Redcliffe City, Queensland. Some of the pertinent info should be merged. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clemson Alumni Society for Equality[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. Fails WP:ORG due to lack of coverage. Just a thousand Google hits, including own website and Facebook. No hits on Google News. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It also reads like an advertisement for the group. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 02:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, non-notable, fails WP:ORG. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as A9. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scream (Flipper song)[edit]

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

non notable song, "chart" is bogus chart that only exists on wikipedia, I am deleting that separately. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom along with I Will Never Let You Out Of Mind. Toddst1 (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it doesn't appear we even have an article on the musician. LadyofShalott 19:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A previous song was prodded by me and speedyed by Todd1. I am not sure why I didnt prod this one as well. apply WP:SNOW and speedy? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks notability and should be treated the same as the other song by this artist. A speedy delete per WP:SNOW makes sense to me. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Agree with the above. I can't say for certain that this song was simply made up, but even if that's not the case, it's a non-notable song (ie, zero coverage found, significant or trivial) by an artist with no Wiki article; eligible for speedy deletion (A9) and tagged as such. Gongshow ^Talk 01:17, 9 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. v/r - T P 03:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan State University Chemical Laboratory[edit]

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

Non-notable college campus building. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research about a non-notable building. If this belongs on Wikipedia, then I'm creating an article about my garage next. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I've always been fascinated by your garage. That must mean it's notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 00:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think we're going to find the coverage necessary to show notability here. If there's interest, perhaps a redirect to Michigan State University? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 00:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Fails verifiability.~~ (ETA) Fails notability. I question the basic accuracy of the article, since I do not believe that all chemistry classes are taught there in a building that old. See [10] which shows "the Chemistry Building" , opened in 2007, which replaced a 1950's building. It seems ~~either~~ a careless and poorly written article ~~if not a hoax,~~ in claiming that a small building from the 19th century is still where all chemistry courses are taught. Edison (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This building was demolished in 1955: [11]. Rmhermen (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So the article could be edited to remove the incorrect assertion that all chemistry classes are "still taught today" in the demolished building. Now are there multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of the 1869 building with its additions? Ideally these would include reliable sources more independent than just publications by the university. I do not see it listed at National Historic Chemical Landmarks like some other laboratories. Does the demolished building even have a distinctive and identifying name? Edison (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:34, 10 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. v/r - T P 03:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Kids English High School[edit]

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

Non-notable. sillybillypiggy^{¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE!} 17:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this was nominated for deletion within an hour of creation which is very poor practice. No evidence of WP:BEFORE research. I have cleaned up the page and added a source and there is more that can be added. High schools have long been taken to be notable and, as with all high schools, with sufficient research it is probable that WP:GNG will be met. Indian schools always have a poor Internet presence and, to avoid systemic bias, time for local sources to be sought should be given. TerriersFan (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ; our practice has consistently been that all verifiable high schools are notable. Challenging this will just rules in several tens of thousands of these AfDs which ---based on the period 5 years ago before we accepted that way of doing things-- 90% will be kept. The added burden of AfDs will prevent proper consideration of things much more in need of deletion. DGG ( talk ) 11:05, 15 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. v/r - T P 03:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alba Rosa Vietor[edit]

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

No meaningful sources turn up. The article states that the person is unknown and her son is attempting to get her known. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few sources that mention her in passing, but the only significant coverage is a book by family members, which is not independent. Wikipedia is not a tool to create notability for an obscure ancestor, though she may well have been talented. Not all talented people qualify for an encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:36, 10 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: nom. withdrawn, no other delete !votes. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nokku kooli[edit]

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

The 'subject' as well as the title of the article is a phrase from the Malayalam language. The 'subject' is of only limited local relevance to the state of Kerala in India. The article has absolutely no relevance in English Wikipedia. Even people from Kerala, where this subject has a relevance, wont look in English wikipedia for this title, because it is not expected here. The fact that this page, now 6 months old, is still an orphan, and is yet not edited by none other than the creator (excluding 3 technical edits, plus a prod from myself, and a prod decline - all (except the prod) from out of Kerala) proves this.

Now, please dont read me wrong. The fact that Nokku kooli is a social evil that exists in Kerala is a truth. And it has to be fought against. But Wikipedia is not a blog or bulletin board. The point is: Even people from Kerala wont look for this word in the English wikipedia, because it is not expected here. And you have the evidence above. Austria156 (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use words such as "prove" and "evidence" when you have proven nothing and provided no evidence of anything. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject of the article is not a phrase, but a labour practice, which is known in English by this name, as confirmed by the reliable sources cited in the article. Nothing in the nominator's statement comes anywhere close to being a valid reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I had access to the visitor statistics, I could have proved my point. Unfortunately I dont have. But the edit history tells us something. What is an article in Wikipedia for? To provide information to someone, isn't it? If nobody will look in English Wikipedia for this phrase, then why should it be here? And this argument of mine will be proven in the next 7 days of discussion. I am interested to see how many Keralites would participate (There are 1000s of wikipedians from Kerala, I believe). But now, if you are going to tell me that, even if the article be never visited for its life, by no one, even then, the article could and should stay. Then I'll call the AfD back myself. Thank you. Austria156 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the visitor statistics for 'Nokku kooli'. Salih (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guesses about whether people might visit an article form no part of our deletion policy. I, for one, even though I am not from Kerala, find the article interesting and have learnt something from it. Why should people from Kerala be the only ones to have access to information about Kerala? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia also reports on social evils, as long as it are notable social evils. This topic is apparently notable enough for the English language The Hindu to report on it, and for politicians and government to publicly address the problem. It is not our job to predict how many people will visit this page or why. WP simply reports on everything as long as it is properly sourced, and that seems to be the case here. Of course the article can be improved, but that is the case with most articles on WP. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC);[reply]
Keep - from the sources listed in the article, this appears to meet our WP:GNG. Thousands of page views per day are not required. LadyofShalott 19:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. This is a general encyclopedia written in English, not an encyclopedia of the English-speaking world. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-written article, properly supported by reliable independent citations, including The Hindu newspaper. No problem with Notability at all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Phil Bridger and others, above. The case for notability is clear, the article is sourced (and, moreover, the subject is sourceable) and, honestly, the prose is quite well written. The lack of a valid deletion rationale helps as well. Notability is not impacted by the level of traffic to the article, nor by the language or place of origin of the subject. See also Wikipedia:Systemic bias. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 00:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Use of the term in English is established by sources. The practice described is established by sources (though references could improve). I learned something from reading it. What's more to say? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal of nomination. This is from the nominator of this AfD. I'm sorry to have wasted the time of the participants. I withdraw the nomination. Please do understand that it was with a good intention, maybe I was wrong in my judgement. Sorry for that. Sorry all for your time and effort. Thank you for your participation. I dont know what to do for a Withdrawal of nomination. If something else has to be done otherthan posting this here, some of the fellow editors here could help me. Thanks. Austria156 (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. No harm done, the article is better than it was when it started. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by DGG. Peridon (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aspire Drinks[edit]

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

Non-notable drink with dubious health claims and generally full of advertising. Article was created by Bell Pottinger. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this to be an advert. It should be deleted ASAP. Rowmn (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pure spam Bulwersator (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's an advert. Longwayround (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morningside Avenue (Manhattan)[edit]

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

Contested prod. No claim to notability. Regardless of another editor pointing me to WP:BEFORE, this is an unsourced article about a street in New York that divides two neighbourhoods... Apparently it's "practically a part of Columbia University", though I don't know what notability that imparts. Delete ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple notable landmarks like St. Joseph of the Holy Family's Church (New York City), St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center and the Grant Houses on this street. It's also where Colin Powell grew up. [12] --Oakshade (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings on a street don't impart notability on a street, independent third party references describing the character of the street and the history of the street do. We also don't have articles for streets because a ~~actor~~politician (just goes to show how well he's known outside the US) grew up along it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct you there, Colin Powell is not an actor nor politician, but an iconic statesman and army General. --Oakshade (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After a highly frustrating twenty minutes trying to find some kind of decent sourcing about this road, I'm pretty much convinced it fails WP:GNG. Every time a convincing result came up, the topic being covered was actually Morningside Park (examples: [13], [14]). So unless I missed something, I can't see why this street is more noteworthy than any other. Notable landmarks and Colin Powell aren't enough for me, nor apparently for any notability guideline I know of. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:15, 15 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. TigerShark (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hartmut Schwesinger[edit]

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

Non-notable CEO of a non-notable organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A gnews search yields several good references from local press, a bild.de article and he was even quoted in a Washington Times article. Doesn't appear to be an anonymous ceo. MakeSense64 (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from anything else the subject passes WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of the Hamburg Parliament. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I have to agree with Phil Bridger, but I also think that in reality, Hartmut must have just started looking for a new job and is using Wikipedia as an online resume. Glück Hartmut!;) Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 03:21, 17 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. v/r - T P 03:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Water polo at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games[edit]

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

Does every single sport at the 2011 Southeast Asian games need its own unreferenced article? In the interest of not spamming AfD, other VERY similar pages that would likely be kept or deleted under the same rational are in this template:

ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The issue of having no sources can be easily rectified by linking to the official website at http://seag2011.com/. As for the need of a page for each sport, the same treatment applies to major multi-disciplinary events such as the Olympics itself, the later of which even includes pages for individual events, something I feel is unnecessary for the SEAG. This article just needs to be expanded, which I will do so by the end of this month.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That url can be used as a reference, but doesn't count for notability purposes, since it's not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the SEAG a major multi-disciplinary event on the same scope of the Olympics? An event for a sub-regional area of an regional area of the IOC? As for linking to the website of the event as a fix, please refer to the policy on preferring secondary sources at WP:NS and not basing an entire article on primary sources at WP:NOR. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 18:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that the same series of sports articles exists also for 2005, 2007 and 2009 Southeast Asian Games. I checked the AfD archives and found only a few AfD related to them, two cases where these articles had been created too early. The event is certainly notable, and splitting it into articles by discipline seems to be the accepted way. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The event is notable, but are the results? Do results pages inherit notability from the parent event? And does the fact that it has always been done that way indicate consensus, or lack of awareness? ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 18:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Also feel free to ping my talk page if you nominate all the related articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would rather see sourced articles on notable subjects, instead of creating an arbitrary schema and then mass-producing articles to fill in each point in the schema. I would support the deletion of any other "Sport X at Games Y" articles which were created on the same basis, and which are just ritual tables and flags and templates without sourced prose or evidence of notability. bobrayner (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally agree with Bobrayner; just look at Bridge at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the "press coverage" is not sufficiently independent and significant for the company to meet WP:GNG. Mkativerata (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natures Way Foods[edit]

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

I'm unsure as to if this article meets our notability guideline for companies. It was created by PR firm Bell Pottinger, and seems to be well-written, but I would appreciate some other opinions. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I trimmed what I saw as the excessive promotional bits and pieces from the article, but there were some references in there that might be of use. There was a list of awards but they mainly seemed to be industry awards that are not notable. I will have a further look to see if the sources are enough to show it meets WP:CORP. Polequant (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see in-depth coverage currently and the awards don't strike me as particularly notable, sufficient to trump other notability requirements. But I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise. A company with that kind of turnover probably is notable, well, they damn well ought to be if Bell Pottinger have been doing a decent job and not just flapping around on Wikipedia, but there's no evidence here yet. Happy to revise opinion if things change. --Dweller (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I considered speedy deleting and salting the article for crimes against the apostrophe, but reconsidered. I suppose punctuation isn't vital in the world of bagged salad. I recommend someone buys their CEO a copy of Eats, Shoots & Leaves.[reply]

I fo'und s'ome cover'age of the company' h'ere: ([15]) --Dweller (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I only saw this after my !vote, but I don't think this interview by a trade publication changes anything. It's not much more independent than a press release. Hans Adler 03:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just about keep. There's lots of bits and pieces but there doesn't seem to be a "clincher" to show notability. In addition to the link Dweller has found there is also things like [16] and [17]. In the general press, their 'Lasting Leaf' salad has got some attention - [18], [19] - but those don't actually talk about the company. They also had a salmonella scare [20], and someone lost a finger in a machine [21]. Given the size of the company and that they supply some of the biggest supermarket groups in the UK I would almost expect them to be notable. Polequant (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given what we know about the creator, this is essentially not-quite-G12-quality advertising. Let someone independent write an article about it, but the content as it currently stands is in violation of our no-promotion standards. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, like their products. A damp lettuce-leaf of an article... ;-) Seriously though, an article that tells us that company X makes a lot of Y isn't exactly illuminating, and listing their customers doesn't add notability either. If the company is of any real significance, there should be evidence for it from sources other than their own PR department, and from dubious PR agencies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company employs 400 people and generates coverage in the press. I really don't think that we'd be getting rid of the company's entry if it weren't for Bell Pottinger's role. JASpencer (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no coverage other than press releases (irrelevant for WP:GNG as they are not independent, even when repeated by others) and the salmonella incident. The salmonella incident alone was not significant enough to make the company notable, and its inclusion would skew the article unacceptably. Without it there is no independent coverage at all. Altogether, a clear failure of WP:GNG and no practical way to keep the article in any reasonable form. It's tempting to punish the company for having used Bell Pottinger by keeping the article with the salmonella stuff, but we don't do that kind of thing. Hans Adler 03:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I have no interest in making a kneejerk reaction to promotional editing - we should judge the content how it stands, not how it got here. However, there seems to be a slight shortage of independent coverage by other sources. Happy to revise my !vote if somebody unearths additional sources which go beyond press releases &c. bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 15 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. Sandstein 18:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Distributor[edit]

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

Article has been proded twice, tag removed by article creator. The two references listed say nothing about the article content, and seem more like advertising. Chris857 (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The article: Urban Distributor is a term often used to categorize a Car Audio Retailer that also sells products to other Car Audio Retailers. I'd a thought it was that guy in the zebra coat who you always see parked in his Eldorado in the back corner of the megabox store parking lot, but that's just me. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable term. The "sources" have nothing to do with the term. SL93 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:43, 10 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 Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier. Sandstein 17:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CVN-80[edit]

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

Per WP:HAMMER this carrier is "tentatively scheduled to be commissioned in 2021", a decade from now, is un-named, and since none of the ships in this class have been completed, all of the data, from the speed to the complement to the number of aircraft are all just projections. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 17:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier, at least until such time as more confirmed information comes along. The designation isn't going to change, so the redirect makes sense. This vessel will undoubtedly be notable upon its completion, and perhaps during actual construction - but I agree, it's way way way too early. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gerald R. Ford class. There are a couple of listed sources in the article as well as the proposed name that should be preserved. If not then redirect. CVN's 79 and 80 are not even listed in the NVR yet. Brad (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, per the above - logical redirect, near 100% certainty ship will be built as a Ford class carrier. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per the above posts. It doesn't seem possible to write anything about this ship at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While commissioning will occur in 2021, other milestones will be reached in just a few years. It meets WP:GNG and I see no harm in leaving it as a stub in the interim years. Safiel (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'd think that would be a really good argument for waiting and creating the article later, when there is something more substantial to report - and, more importantly, when there will be more sources on which to base the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough information already. Public discussion over the name of a ship that has been definitely announced is sufficient DGG ( talk ) 11:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to parent class article - not independently notable yet. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to ostrich effect, closing as moot. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ostrich strategy[edit]

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

Article consists entirely of a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article has not been expanded since previous AfD nomination three years ago, nor do I see much evidence that, once you've noted it's a metaphor for ignoring something, that there is much more to be said about it. Unreferenced since November 2007. ProposeDelete.

Good thought on the redirect; I didn't see the ostrich effect article. Withdrawing nomination; propose Redirect per Smerdis, and I'll go add the redirect. --DGaw (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion d

iscussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#DICT. 'Nuff said. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 16:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ostrich effect, which has references and a bit more discussion, but appears to be the exact same thing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why there are many hits for "Ostrich strategy", when I try searching on Google Books with +debt I get no results, suggesting OR/lack of notability. I will change my vote if sources are shown. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Smerdis above. There may be some notable information here - it's similar enough to ostrich effect to be a section of that article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:22, 8 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 speedily deleted (G4, recreation) by Fastily. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thorsten Pattberg[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. The article is an orphan. Only a couple hits in Google Scholar; books are published by publisher with no website that I can find. Pattberg was also subject to a AfD two years ago, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thorsten_J._Pattberg, in which Pattberg himself was blocked for sockpuppetry. Michitaro (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except a few published books I cannot find much about this person. Recreation of previously deleted article by a new editor whose first contribution was to add a reference to Pattberg in another article [22]. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that none of the books are listed in WorldCat.Michitaro (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 — although not really identical, this is not improved from the deleted version and the changes made to it do not address the reason for deletion. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 8 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 Miami University. v/r - T P 02:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roudebush Hall[edit]

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

Just a university admin. building. Subject can be adequately covered within the university article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likely merge to Miami University. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable university building. I would say merge, but I don't know if anyone will merge it and I sure won't. SL93 (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miami University as possible search term. If anyone feels like merging content at a later date, it's available in the history. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miami University, as per N. Johnson. There is too much clutter info to justify a merge. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions consist of handwaving and there has been no followup to the reasonable questions asked of those expressing these opinions. Sandstein 18:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Pakistan Medical Students[edit]

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

Relatively new journal that has not yet had time to establish itself as notable. No independent sources, not covered in any major selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Part of series of articles created by a member of the editorial board who has a clear COI. JFW | T@lk 23:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's one of the first international, peer reviewed medical journals in Pakistan. Google shows many links. I'm sure this is deserving of an article. Mar4d (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question And which one of those 105 results constitutes significant coverage in a reliable source (excluding stuff like Medicalopedia, for example)? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is one of the first student journals from Pakistan recognized and indexed in many major journal indexations.119.73.50.157 (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC) — 119.73.50.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Would you mind sharing with us which "major journal indexations" this journal is recognized and indexed by? And are they selective? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:09, 14 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 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker league[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails the general notability guideline and thus is non-notable. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 16:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any individual professional league is likely to be notable, and some non-professional leagues may be notable, but we already have a sports league article, and it seems totally redundant to have general articles on every sport+league combination. I suppose a redirect to Sports league would be harmless enough but I'm not sure it would really be useful to anyone. --Michig (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whatever is sourced and worth keeping in this article can be merged into Snooker#Governance_and_tournaments. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No citation, non-notable one --C h i n n Z ^{(talk | Contrib)} 15:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't deserve its own article. Content could be merged into the Snooker article, governance section as noted above, but given that the article is unsourced and written with an informal tone, it would have to be rewritten and thoroughly sourced before this could be done. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Entwistle (director)[edit]

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

Does not assert notability per WP:CREATIVE: three short films and a feature film in development; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. There's also an evident WP:Conflict of interest on recent edits, though this in itself is not a reason for deletion. Filing Flunky (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it's a film directed by the subject of the article above, still in development, with no indication of its notability per WP:NFILMS, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources.

The baby who is the subject of the film did get some national press coverage as part of a debate about bed blocking, but the article isn't about the baby, but rather about the film. Bed blocking currently redirects to a single paragraph in another article, and both the baby and this film would definitely be worth mentioning in a full article about bed blocking, but there's insufficient notability for this film for its own article. There's an evident conflict of interest in the second article too, as it was created and mostly edited by the film's director, though as above, that on its own is not a reason to delete. Filing Flunky (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both due to lack of sufficient coverage in reliable sources that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 23:09, 12 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mahnoor Baloch[edit]

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

Unnotable actress. Unreferenced biography of a living person. bender235 (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — There is some credibility to the article's assertions of notability, being that she is in fact a moderately well known model and actress in Pakistan. A Google search yields several relevant results, and she has a starring role in a Pakistani television series that has its own article on Wikipedia, but even that one barely survived AfD back in 2008. This is a borderline case, and I prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to barely notable living people. Master&Expert (Talk) 11:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several results returned on Google. There is evidence that the actress has starred in several television serials and films. The article could do with improvement although that's no reason to call the subject unnotable. Mar4d (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The person is notable enough and citations can be found for enough content for a separate article. The google search gives 398,000 results (mostly about this person including many news results) and then we have books [23] [24] [25] [26]. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Sources have been offered. Relisting for additional discussion

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:15, 17 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miami rappers[edit]

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

Irrelevant; lack of encyclopedic value; no significance indicated. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia:Listcruft. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's a category for this (Category:Rappers from Miami, Florida); the list is, as noted, crufty as well as duplicating that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's been over 7 days... shouldn't this be closed now? Till I Go Home (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets/52301–52400. Sandstein 18:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(52340) 1992 SY[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG,non-notable asteroid. That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 06:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed all asteroids counted, in the same way that any MLB player counts, even one no one cares or talks about. I intend to add to the article...it is a potentially hazardous asteroid, and makes very close passes to Earth. Saros136 (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, it would not be classified as a PHA. But it is a near-earth object. Saros136 (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If "all asteroids count" in reality, then they shouldn't. Really need something more to suggest notability? --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_minor_planets/52301–52400 (the list actually contains more information on this object than the article). Asteroids are not inherently notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) and this article also fails WP:GNG unless references are available which "address the subject directly in detail" beyond mere catalogue information. Thincat (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Thincat. We can always fork and expand this article again if, as noted, this asteroid passes close enough to Earth so as to generate some media coverage noting the event. (Would this fall under WP:USUAL, I wonder?) UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Thincat and as recommended in WP:NASTRO. None of the published scholarly sources that list this object show significant coverage. At best it's an entry in a table. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Thincat. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 16:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect Saros136 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm still an inclusivist, and I prefer to see a lot of asteroids with articles. I assumed all were fair game because I never had a problem starting articles on asteroids in the past, and also because of the articles by others on obscure asteroids. At least I would like to see all PHA's considered notable. Saros136 (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate list of minor planets. This action is in keeping with Notability (astronomical objects), vis a vis minor planets. AstroCog (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect looking for references outside wikipedia shows it in ephemeris, in lists of observed objects and in lists of Mars crossing objects. So this suggests that we should have it in a list also. I was worried about navigation up the sequence of numbers 52339 ... 52341, but that was not there anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I want to suggest possibly keeping this article on the basis that minor planet articles are probably not covered by J. Wales comment "I added Wikipedia is not a newspaper and especially not a tabloid newspaper and that we… attempt to make some sort of judgment about the long term historical notability of something…" (from here), which is probably what the notability guideline is originally based on according to its documentation. Fotaun (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem Bulwersator (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need to delete asteroid articles on notability grounds. It is true that most by far are not worth an article, but only a small fraction of those will get articles anyway. Those that do will mostly just get small stubs, and what's the harm in that? Saros136 (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been settled with the promotion of Notability (astronomical objects) to guideline. The minor planets which don't warrant a stand-alone article are redirected to the appropriate List of minor planets sub-list, where the basic information is preserved in an efficient manner. A three-month discussion of this issue took place at WP:ASTRONOMY and in the RfC for WP:NASTRO. I'd really prefer not to rehash any of that here. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 03:46, 10 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 Amnesiac. There is clear consensus that the article should not exist in its current form, but the suggested redirect would appear to be useful.TigerShark (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like spinning plates[edit]

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

The song is not a notable song in Radiohead's career, it is not a single and it already has information about it in the Amnesiac article. What a pro. (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amnesiac or Amnesiac#Music. This short article just joins together material already present in the Amnesiac and I Might Be Wrong: Live Recordings articles, so I don't see the point of having it as a freestanding article, and I'm a Radiohead zealot, for what it's worth. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:22, 14 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. TigerShark (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Roberts (actor)[edit]

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

No significant credits that I can see. 14th billing in Serial Mom and a few appearances on The Wire appear to be the best of the lot. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete We do not concern ourselves with IMDB's billing order, as IMDB is considered A) unreliable as a source, and B) IMDB has no set criteria for determination of credit order. Billing order there can be alphabetical, or per appearance order, or per whomever production wishes to acknowledge first, or whomever joined a television series first or last. That said, this actor has a body of work that nudges at WP:ENT in that while he has many minor dscriptive roles, he does have appearances as named charaters which could be considered as significant to plotline of notable productions... such as being Ralph Sterner in Serial Mom, or Paddy Pingleton in Hairspray, and his recurring named characters perhaps considered significant to plotline in notable television productions... such as 3 episodes of The Wire as State's Attorney Steven Demper, and 4 episodes of Homicide: Life on the Street as Donald Tochterhagen. However, the commonness of his name make searches difficult. While these roles are verifiable, it seems no one has taken any special notice of the individual. He has definitely kept a low profile, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aura's Rap, Rhyme & Arithmetic[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unremarkable local cable access TV program. Google search on "Aura's Rap, Rhyme & Arithmetic" shows only 5 results, none reliable sources. Just to be safe, also searched on "Rap, Rhyme & Arithmetic", only got 12 unique results, none from reliable sources MikeWazowski (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable local show. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom - Nabla (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:04, 10 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 default to no consensus. Upon examining this AFD in more detail, a few things jumped out at me as irregular; after further investigation, Volt7, Star108, and the AFD's creator, KeithS77, turned out to be related accounts part of what I've found to be a prolific sockpuppet farm tampering with yoga-related articles. With this in mind, I'm nulling this AFD completely and recreating it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srivatsa Ramaswami (2nd nomination). All users who participated are welcome to weigh in again. m.o.p 05:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Srivatsa Ramaswami[edit]

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

topic is lacking significant coverage and secondary sources KeithS77 (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Administrative note: this user is a confirmed sockpuppet. m.o.p 06:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A yoga teacher that wrote a couple of books about yoga is far from notable. No sources establishing notability are provided. Earlier versions were promotional garbage, which thankfully has been cut. No indication that sufficient sources will ever be found to establish notability. Delete in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No attempt to establish notability. Shii (tock) 01:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed an Amazon rank of 106000 for his 2005 book, the others are much lower. Also a few hits on google scholar, but not much else to support notability. MakeSense64 (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objection An Amazon book rank does not make the author notable. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [27], [28], [29], [30], and [31]. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 7 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 01:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, conditional on the edits provided by SL93 being integrated (because I'm sure I don't understand the topic well enough to). Stuartyeates (talk) 04:55, 8 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment The delete arguments are poor, being unsourced is an issue, we don't delete at AFD because notability hasn't been established but because notability can't be established. Usually we expect to see evidence of searches for sources rather then assertions that its unsourced and can't be sourced. On the keep side, how an admin is supposed to evaluate a bunch of links is beyond me, some explanation of what you are providing will allow the admin to evaluate the debate against policy rather then ending up supervoting by making their own opinion of whatever it is you are providing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. But when there is only this much to be found about the person, then what kind of explanation are we supposed to give? To have a real deletion discussion I think what we need is editor reponses to the arguments and sources that are brought. These could be inserted as Objection: (+ explanation) below the respective votes/comments. As an example I am posting an objection my own comment (I hope that's OK). An admin would then strike out either the argument or the objection depending on what stands and after three days the admin can post some kind of interim report, stating to what side he leans based on current information, and what will be needed to save the article in case he leans towards delete. Then there are three more days to conclusion of the AfD. This would make the deletion process more transparent and give the editors feedback. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three not particularly well selling books do not a notable author make. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sources listed above are a book review and trivial mentions in articles in yoga magazines. Nothing substantial enough to be equivalent to a feature article even if taken together. A Goole search turned up nothing substantial, either: announcements for courses, promotional material and more trivial and tangential mentions on blogs and in niche magazines of low circulation, but nothing that comes close to solidly establishing notability. Mention is usually similarly worded, indicating reliance on subject's own promotional material rather than actual investigative journalism. No mentions of exceptional awards or other recognition from professional societies, which is surprising considering the man has a 50 year long career. Book rankings on Amazon indicate that the subject's books are not best sellers by any stretch of the imagination, and of interest only to a small niche market, at best. Even if the claims in the subject's promotional materials were supported by independent sources, there would still not be enough to establish notability. I found no evidence that the subject of the article is anything more than an undistinguished, run of the mill yoga teacher. Still does not meet any of the criteria for notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:BIO Star108 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrative note: this user is a confirmed sockpuppet. m.o.p 06:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Dominus Vobisdu|talk's comments Volt7 (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrative note: this user is a confirmed sockpuppet. m.o.p 06:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 02:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian members of the Indian Civil Service[edit]

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

This is an incomplete, unsourced and substantially redlinked list of people. There are therefore issues relating to WP:V and WP:NLIST, while the obvious inability to get anywhere near a complete list suggests issues relating to WP:WEIGHT also. I simply do not see how this can ever be turned into an encyclopedic article. Sitush (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge(?): Maybe merge the linked names with the list at the bottom of Indian Civil Service? Maybe split out the English and Indian members of the ICS into 2 lists? The first part of the list here is sort of interesting given the difficulty that Indians must have had in joining the ICS. --Marjaliisa (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having some red links is not a valid reason to delete an article, and at least half of the names are blue links anyway. Policy says you can't delete something for being incomplete either. Keep, as a perfectly valid list article, it quite encyclopedic. Dream Focus 19:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "original" Indian Civil Service operated either from the 1700s (when the East India Company began their involvement in India) or from 1858 (when the British govt took over responsibility from the EIC), depending on which semantics you accept to be more accurate. It survived until 1947, and in the intervening period had ca. 1000 officers at any one time. That would be a big list, if done as per the article title. This is without considering the post-independence ICS, which still exists today and is far, far bigger.

Per WP:NLIST, the unsourced redlinks in this case have the appearance of non-notability ... and that is without factoring in the many omissions. This one really is better dealt with as a category, and such a thing already exists. If an article about an individual is retained then the person is notable & they should appear in that category.

BTW, I have not checked all of the links yet but it is par for the course in lists of Indian names for the target article for many blue links to relate in fact to a completely different person who shared the same name. I would be surprised if all the blues depicted are valid, and will try to make time to check this, - Sitush (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason you can't have a list and a category. The rule is not to destroy one to favor another. The list has valid information which makes it easier to see who everyone was an easier to navigate. And what is this nonsense about "the appearance of non-notability"? There is nothing wrong with having red links in an article. It doesn't mean anything other than no one has gotten around to making an article for the person yet. Dream Focus 22:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLIST, as I said earlier. Unless I am misunderstanding NLIST. As far as I can see, this article is effectively a list. And a very, very incomplete one at that. I know that we can have lists and categories, but that does not mean that we should. Each case on its merits. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 30 November 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No real feelings on keep or delete, but if it's kept it needs to be renamed. The title seems horribly misleading. As it stands, the title implies that it's a list that could include the millions and millions of people who have worked in the Indian civil service. As it reads, this list is more about the heads of the various departments of the civil service. Agent 86 (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the administrative elite who had passed the exam and were covenanted. The provinces had separate civil services - this article is about the imperial layer above them. Warden (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is common practice on Wikipedia to keep lists of people by occupation for which the occupation does not guarantee notability (as I assume is the case here, I don't know), so the list is simply limited only to those individuals who merit articles. We also do this with lists of people by place of origin (e.g., we only list notable people from Nova Scotia, not all people from Nova Scotia who ever lived), lists of companies, lists of films, lists of books, etc., etc., etc. So the deletion arguments that this list can never be "complete" (lists do not have to be) or is currently full of redlinks (some of which may merit articles) are not valid deletion arguments at all.

Nor is it valid to claim this list has verifiability issues just because it is currently lacking sources. This is unfortunately a common confusion. To be unverifiable, however, it means that an article cannot be verified because reliable sources do not exist anywhere that support its content. It does not mean simply that there are no sources in the article at present, a problem addressed by adding sources. And I see that the first three articles listed have citations therein verifying that they were Indian members of the Indian Civil Service. No doubt there are more. So the notion that this list has verifiability issues can be easily rejected, and that incorrect claim appears to have been made purely based on the current state of the list and without regard to WP:BEFORE.

Finally, as WP:CLN notes, lists and categories can be complementary means of navigating articles and organizing information. This list, further, provides extra value that a category cannot because it has far more information than just alphabetized names: there are seven additional data columns. The fact of Indians joining the ICS appears to have been historically significant and addressed by multiple reliable sources. Whether the list should be complete, or limited only to article subjects, is a matter for normal editing and discussion to determine; in any event, it is easily substantial enough even if pruned to notable subjects. And if the list were short enough, it would simply be included in Indian Civil Service; because it is not, it is properly split off per WP:SALAT. postdlf (talk) 08:51, 5 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I'm picking up the sense that this has a problem with scope and scale and an added dash of indiscriminate information and OR. If this is to be kept the keep side need to demonstrate how this has a clear encyclopaedic scope that the list can easily meet without becoming unmanageable and indiscriminate and for deletion I think the delete side would benefit from clarifying their comments along the lines of OR. NOT and the scope. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Are you kidding? This is the worst possible form of listcruff. It serves no sensible purpose. It accepts on its face that it will never be a complete list, and if it ever did it would be absolutely gargantuan. I think it just has to go. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This source tells us that there were about 450 people in this category at the time of Independence. This number does not seem especially large compared to some of our other lists - see Lists of American football players which contain thousands of people, for example. As the administration was quite efficient, its records and official histories will provide good sources. And the topic is quite notable as there have been many books about it such as The Men who Ruled India. Warden (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have the very well used Category:Indian civil servants for exactly this. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:CLN tells us that, if we have a category, then it is appropriate and sensible to have a list too, so that they may complement each other. Warden (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and as I already posted above, "This list, further, provides extra value that a category cannot because it has far more information than just alphabetized names: there are seven additional data columns." It would be nice if commenters in AFDs would actually read and respond to comments that have already provided counterarguments to the claims they are making. postdlf (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the usefulness of this list. It is to be expected that the Indian civil service, even under colonial administration, included Indians. What would be useful would be a (probably briefer) list of particularly noted civil servants, of any nationality, in Indian Civil Service. Sandstein 12:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian Civil Service article already contains a long list of that sort. This list seems to supplement that as a spin-off. As it might have a thousand or so entries when complete, considerations of size make it sensible to subdivide in some way such as nationality. If this is thought to be a premature fork/split then we should just merge back into until size indicates that it is time to split again. Deletion would be disruptive to this and is not recommended by WP:CFORK: " If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.". Warden (talk) 13:34, 16 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. Kubigula (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chal Jhoothey[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. No useful details or references to determine notability Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Void coverage in the reliable, independent media—notability is in question. — Bill william compton^Talk 11:57, 3 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment I was tempted to delete this but while there is evidence of a lack of sourcing, its not clear what searches for sources have been tried and there is no explanation of why the subject fails crystal. Comment on this would make the consensus clearer. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal requires the event is notable and certain to take place. There is no claim for notability, and the is no confirmation of production. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:07, 10 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 Glossary of anime and manga. TigerShark (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henshin[edit]

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

A dictionary definition that is not useful as a redirect to any particular page because of its presence in a wide variety of media. Sources are poor, even though I added them myself in the past. —Ryulong (竜龙) 04:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not encyclopedic. Punt it over to appropriate WikiProject (Wiktionary? WikiTranslate? Who knows). --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Glossary of anime and manga. Obviously. --Gwern (contribs) 18:35 8 December 2011 (GMT)
Merge and redirect as per Gwern. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion At least, I'm against Gwern. Henshin scenes are also common in live-action tokusatsu series, not just in anime and manga. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 15:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact of the matter is that this is not a suitable article on its own. I do not care if it is deleted or merged somewhere more useful. The article as it stands is a poorly sourced dictionary definition that only has nostalgic qualities for editors such as yourself and myself.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we have any List of tokusatsu terminology articles, JSH, as tokusatsu is even more under-served on the English Wikipedia than is anime. Make the best of it. --Gwern (contribs) 15:01 14 December 2011 (GMT)

Merge to the glossary per Gwern. A vote of "transwiki and delete" does not make sense, for reasons explained at Wikipedia:Merge and delete. --Malkinann (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already transwikied this to the manga wiki a year and a half ago, but now I went ahead and transwikied the entire history so nothing is lost. http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Henshin Dream Focus 16:56, 14 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 LandMaker. TigerShark (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Land Maker[edit]

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

This is a duplicate of LandMaker. LandMaker has the correct title spacing and better content. As the content on this page isn't referenced, it isn't worth porting over. Chopper Dave (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LandMaker per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original LandMaker page does not have any references either.--70.24.215.154 (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:03, 8 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) 14:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)<[reply]

Merge to LandMaker. The review & information on PSN release are important. Sources need to be found. Salvidrim! 03:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LandMaker as per Salvidrim. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The concern expressed on the talk page is one regarding inaccuracy and OR. But, as Legis and Master&Expert have pointed out, there isn't a compelling reason to delete the article here: nobody is arguing that the article fails to meet the notability guidelines etc. If there are OR or accuracy concerns, that can be fixed by hitting the "edit" button... —Tom Morris (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anticipatory democracy[edit]

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

Talk page calls for its deletion, and I don't see a reason to disagree. - Roy Boy 04:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question/comment - What is the actual reason this should be deleted? You haven't given one. LadyofShalott 05:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see a basis for deletion. Someone commented on the talk page that it all ought to be deleted on the basis of inaccuracy (not my field - don't know), but the subject itself seems sufficiently notable even if the content needs fixing. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Plenty of sources mentioning it, see: gbook and gscholar search. Appears notable enough and article can be improved. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I'm confused as to what justification there may be for deleting this article. It seems like a notable enough concept for inclusion. Master&Expert (Talk) 14:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet GNG from sources showing in the piece. Carrite (talk) 17:36, 8 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. Despite sources provided by Monty, consensus appears to be that this company did nothing notable and achieved nothing notable. Coverage appears WP:ROUTINE for a space tourism company (or rather, what someone would expect any new space tourism startup to receive). v/r - T P 02:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AERA Corporation[edit]

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

This company appears to be out of business and never seems to have sold any of the space tours it promised. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable private spaceflight company (of which Wikipedia already has too many). --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Legis. Also, should Sprague Astronautics Company, Inc be added to the AfD? (it is probably the same company) --G W… 21:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Too late to add another article. I'll nominate is separately. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's now active, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sprague Astronautics Company, Inc D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability demonstrated in any source. N2e (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is clear notability for at least one of the articles. Combined AERA Corporation and Sprague Astronautics Company have received plenty of press coverage to pass the notability threshold, even if the references aren't in the article. The suggested search from the template provides few results because in press coverage the company is rarely refered to as AERA Corporation, instead it is usually just called AERA, AERA Corp, or some other variation. Coverage: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] and referring to the other company name, [38]. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was just one of many companies which were founded, claimed that they were going to get into the commercial spaceflight industry in a few years' time, got absolutely nowhere, and then folded. As far as I know they have never produced any hardware or achieved anything, they certainly haven't launched anything. If it is notable simply to claim an intent to conduct space missions, regardless of sincerity or likelihood of achieving anything, let alone success, then I could register a company tomorrow under such a claim, liquidate it the next day after realising that I didn't have the resources, however it would still be notable under these criteria. I would suggest that we delete these articles, and then hold a discussion at the relevant WikiProject on establishing some kind of criteria that such companies should meet before we create articles on them - actually producing some hardware, for example. --G W… 09:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Whilst all the above is ture, but it has recived some press coverage, just enough I think to pass notability. But its all very weak stuff.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It appears never to have actually developed nor much less operated as announced. It's not necessarily a hoax, but it could be. It can be asserted with certainty that there's been no coverage of this company's actions since its announcement (i.e. the part we can verify). It can be shortened and merged into Space Tourism. patsw (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nom, and the fact that they aren't talked about today.--NavyBlue84 15:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage existed. All arguments of the type that "it isn;t talked about today" or that its a dead project are irrelevant altogether--if it was notable at the time of announcement as a projected development it is notable for encyclopedic purposes forever. the correct policy is NOT DIRECTORY--we cover not just what is currently active, the way a business directory would cover active businesses. DGG ( talk ) 11:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it's pretty damn easy to get yourself on Wikipedia. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That works both ways, I'd say by that definition this was never notable. --G W… 12:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The flurry of references only proved that they were active for a while. But the lack of any real accomplishments makes this company not even a footnote in its industry. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the sources provided demonstrate notability. They only demonstrate that this company was good at getting itself in the news. It's pure vaporware and even its failure isn't notable. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prayers and Worship[edit]

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

unreferenced article/album from artist without established notability. (no Wiki article) 78.26 (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Michelle Ray doesn't even have her own article. Why does this album? If she's notable, she needs an article. Otherwise, no point having this one. --Fightingirish (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS and recording by an artist whose notability for a Wikipedia article has not bee established. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:43, 11 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) Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

501 (number)[edit]

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

This article is a stub with no notable information about the number. JuliaSet2i (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to address the subject directly in detail. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is one sentence of non-obvious information in the article. Merge and redirect it to 500 (number). LadyofShalott 05:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirecting it to 500 sounds stupid to me (like Wikipedia can't count or something). Interesting that it is the sum of the first eighteen primes, but that alone won't cut it for encyclopedic content. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A solution to that might be to move the page 500 (number) to something like Numbers equal to or greater than 500 and less than 600. James500 (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, no, no. This is how all of our X (number) articles are organized. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect 500 (number) which is an ideal target. The article does not provide evidence of notability per WP:Notability_(numbers)#Integers and also fails WP:GNG. However, information is included which can appropriately be included in the target article. A redirect is useful as a likely search term. Thincat (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as that appears to be the consensus on numbers that are not inherently notable, yet have some bit of interesting information about them. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 16:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to this subsection of the main 500 article. Borderline case, but I don't think there's anything about 501 that makes it significant enough for its own article. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. This article clearly does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NUMBER asks for three interesting mathematical properties of the given number. I found, sourced, and added to the article five of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after improvements. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NUMBER. James500 (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It does seem to satisfy WP:NUMBER. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have struck my earlier comment. The article now meets WP:NUMBER and at this rate will soon be a featured article! Thincat (talk) 11:42, 16 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. v/r - T P 02:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Streets Black[edit]

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

non notable film, only reference is from archive.org Gaijin42 (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything resembling a source for this. IMDB hasn't heard of it either, which is rarely a good sign. Additionally, the article doesn't provide any assertion of significance. Films are not eligible for speedy deletion due to this defect (under either A7 or A9), but it adds to the impression that there's just nothing here to make an article about. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Per a comment left on the Talk page of this AFD, this production was in Spanish and sources are only likely under its name in that language: Las calles negras. I do not speak Spanish, and do not have access to this source besides, but there might be something out there about this. If the article is retained, I would support a move either to either The Black Streets to maintain customary English word-order or, preferably, to Las calles negras per WP:COMMONNAME. But I'm still not sure sourcing is sufficient. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 30 November 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 02:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I've looked for information about this film but came out with nothing, except for the muse.jhu.edu papers that are being referenced already. The Google snippets of those papers show that they mention the film's name, but I'm not able to tell if it's more than just a mention. Still, that is not meager coverage for a independent Mexican short film from the 70's, hence the weak !vote. I agree that the title should be changed to Las calles negras should the article be kept — Frankie (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 02:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Tick Salcido[edit]

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

Non-notable individual (minor music industry executive) lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect /merge to The Latch Brothers, per nom. I don't see enough significant coverage in reliable sources to constitute a separate article. Up Tack (talk) 00:59, 7 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 02:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this finds you all well. I continue to research this individual extensively and feel he garnered a significant amount of work with the Latch Brothers as well as his association with other musical recording acts that really made me feel, as a fan of wiki, I hope he be included on Wikipedia. I am a fan of what Wikipedia is and what it represents. I am anxious to be a better author and contributor. I truly was intrigued by this person's story that I have to say I had to piece together but it is very interesting, and the lineage of his work with Beastie Boys and Latch Brothers that ties back to what is currently happening make me feel as if we caught this individual at the perfect time. I hope to see this article change as I have truly taken a different approach to it. I was hoping to also cover Chris "wag" Wagner of the band Mary's Danish to tie in all members and have future articles on pressing subjects in the future.

Thank you, Kurt Kurtnardone (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minded to Delete. His only notability appears to stem from the Latch Brothers, who don't seem hugely notable even collectively. Happy to give a stay if there is a feeling that better notability could be established with time. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Legis, I also sent you a message as well. I do have a feeling there better notability will be established with time and I hope through this article (only my second) that more contribute. I found more info in my edits of more recent notable acts and works with associations, and I hoping this could be a stay. Thank you, Kurt Kurtnardone (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks sufficient WP:RS to satisfy WP:MUSIC or even WP:GNG … would recommend Redirect, except The Latch Brothers looks like a candidate for deletion as well. <Sigh!> Happy Editing! — 72.75.56.190 (talk · contribs) _{17:18, 10 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Layaways (band)[edit]

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

Unremarkable band. References citing "received attention" refer more to an article written by a band member, but aren't specifically about the band itself. Google search on the band name shows a lot of social media, primary sources, and directory/sales links, but little significant coverage of the band itself. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not an awful lot of coverage it seems but in addition to the sources in the article there are also a couple of PopMatters reviews: [39], [40], and this from Billboard.biz.--Michig (talk) 19:05, 3 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 02:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources in the article and those identified by Michig. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Less non-notable than most other bands, but one album in 8 years? Notable because of an unusual business model? My local newsagent has an unusual business model, but it doesn't make him notable. But I am so cynical about all of these little known bands wanting a Wikipedia page maybe I am too deletionist. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article, so I won't vote for Keep or Delete. But I did update it with the three references suggested by Michig and added details about the band's more recent releases (2008 and 2009). Georgemasonry (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the sources Michig identified. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:03, 15 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. TigerShark (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Verdun-Wheeler[edit]

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

Fails WP:Athlete. Never appeared in a professional game and didnt have a notable college career Yankees10 01:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but not for anything in the article as it currently stands. Google News shows a large number of references, many far beyond routine coverage of a college athlete. There is more than enough independent reliable sources to support notability under WP:GNG, they just need to be placed in the article. That is an editing issue and not a deletion issue (by the way, the three sources provided all go to busted weblinks).--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he has passing mentions in articles much like anyone good enough to get a pro tryout. He only played in the preseason. Fails WP:ATHLETE, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find anything that would really make him notable. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT.--Giants27(T|C) 02:26, 25 November 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, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:37, 30 November 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 02:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:21, 8 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. v/r - T P 02:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Guts[edit]

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

Original research, "sourced" to somebody's long-defunct personal website as archived on the Wayback Machine. Orange Mike | Talk 02:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Yankee Pinstripes it 'aint. Single source dangerously close to WP:OR. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, zero reliable sources, any valid and sourced non-WP:OR content about uniforms is already properly discussed at the team article. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Kinu. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP (no consensus). No clear consensus as to whether it should be kept or merged, but certainly no consensus for an outright delete. The default position of keep seems the best result for now. TigerShark (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the Rot[edit]

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

Stop the Rot seems to be a project of the Liverpool Echo newspaper and (after an internet search) the only sources available are directly related to the Liverpool Echo. A single self-published blog source says the campaign was 'pitiful'. Sionk (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NB a request for citations to independent sources has been on the article since March 2010 with no result. Sionk (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found several references to the effectiveness of the campaign in mobilising public support for preservation and catalysing the City Council's Buildings at Risk programme. Including an EU agency case study, a couple of city council publications, and preservation publications. Stop the Rot also received an award from a national preservation group earlier this month (November '11). I was able to add half a dozen refs to the article without searching on specific buildings. (As well as a 2009 update from the Echo that I placed in external links.) This has demonstrated notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Stop the Rot didn't win an award. The Creative Ropeworks Project won an award and Stop the Rot was one of the campaigns highlighted in Liverpool's bid for the award. Stop the Rot gets a few passing mentions, that's all, in a few sources. Sionk (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see about the award - I'd been misled as the Echo no doubt intended me to be. But I have to disagree about "a few passing mentions, that's all". Here's the relevant passage from the article in buildingconservation.com: "The strategy was also supported by notable local community leaders and the local press, which ran a campaign entitled ‘Stop the Rot’. Formed in March 2001, this integrated initiative gave the city council the confidence to deliver the ‘urgent works’ notices required." That positions it as having played a crucial role - as well as presenting it as not just the newspaper. Time and again I found it being presented as having been very important in mobilising public opinion - or giving people a way to express it. The European Programme for Sustainable Urban Development case study says this again and again. On p. 6, under "key actors": "The popularity of the Liverpool Echo's Stop the Rot campaign . . . helped to develop a highly constructive partnership bwteeen leaders of the City Council, English Heritage, Liverpool Vision and the North West Development Agency . . ." and later in that segment, on p. 7, the full-time officer is referred to parenthetically as "LCC's response to Stop the Rot". Also on p. 7: "Residents, civic and amenity societies, pressure groups and campaigners were able to input into the process chiefly through the Stop the Rot forum." It's also listed first under "Success factors". (p. 9). Then on p. 13 the pictures of the Casartelli Building are introduced with "This building was the flagship building in the Liverpool Echo's Stop the Rot Campaign." This is an EU agency, not a branch of the Echo, and the document could hardly emphasise more than it has the importance of Stop the Rot. Plus there are far more non-Echo mentions than I thought I was going to find - and the singling out for mention regarding the award does count there. I think you're setting the bar way too high. I admit I had to add -football to the Google search to filter out all the garbage about the good-for-nothing local team, but I have to disagree with you and note that it's got both local and non-local coverage, IMO in sufficient amounts and not merely passing mentions - the case study for one being far, far beyond that and several of the sources not merely listing it but saying it has played a vital role. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not setting any bar. WP:N says 'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article'. I've no axe to grind against the Liverpool Echo either, though I'm aware that newspapers create campaigns which have the ulterior motive of increasing their own importance and popularity, hence finding independent sources is vital. The two good sources you've cited (and the quotes therein) certainly show the creation of the Campaign, in 2001, was a key tipping point and confidence booster to get the Council to do something. Whether that means keeping the separate article or adding a section to Liverpool Echo we'll have to leave someone else to decide. Sionk (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And when I say the two sources are good, I mean they are expert and independent. Stop the Rot is not the subject but receives a handful of worthy mentions, as you have identified. Sionk (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Liverpool Echo. This is a tricky one. One would expect a campaign such as this to primarily get local coverage, but as the only local paper of any standing is fronting the campaign, it's difficult to tell whether the campaign is sufficiently notable to attract independent coverage had there been an independent local paper to get noticed by. The coverage from other sources is incidental rather than directly about the campaign. However, there is certainly enough for a mention somewhere, so I wouldn't go as far as delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I doubt merging it to the newspaper would be appropriate. Not being a Liverpublian, I am not familiar with the campaign, but I note that the article has been updated in 2011.so that it would not seem to be a mere will of the wisp, like any newspaper campaigns, which last just as long as they might increase readership. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NB the article was created in 2007 and last substantially updated in 2007. Since then categories and external links have been added. The 2011 updates occurred after the AfD nomination and it is questionable, depending on your point of view, whether these updates demonstrate notability or not.Sionk (talk) 16:42, 4 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 01:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge /Redirect to Liverpool Echo. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge /Redirect to Liverpool Echo. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:18, 8 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 default to no consensus. Upon examining this AFD in more detail, a few things jumped out at me as irregular; after further investigation, Volt7, Star108, and the AFD's creator, KeithS77, turned out to be related accounts part of what I've found to be a prolific sockpuppet farm tampering with yoga-related articles. With this in mind, I'm nulling this AFD completely and recreating it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srivatsa Ramaswami (2nd nomination). All users who participated are welcome to weigh in again. m.o.p 05:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Srivatsa Ramaswami[edit]

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

topic is lacking significant coverage and secondary sources KeithS77 (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Administrative note: this user is a confirmed sockpuppet. m.o.p 06:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A yoga teacher that wrote a couple of books about yoga is far from notable. No sources establishing notability are provided. Earlier versions were promotional garbage, which thankfully has been cut. No indication that sufficient sources will ever be found to establish notability. Delete in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No attempt to establish notability. Shii (tock) 01:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed an Amazon rank of 106000 for his 2005 book, the others are much lower. Also a few hits on google scholar, but not much else to support notability. MakeSense64 (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objection An Amazon book rank does not make the author notable. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [41], [42], [43], [44], and [45]. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 7 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 01:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, conditional on the edits provided by SL93 being integrated (because I'm sure I don't understand the topic well enough to). Stuartyeates (talk) 04:55, 8 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment The delete arguments are poor, being unsourced is an issue, we don't delete at AFD because notability hasn't been established but because notability can't be established. Usually we expect to see evidence of searches for sources rather then assertions that its unsourced and can't be sourced. On the keep side, how an admin is supposed to evaluate a bunch of links is beyond me, some explanation of what you are providing will allow the admin to evaluate the debate against policy rather then ending up supervoting by making their own opinion of whatever it is you are providing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. But when there is only this much to be found about the person, then what kind of explanation are we supposed to give? To have a real deletion discussion I think what we need is editor reponses to the arguments and sources that are brought. These could be inserted as Objection: (+ explanation) below the respective votes/comments. As an example I am posting an objection my own comment (I hope that's OK). An admin would then strike out either the argument or the objection depending on what stands and after three days the admin can post some kind of interim report, stating to what side he leans based on current information, and what will be needed to save the article in case he leans towards delete. Then there are three more days to conclusion of the AfD. This would make the deletion process more transparent and give the editors feedback. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three not particularly well selling books do not a notable author make. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sources listed above are a book review and trivial mentions in articles in yoga magazines. Nothing substantial enough to be equivalent to a feature article even if taken together. A Goole search turned up nothing substantial, either: announcements for courses, promotional material and more trivial and tangential mentions on blogs and in niche magazines of low circulation, but nothing that comes close to solidly establishing notability. Mention is usually similarly worded, indicating reliance on subject's own promotional material rather than actual investigative journalism. No mentions of exceptional awards or other recognition from professional societies, which is surprising considering the man has a 50 year long career. Book rankings on Amazon indicate that the subject's books are not best sellers by any stretch of the imagination, and of interest only to a small niche market, at best. Even if the claims in the subject's promotional materials were supported by independent sources, there would still not be enough to establish notability. I found no evidence that the subject of the article is anything more than an undistinguished, run of the mill yoga teacher. Still does not meet any of the criteria for notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:BIO Star108 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrative note: this user is a confirmed sockpuppet. m.o.p 06:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Dominus Vobisdu|talk's comments Volt7 (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrative note: this user is a confirmed sockpuppet. m.o.p 06:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 17:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cool War[edit]

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

The article describes a controversy which may not even exist. Perhaps this can be moved to Alliance for CO2 Solutions, but even then this should redirect to The Cool War (novel). - Roy Boy 04:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 30. Snotbot t • c » 11:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability and existence of conflict established in Media coverage section (I have repaired a broken link to a clearly reliable source). Title may be a neologism with POV problem. Article can be renamed but does not need to be deleted. --Kvng (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Sustainable automotive air conditioning, then create a dab page from The Cool War redir. The topic itself is notable but the label of "The Cool War" is not a suitable article title. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:36, 30 November 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 01:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per Alan Liefting. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:13, 8 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. v/r - T P 02:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patient safety and nursing[edit]

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

I think this kinda overlaps a lot of other articles. It's hard to read, listy, unsourced and redundant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed- this overlaps a LOT of different articles, most notably patient safety itself. It also reads like something someone wrote for a class project and then uploaded to Wikipedia. This is already covered wonderfully at patient safety, so I don't really see the need for an article that's specifically aimed towards nurses, yet doesn't seem to cover the subject as well as the patient safety article does. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Patient safety is a large topic which involves many medical specialisms such as anaesthesiology. Nursing plays a significant part in this too - avoiding error in dosage, cross-infection &c. If the current draft is weak, our editing policy is to improve it. See Nursing Times which confirms the notability and depth of the topic. Warden (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And tell me how this is not redundant to the patient safety article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the fact that it references numerous sources such as Understanding the Cognitive Work of Nursing in the Acute Care Environment and these sources are not contained in that other article. You state in the nomination that the article is unsourced but that statement seems to be false. What is the explanation for this blunder? Warden (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it is unsourced. If you think the sources are useful, dump them somewhere else. As it stands, this article is still redundant in every way content-wise even if the sources are not used elsewhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:43, 5 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 01:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ten Pound Hammer. Unnecessary repetition - move across anything worth saving and then delete. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be contrary to our licensing policy - see WP:MAD. Warden (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete per changes by CMBJ v/r - T P 02:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seomyeon medical street[edit]

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

According to one administrator no promotion or spam. To my opinion it is a blatant advertisement. Please opinions. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the administrator; Night reverted me when I declined the G12 speedy and has since lashed out at my talk page. No opinion on deleting or keeping. Nyttend (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To correct this a bit: for my so called lashing out and for his big words. But let us go back to the article... Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm doing a little research and it looks like it is a pretty notable thing. I'm trying to find some links that could be considered reliable. I think it does come across a little advertise-y, but that might be due to the very short length of the article. I'm neutral about keeping it so far, relying on being able to find reliable sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Additional. It's a little hard to find links due to the language barrier but I found a few and posted them on the article's talk page. This might benefit from being incubated/userfied for a while until better sources can be found (if mine aren't good enough and it doesn't survive AfD). At the very least this absolutely merits a mention on the medical tourism page. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure if this should be a standalone article, or re-purposed to an an article on the central business district called "Seomyeon". Artcles like this would indicate that the overall business district is notable, but we would need an article. As for the medical businesses there, this article could be merged or redirected to it if it were created. And slightly off-topic, I agree that declining the speedy deletion request was correct. This is not unambiguous advertising. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Busan#Ecomomy and merge a sentence or two into that section. If there is notability here, I am unable to find it in English. --MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 26 November 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 01:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the intended analogy is Harley Street, but there needs to be some evidence for the general use. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 30 November 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 01:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Busan#Shopping_and_Commerce. There is notability here but just not enough to warrant an article to itself at this time. When I did searches it looked like this was a relatively new idea, being only a few years old. I say that we redirect for the time being and incubate this until more sources are available. I also think it'd be best redirected to the shopping and commerce section since that's where Seomyeon is mentioned in the article. I added two sentences from the existing article and to be honest, nothing was really lost. There's already a mention of that area also being the entertainment district so it wasn't necessary to take anything else. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. Article is awful - not sourced (well, what would there be?), not categorized, and can't see an obvious purpose to it. Most towns have business districts. Skip the redirect and remove it. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm making an attempt to rescue the article. For reference, here's a link to the content as of nomination. — C M B J 11:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as revised. Adequately referenced for notability. Not promotional. DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to keep. The revision looks great and seems to be well sourced.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice toward recreation or undeletion should reliable sources be found. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signazon.com[edit]

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

Contested prod. The whole thing reads like a press release, so I assume this was written by someone from Signazon's PR department (who might want to declare her conflict of interest as a gesture of good faith). As expected, the majority of the sources don't pan out. Those that do, don't cover Signazon in any way that would show notability, nor were my searches able to find any significant independent coverage. Since I do not believe Signazon is an evil company, I recommend deleting this as non-notable before their insistence on using Wikipedia as a press release service causes them further public embarrassment. Kilopi (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom reasons. The sources given are trivial at best and a search didn't bring up anything that would be considered a reliable source (WP:RS). Most of what was found were business listings and a few press releases. Doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP). Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete, and I'd say speedy delete as unambiguous advertising: a company that specializes in the rapidly growing field of online ordering and production of custom business signs, establishing technological and service advantages when compared with conventional sign companies. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTADVERTISING pure promtion Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have updated the article to provide more reliable sources and anything that might read as advertising. Thank you for pointing that out. Content is similar to that of Vistaprint. The company is new but on this rise as sources would indicate. Cwinslet - 18:53, 01 December 2011 (UTC)— Cwinslet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 01:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note: Relisted because User:Cwinslet has addressed some of the issues argued in this AFD.--v/r - T P 01:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only problem is that most of the sources provided by User:Cwinslet are press releases, business listings, routine notices of openings and closings, and other things that don't show notability and aren't considered reliable sources. They merely prove that the business exists. I also want to note that one of the "sources" show that Cwinslet has a clear conflict of interest, being the public relations for Signazon. [46] In other words, her entire job is to get publicity for the company. While this doesn't necessarily mean she can't contribute, it does mean that everyone should take a closer look at her edits, just as I have.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I've looked at all of the links in the article. Two of them do not mention the company at all. Three of them fall into the "business listing/business exists" category. One of them is the company's website. One is a contest notice that only briefly mentions the company as a contributor. One of them is an article about the Conan rally and again, only mentions the company briefly. Four are clearly press releases. There's only one article that I think might not be a press release [47] and it's from a non-notable and semi-dubious source so I'm not sure if it's a press release or not. This is just a clear case of a non-notable company sending their public relations manager to add a page about them and is using non-reliable sources to back up claims of notability. In all fairness, I don't think that she's familiar with Wikipedia and as such, isn't aware of that this is a huge conflict of interest and could be seen as sheer advertising, especially since her only edits have been to the Signazon page. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete per Tokyogirl79 (and thanks for trawling through that). --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above Soupy sautoy (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources given don't meet reliability criteria, and I couldn't find others. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no doubt about the Advertising and such. Can we find a way not to Bite the Newbie, she did give the page a good structure and list of inline citations, I wish her well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's a shame Wikipedia doesn't have a 'like' or 'recommend' button, as I'd like to say I completely agree. Soupy sautoy (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional; references mostly unreliable. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Source Code[edit]

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

Unremarkable web site. Poor sourcing (includes Wikipedia as a source). Paid editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have used this site for many years and it is still one of the biggest of its kind. Of course, my using it doesn't make it notable. Gets quite a few hits in gbooks and gscholar search, so it must be possible to bring better references to this article. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sources presented that establish notability under WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amita Bajpai[edit]

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

Delete. Candidate for political office in India. Notability not established in accordance with the topical notability guidelines for politicians or the general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. None of the three sources are significant, one is primary, one does not mention her, and the third merely has her name in a list of candidates. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 00:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her candidacy was for the Lob Sakha, India's parliament, and she's a member of a party that currently has a couple dozen members of the Lob Sakha, so she's important enough that I declined an A7 speedy tag. I know almost nothing about Indian politics, but I'd guess that there's somewhat of a chance that her candidacy would have spawned some significant coverage. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:Politician --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keepi think this page should be kept.this personality is well renowned in bundelkhand area of uttar pradesh,india.below i have found some links which can be helpful.I personally do not want it to be deleted as she is also from royal family and her candidature was for indian parliament and now state legislative assembly.this makes her an important person.media in india is driven by money and she is not a corrupt person perhaps thats why media is not covering her much.it is given in the link below that she does not have a single criminal case..so its very wrong to put it up for deletion.
http://www.wisevoter.org/wiki/Amita_Bajpai
http://myneta.info/ls2009/candidate.php?candidate_id=3892
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-10-12/lucknow/30270745_1_state-sp-president-sp-supremo-assembly-elections — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheekubaaj (talk • contribs) 15:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet the notability requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. It seems she came a distant (but respectable) 3rd place in the election so there's no strong reason to believe there was significant coverage of her. Sources listed above are a brief mention and two listings. Sionk (talk) 23:29, 8 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. TigerShark (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Kappa Omega[edit]

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

Fraternity with only 2 chapters. No national affiliations. Not profiled in Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities. GrapedApe (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Cultural interest fraternities and sororities. Collegiate and and founding information can be moved there. I was unable to locate any sources that go beyond mentions of the fraternity at either school's location ([48][49]). Due to no substantial coverage, the page can be used as a redirect to the list. If the frat receives coverage in WP:RS at a later date, this page can be recreated and its history will be saved. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no independent sources even verifying its existence, nonetheless its notability. -Achowat (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is verifiable--[50][51], but I agree that it not yet notable which is why I'm supporting a merge to the above article rather than an outright deletion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:27, 16 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.