Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 February	20 February >

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. Fram (talk) 15:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standardized firearms[edit]

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

Jab843 (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research, unreferenced. Almost certainly copied and pasted from somewhere (note the way the bullets were pasted in). Article most likely designed to promote the contributor's website—which, by the way does not seem to relate to the subject matter of this article. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious self promotion. No references. Fail. Idk224 (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the double bullets make me think that this is probably a copyvio, albeit of something not indexed by Google. Other than that it is completely unreferenced. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 16:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HG.org[edit]

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

Carefully written, but ultimately promotional article about nonnotable website. Sources are either the site itself, blogs, or a couple of books that merely list HG.org in a list of other resources. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. QueenCake (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- . Shlok _{talk .} 17:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Aaron Booth (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are several merger proposals, these need further discussion on the relevant talk-pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf hearing[edit]

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

Can't find any mainstream support of this term. Neither paper seems to actually use the term "deaf hearing", and a search for the term found nothing matching this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Deaf or Hearing. Sources seem to be fishy, but a merge would be nice into either one. Tinton5 (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original synthesis of sources. The condition may exist, but there is too little research on the topic yet. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into deaf. Bzweebl (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If a paper has "deaf hearing" in its title and its abstract, and lists the term under its "key words", I think it is fair to say the paper uses the term. Apart from that, it is used another six times in the Garde & Cowey paper cited in the article. So I don't get why nominator thinks the term is not actually used in the paper. This is not the first use of the term; the Garde & Cowey paper states it was coined by [Alan Cowey, Petra Stoerig (1991). "Reflections in blindsight". In: A. D. Milner, M. D. Rugg, editors. The neuropsychology of consciousness. New York: Academic Press; 1991. pp. 11–37. ISBN 0-12-498045-7.]. The latter paper, however, ascribes the term to [F. Michel (1990). "Hemi-anacusia is usually unknown to the patient" (Poster presentation). Russell Trust symposium, St Andrews, Scotland, September 1990.]. --Lambiam 09:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition. Google scholar gives 24 articles in which the Garde & Cowey study is cited, almost all of which are peer-reviewed academic publications, and I see no reason to suggest that this falls outside mainstream science. --Lambiam 09:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I saw a news item recently about a deaf woman who listened to concerts by feeling the vibrations of a balloon. A quick search soon shows this to be a well-established technique - see Deaf persons in the arts and sciences for example. We have some coverage of that aspect at Evelyn Glennie. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes, but that gives a completely other meaning to "deaf hearing" than the one in the article. Your concert-going woman is consciously aware of perceiving the music in some form through sensation coming from the outside world. But the subject in the study the article is based on was not at all aware of externally originating sensation. It is the auditory analogon of Type 1 blindsight, which also bypasses awareness. --Lambiam 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying comment - I'm not against the re-creation of this article, when more research is published, and those studies are analyzed in secondary sources - newspapers, textbooks, etc. Right now, however, the topic is not ripe for WikiPedia because it's "original research." Bearian (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you clarify what makes you think this is original research? Do you see a claim or novel interpretation being advanced in the article that cannot be found in reliable published sources? --Lambiam 02:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider Merge into Deafness (or perhaps Blindsight, as an analogous situation). This does seem to be a real phenomenon, supported by reliable sources, though not a widely discussed one; it's borderline whether it passes the notability test. Overall, I think it would best covered as a subsection of another article rather than as an independent one. Robofish (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (no merge, content already exists in other article). Fram (talk) 15:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pragyaa 2012[edit]

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

Delete: This article is about a college festival. Fine it is claimed to be hosted on "national level" but is not notable enough to have its own article. Please delete. Thanks AKS 19:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 08:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shri Guru Gobind Singhji Institute of Engineering and Technology. It is an annual event for the Institute, but does not meet WP:GNG for it to have its own article. Git2010 (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See also article Pragyaa. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This topic clearly fails to meet notability guidelines, an already-existing mention at Pragyaa is enough. Whether or not Pragyaa warrants its own article is a separate issue. Cloudz 679 12:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the content in this article was copied from Pragyaa. --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its only reference is its own website. Spinning Spark 09:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best Albums of the Noughties (2000–2010)[edit]

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

A list generated from compiling subjective lists of top albums from the last decade from various publicatons and websites. The scoring method is complete OR by giving the same amount of points to ranked albums regardless of they were ranking "alt/indie" albums or all albums. The same amount of points given to consensus pick of critics at Billboard as well as each of 48 executives that Music Week polled. A definitive list like this just can be done. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant OR. Who says "noughties" anyways? OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a Britishism to me. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subjective. The sources listed do nothing to change the fact that someone just made this up. Idk224 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shame, because a lot of work has gone into it, but as it's completely made up of original research and synthesis it doesn't have a place in Wikipedia. It'd be nice if there was somewhere online that liked this kind of thing, but am not sure where that would be. 'Noughties' is used a lot here in the UK by the way. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2158 (Sevenoaks) Squadron Air Training Corp[edit]

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

Cadet training squadrons are not notable per previous AfD discussions, contested prod MilborneOne (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's a longstanding consensus that individual cadet units are generally not notable, and this doesn't appear to be one of the exceptions. The article doesn't assert the unit's notability, and so could have been deleted under CSD A7 by the way. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual cadet units are not notable. Most regular company-sized units would not be notable either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to the three users above for all your work maintaining wikipedia, I'll accept your judgement and leave the creation of pages to those who know what they are doing in the future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innuendo121 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fdm (email utility)[edit]

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

Article is about email software that has no coverage in reliable sources. The article provides no sources, and I did not find any significant coverage. Whpq (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: there are several howtos and the software itself is pretty interesting (per my WP:OR). Still I can't find any source to make some more useful input then WP:ITSUSEFUL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Sorry not finding any significant coverage of subject. All there seems to be is forums, blogs, odd wiki pages, download sites and pages that regurgitate the subjects man page Pit-yacker (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Recreated as redirect to Syston#Local organisations where it is mentioned. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1181 Syston Squadron ATC[edit]

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

Cadet training squadron are not notable per previous AfD discussions, contested prod MilborneOne (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to indicate encyclopedic relevance. Only routine coverage.--Michig (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's a longstanding consensus that individual cadet units are generally not notable, and this doesn't appear to be one of the exceptions. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Perhaps it is time to re-consider the longstanding consensus that Cadet Units are not notable and treat each with the individuality they deserve? It is acceptable to consider that individual military units have enough encyclopedic content to warrant their own page yet a Cadet Squadron that may service a wide audience of local people is not? I am not suggesting that all cadet units fall into this category, yet it ought to be considered. To not do so, would be an insult to the hard work of many thousands of individuals who are involved in Units of this type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.149.30.153 (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The key issue when considering whether Wikipedia should have an article on a military unit of any kind is whether the unit has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the notability guideline WP:ORG. In practice, very few cadet units do. Deletion of articles on notability grounds shouldn't be considered a slight against whatever the topic of the article is - it just means that there isn't sufficient evidence to demonstrate that that it should be covered in this encyclopedia. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Indeed, this was a process that was undergone after the original uploading of the entry and it satisfied the requirements at that point, I suspect due to the national coverage gained by the unit. I imagine more can be inputted if required. It should also be noted that a cadet unit has a standing in the local community more akin to an educational establishment rather than a military unit. This gives it more encyclopedic interest than an equivalently sized military unit, such as a company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.193.6 (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - It is still unlikely to be notable enough for a stand-alone article but a mention in the Syston article may be ok. The current entry at Syston doesnt explain why it is notable to the town more so then all the other similar youth organisations. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual cadet units are not notable. Most regular company-sized units would not be notable either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN and as per Nick-D. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW closure of WP:POINTy nomination. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Udaan Trust[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no reliable independent significant coverage, only a few passing mentions in news sources. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom obviously didn't look for sources elsewhere or look at the sources in the article. It's the subject of an article in the Times of India, discussed briefly in a number of scholarly sources as well as the news sources mentioned, and the language barrier/systemic bias issue leads me to think there's more we can't access. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep one in a string of pointy noms by the same nominator. Difficult to assume good faith with so many unresearched pointy noms.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be enough independent coverage to establish notability. Tigerboy1966 02:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep, appears to be WP:POINT violation by nominator. — Cirt (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chito Tagle. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Word Exposed with Archbishop Chito Tagle[edit]

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

a couple of blogs (one blogspot I removed as ref) and facebook when searching. Not notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep shows aired on national television networks are presumed notable. Given that this is a Philippine network, I'm not satisfied that a simple Google search is sufficient to evaluate potential Tagalog sources. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open minded, I would love to see the section in WP:N where it says that. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect; the Archbishop Chito Tagle is notable (IMHO), but the show does not appear to be independently notable. Therefore, I believe the content, that is supported by a third part reliable source should be merged into the article about the Archbishop and a redirect left in this namespace. If it expands sufficiently, and the article regarding the Archbishop grows, then per WP:ARTICLESIZE it can be spunout. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more inclined to vote for a redirect or merge because while the TV show does exist and is shown on national television (was able to catch it outside of Metro Manila), I don't think it might have more information that would give the topic an article of its own. It does, however, fit well within the article about Archbishop Tagle, so including all the information on this TV show's article to the Archbishop's article should not be an issue. --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Archbishop Chito Tagle for now per RightCowLeftCoast.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 20:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chito Tagle He is notable, but his show isn't that notable (yet). Maybe mention it in his article instead. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Luis Antonio Tagle. While the TV show is worth mentioning in the context of the bishop's article, there is no real reason for it to have its own article. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 01:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender & Intersex Law Association[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no independent reliable significant coverage. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. --В и к и T 20:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources, clearly you didn't look hard enough JayJay^{Talk to me} 00:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. Can you show me these sources? NYyankees51 (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appropriate amount of coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the "keep" voters should share the sources they found. I looked moderately hard and could find very little. My impression is that the organization went out of existence a couple of years ago and didn't get much notice before that, though they were international in scope so there may be non-english sources. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FWIW I did not see sources with a quick Google search, but I might not have been thorough enough. If the above keep !votes could post where they see sources that would be great. OSborn^arf_contribs. 21:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The "Find sources" assigned by the AFD template is useless. This is because one of the very first things the article does is explain that this organization was founded under a different name in 1992 and coverage is more easliy locatable under its earlier name. In using modified search parameters, it seems we can find this international legal organization being quoted in news,[1] spoken of in books,[2] and found in seached through Googgle scholar.[3] While this nomination seems to be one of many such by this nominator seeking removal of improvable LGBT topics. My thought here is that we are far better off addressing concerns with improvement and sourcing through regular editing, than deleting because it had not yet been done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All those sources are passing or promotional mentions. Are there any that provide significant coverage? NYyankees51 (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV is but one of the ways by which we can ascertain notability, but not the only way. For that we look to the applicable guideline offering us accepted alternative criteria for determination. For which case as this we have for this LGBT organization 1) the scope of their activities is national or international in scale, and 2) information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The material here, published in book form as well as in the Journal of Homosexuality, tells us, in a foreword signed by two editors, that ILGLaw was formed at a conference of the International Bar Association in Amsterdam in 2000. Those are prestigious auspices. It won't be had to work this up. There are lots of other bits in this non-citable blog that reports on several 2002 conference papers. The speakers are clearly worthies. And according to the Journal of Homosexuality here, its female director for North America in 2005 was Mary Bonauto, a player of note in gay rights law. And in 2011, the org was partner in a project based at York University, mentioned here. Also a mention of conference activity in a newsletter published by the Catholic University of America. Just an intro with a (bad) link to the full report, but that's what research is all about....... And here it is: E. Graff, Letter from Toronto, July 13, 2005, in American Prospect. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very nice find. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, so this passes WP:GNG. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 01:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG, though I see how nom missed that. Would suggest he consider withdrawing the nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He can't withdraw, he's banned for pointy nominations of anything about gay people. This was one of them, should be snow closed like the rest.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah. I see that now. Indef blocked. Good point -- I agree w/a snow close, then.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You don't have to search hard at all to find coverage of the group. Google Books and bam, there you go. Silver seren^C 15:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Thanks to the editor above who posted the searches, my Google-fu is weak it seems. Passes notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck !vote. I have no opinion on the notability debate below. OSborn^arf_contribs. 20:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the nom has been indef blocked: 22:26, 21 February 2012 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) blocked NYyankees51 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (persistent problematic edits moving from abortion to LGBT issues when banned from the former; reinstatement of original indefinite block). OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional research challenge: Its European branch is known as "ILGA-Europa". See this, which starts in German but includes an English translation. So firing up the Google machine for something like "Peter Schieder," ilga is very useful. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Thanks for the sources. I looked at each of them. Here are all the sources brought to the table for this AfD. I've included a snippet of context so that they can be found easily in the discussion above.

“The material here”: This looks like the most promising reference, but the author is R. Douglas Elliot, a founding member and past president of ILGLaw, so not at all independent.
“this non-citable blog' : is, as the editor says a blog, and by a participant in the conference, so presumably not independent.
“the Journal of Homosexuality here” : is again by Elliot
“project based at York University, mentioned here” : The sole mention of ILGLaw is their name in a list of 32 co-sponsors.
“newsletter published by the Catholic University of America “ : is, as the editor says, just an intro with a bad link.
“And here it is: E. Graff, Letter from Toronto, July 13, 2005” : may actually be independent, and reports on talks at a conference organized by ILGLaw, but says nothing about ILGLaw itself.
“ "ILGA-Europa". See this “ : appears to be a different organization, unless they have dropped the “Law” from their name. Also, not independent since this is the website of the organization.

I looked at the various google searches mentioned here, and I agree that the list above does seem to be the cream of the crop. So what this looks like to me is eight respected editors making very strong statements that this clearly passes GNG. But not one single source which comes even remotely close to being independent in-depth coverage of the subject.

Anyone want to discuss any of the sources? Dingo1729 (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, re-affirm Keep sentiment, especially per analyses by MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs) and by Bmclaughlin9 (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I re-affirm my Keep sentiment as well, as we have we an established and international known LGBT organization 1) the scope of whose activities is national or international in scale, and 2) information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. The GNG is not the sole criteria we may consider, only the easiest. At Wikipedia, we do not deny such organizations because they do not seek out publicity, but instead determine if their work is noteworthy enough to merit an article. In such cases we have other things we can consider. Toward the assertion that a former member and past president is not independent, okay... but self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. If founder R. Douglas Elliot can be considered an established expert on the topic (and as a multi-award-winning member of the Faculty of Law at University of Toronto, whose opinions are sought after and respected,[4][5] this appears more likely than not), and he chooses to write about the organization he fouded in a WP:NPOV neutral and non-self-serving fashion, his work may be considered. And toward blogs... they are not automaticaly verboten. We are not speaking here about references from some fandom's community forum, but instead about sites dealing with the interactions among educated professionals - experts in the fields of law with which they deal. Our only true concern here dealing with such a widely known and acknowldged advocacy group, is that we ensure that the article on the group remains neutral and information therein is sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for your response. It's interesting that we come to such wildly different conclusions from looking at the same sources. The only "third-party, independent, reliable sources" which have been mentioned here are numbers 4 and 6 in the list. Are these what you are basing the claim of notability on? My concern is of course that people are claiming that there are lots of sources out there, based on other peoples similar claims and this AfD is simply an echo chamber. I agree that some blogs and self-published sources can be used with caution when writing an article, but the third-party sources seem to almost non-existent. I'm not sure how you conclude that this is a "widely-known and acknowledged advocacy group". Do you disagree with my assessment of the sources which have been brought to this discussion? Dingo1729 (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that Dingo1729 has done a commendable job reviewing the sources that he did review above. I'm curious whether he limited his review to the above search, or extended it to those indicated below, and what his view is of what Schmidt points to as indicia of notability (that extends beyond the reviewed sources).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the two foreign language sources as 8. and 9. below BukuT's post below. Was they what you were asking about? Apart from that I did various searches, looking for a connection with the International Bar Association or anything involving LGBT or LGBTI and law and international. ILGLaw seems to have zero visibility in the legal community, even though, as BMcLauglin points out, they have a very impressive list of speakers at the conferences. Searching on "Global Arc of Justice" brings up some of the conference papers which individual speakers have preserved on their websites, but there doesn't seem to be any Proceedings published. I thought there must be some affiliation with the ILGBTIA which got confused with ILGLaw above, but again I found nothing. I really did do quite a lot of searching. Reading between the lines, my guess is that Elliot organized a conference, they had a good time, gave an award (to the plaintiff in Elliot's biggest case) then they all went home and forgot about it. They he organized another conference and so on. ILGLaw seems to be dormant except when a conference is organized, and the conferences get very little third-party notice. Were there any other sources you think I should look at? I'm not quite sure what you meant by the indications of notability. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I re-affirm my keep vote per above JayJay^{Talk to me} 19:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reaffirm my keep vote. I don't find your argument particularly compelling. Silver seren^C 19:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. International organiztion which is focused on the countries of the Balkans, Africa and other countries where gay rights are at a very low level. There is a greater chance of finding sources in local languages spoken in those countries. Have you sought sources in Serbian?[6] Have you sought sources in German? I do not speak German, but I found mentions in German Bild and Blick. You don't speak other languages? Then learn them, although I think that the presented sources in English are sufficient.--В и к и T 20:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pre-emptively criticizing my lack of fluency in foreign languages seems rather off-topic. However, thanks for the references:

8. "in Serbian?[7]": is an interview of R. David Elliot by a Serbian magazine. It talks a little about ILGLaw but I don't think it contains anything not in ref 1. Elliot doesn't seem to have a wikipedia entry, but I think he might qualify for one.

9. "found mentions": is, of course, an article about an anti-gay joke by Sepp Blatter and includes a quote from a german spokesman for ILGLaw. FIFA really need to get rid of Blatter.

8. would presumably be classed as non-independent and 9. as a passing reference. However, it did prompt me to look at the German Wikipedia. It does have an entry for ILGLaw, and a somewhat longer one than en.wiki because it includes bios for the regional representatives. But the references are even less than we have here. Perhaps there might be clues in some other wikipedias, but I think it should be your responsibility to check that, not mine.

I'm glad you said "I think that the presented sources in English are sufficient" because it gets rid of the rather annoying "there are plenty of sources, you just haven't looked hard enough yet" and allows us to discuss whether the sources really are sufficient. Dingo1729 (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you disagree with my assessment of any of the nine sources?Dingo1729 (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll confirm my keep. However difficult to accumulate sources quickly, as I tried above, the org's list of directors is formidable and I think the names of those who expected to attend and/or give papers at their 2009 conference demonstrate the org is noteworthy. Also available from the Williams Institute here. The number of attendees expected in 2009 was just 300, so we're not talking crowds. But the prominence of some names combined with the international reach is actually impressive. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Another research technique is to use the names of each of the ILGLaw directors and google them with ILGLaw or just gay or lesbian. Or the name of one of the ILGLaw conference cities. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely. What one needs to do when an AFD find sources template provides poor results is to search beyond its limitations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme City[edit]

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

As per WP:CRYSTAL. I couldn't find any reliable source which confirmed that the movie is in production. And much of the talk about this movie was before 2011. Propose to delete. — Pewfly (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hasn't started filming. No known release date. SL93 (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and mention in director's artcle. While this announced film does not as yet have the sourcing to allow it as an exception to WP:NFF as a separate article, it is seen that policy DOES allow that it might at least be spoken of somwhere if properly sourced. Sending our readers then to the Paul Schrader article where it makes sense to have this film discussed is per both policy and guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. What sort of policy are you referring to that says you should redirect future films to their directors? Bzweebl (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Outside of just AFD discussions,[8] you'll find that policy WP:NOT states "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." So when we have enough sources speaking about a planned film, but not enough to merit a separate article per WP:NF or WP:NFF, it is approprpriate to consider other places where sourced information may still be of benefit to our readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I retract my previous comment. Bzweebl (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - DOes that mean your delete above is now okay with a redirect? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Lack of coverage in reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to disagee, but we DO have numerous reliable sources speaking about this planned film.[9] And as we DO have sources, and even if failing WP:NFF, policy instructs us that we can still discuss this well-covered topic somewhere... and a redirect serves our readers and can be undone and the article expanded and sourced according when WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL - though note that an article would be appropriate if the project gets off the ground. No objection to the redirect. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3'd as a blatant hoax; article creator admtted openly to creating it as trolling. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dracu[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Singularity42 (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly a discussion of grammatical role, etymology, and usage notes – just what one would expect from a dictionary entry. That it's completely unreferenced (save for an external link to an online dictionary) doesn't exactly help matters. Hqb (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ok, let's think out of the box and not chose a single choice: delete. Basically what do you think should I improve? I don't really believe this article should be deleted but improved. Many of Wikipedia's articles commence in the same manner. You guys say are professionals. I am giving you the chance to have a go and provide some help in this aspect.
This article is opened to further editing and it does NOT represent dictionary content. So please help by improving the content instead of deleting it. The information provided is deemed to generating public understanding about a fact or a phenomenon. Wikipedia is promoting freedom of speech online so please help in supporting the philosophy. It does not look as a dictionary. It provides more information, which makes it an ENCYCLOPEDIC article, as desired within the Wikipedia philosophy. If you guys have something against the fact it traces its origins to Romanian history, then I do understand why you want to delete it. Are you racists? Well what could you answer..
So:
- stop posting as ultimate judges, while you have a communist judgement.
- do not continue to personally attack me, for I will gather more users and make complaints about you.
- stop being racists and leave authentic information flow. Be democratic and valuable beings.
Instead, you could just opt in for deleting and prove you are nothing more but a bunch of pathetic and frustrated haters (please don't take it too personally, since that has not even happened yet).
Make your choice. I declare myself your friend.
Regards. Cabbynet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbynet (talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Making personal attacks calling people racists and communists and haters and then in the same breath falsely accusing them of making personal attacks when they have not said anything about you at all is not the way to make an argument at AFD, or anywhere else in Wikipedia for that matter. If I were the closing administrator, I'd discount your argument here for the ad hominem with no foundation in content policy that it is, and totally ignore it. This isn't a vote, remember. Make a proper case for keeping, founded upon our Project:Verifiability, Project:No original research, and Project:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policies, or lose the argument. If there's a subject here, show that it's a real, properly documented, one, citing good scholarly sources that have documented it in depth. Or continue as you are and risk your editing privileges here being revoked. Uncle G (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and (given point #2 above) WP:POINT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not sure why, but Cabbynet posted a copy/paste from his/her reply to a discussion taking place at ANI. I have removed it as it does not appear relevant to the discussion. However, for good faith purposes, I have linked that discussion here, in case Cabbynet intended to refer to it. Singularity42 (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT, WP:N and WP:V, possibly even a hoax: The hellish ghoul "traces its origins from ancient myths that stands for the culture of" ... a 20th century literary journal? The reference to the Order of the Dragon also seems dubious: That's Societas Draconistrarum, not "Ordo Dracul" (which generates some rather interesting Google Scholar hits). Note to self: I've never before been called a racist for opposition to hellish ghouls. I thought that's speciesism, not racism. Huon (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

creator admitted following WP:ANI discussion they were trolling; I've CSD'd article. Nobody Ent 23:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was (non-admin closure) snow keep OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Youth and Student Organisation[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; Google News shows four passing mentions in archives; can't find any independent sources discussing it in-depth. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are many more news sources when searching under "IGLYO" instead of the expanded title. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose this all depends on how much notability is conferred by gay-specific news publications, as there is a very significant amount of coverage within those publications. Outside of that, I found a fair amount of Italian news sources discussing them, so we'll have to translate those and see if there's significant coverage. And then there's mainstream news sources discussing a IGLYO conference in Tel Aviv that was heavily opposed by the Palestinian government. See here and here. There's a lot more sources discussing that event specifically as well. Silver seren^C 19:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note The nominator has had issues in the past with articles relating to homosexuality, not trying to stirr-up things I just find it interesting how this user is nominating other LGBT articles when having issues editing other articles related to homosexuality. JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To consider the possibility that this has not changed, have a look here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Frivolous, POV-motivated nomination of subject with dozens of reliable sources to be found. User appears to have mass-nominated a number of LGBT-related articles for deletion, and these blatant WP:BEFORE failures call all the nominations into question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Roscelese. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per SatyrTN. — Cirt (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, preferably of the snowy variety. Tons of available sources; not sure why this would be nominated. Kevin (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per available sources. Adding them to the article might prevent a return to AFD, but we rarely delete notable topics simply because it has not yet been done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the organization appears to have recently been involved in some big kerfuffle over being located/having an affiliate located in Israel, which, from a quick Google search, turns up enough results that I'd be comfortable with its notability. WP:BEFORE should have been followed before yet another WP:POINTy nomination from this nominator. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable and nomination seems to be a bad-faith attempt to remove articles on GLBT issues. Nominator is now indef blocked for bad faith noms including this one, so I think this can be speedily kept. - Ahunt (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Ahunt. Let's close this now, to save further wasted time, if possible.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suppose I might as well Keep now, per my comment up above and other arguments here. Notability isn't that hard to find at all for this group. Silver seren^C 15:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note The nominator has been indef blocked. OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. We can't confirm this is a copyvio, but have strong suspicions. There is consensus those are strong enough to delete. Further, the article isn't currently verified, and WP:TNT may apply Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Tomb Sayyed Se Ton[edit]

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

Deletion for various reasons. The creator of the article has a history of copyvios, but I can't confirm one in the case of this article. The lede seems to have been lifted from Sayyid Haydar Amuli without attribution. The main content of the article is just a bunch of broken sentences that cannot be followed. Singularity42 (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The editor who created this article has had a history of copyright violations (see e.g. User talk:Northiran and User talk:پارسا آملی). Per Wikipedia:Copyright violations, this article should be presumptively deleted unless it can be proven that it is not a copyvio. MER-C 02:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While completely deleting the text and rewriting it would likely be the best option due to the copyright concerns, the tomb of Sayyid Haydar Amuli seems to be a widely revered and visited Sufi shrine. Some English sources exist for this information, but there's probably a ton more in the home language sources. Silver seren^C 01:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is willing to re-write the article, that would be the best option. But I'm not (this is not a topic area I'm comfortable doing substantive editing in), and if it is not re-written, the current version needs to be deleted. There is a high degree of concern that this author is creating copyright violations, and the current version of the article is virtually unreadable. Singularity42 (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran#Tower Tomb Sayyed Se Ton to see if there are any volunteers willing to re-write this article. Singularity42 (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment.I didn't found that is a copyvio using google.--Shrike (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user has demonstrated repeated copyright violations of both English and non-English sources. That's why the following policy from WP:Copyright violations applies: "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately. Since this user copies from both English and non-English sources, it may be assumed that the second paragraph of this article is copied from a non-English source. In any event, what do you say about the lede being copied without attribution from another Wikipedia article and the second paragraph being completely unreadable (therefore leaving the article with no useful, non-copied content)? Singularity42 (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm an admin in Persian Wikipedia (the mother-tongue language of the creator user) He is banned from editing there because of many reasons including copyvio, submitting fake information in the articles, using many SPs (till now!), etc. He attributes the notable people to his town, Amol, without any references. In fact, he enters false info in the articles and we have to undo his contributions everyday. ●Mehran ^Debate● 08:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what about this subject? Are there sources in Persian about the tomb of Sayyid Haydar Amuli, which seems to be a Sufi shrine? If we have those sources, then we can just rewrite the article from scratch, fixing the problem. Silver seren^C 21:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this thumb may be existed, I found some Persian sources via Google, but they were all forums and weblogs. The matter is that the current version of this article is absolutely source-less (the link in the 'Note' section has been expired), and I think it has been written by the user, because it includes many typos and grammar mistake (like 'histori'). It could be rescued by a RS. ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently fails WP:VERIFY. The article could be restarted if reliable sources are found. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waller Drive[edit]

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

Contested speedy by User:Boing! said Zebedee, while it strictly does not fit with any of the CSD criteria, it is obviously too short and unencyclopaedic.

Not notable either, our good friend Google only lists some real estate ads. Paolo Napolitano 18:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nom. Paolo Napolitano 18:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no sign of notability - but it doesn't fit any CSD criteria (and there is no such thing as "obviously too short") -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's just a street, and an unremarkable one at that. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per everything said thus far. Bzweebl (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just an ordinary non-notable street. SL93 (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Please also delete the redirect Waller drive if the result is delete.--Lakokat (Drop me a line) 07:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This appears to be a modest NN housing estate. A considerable part of the text appears to fail WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adrac[edit]

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

This article reads like promotional material/spam to me. Recommend deletion or userfication until (if ever) a reasonable article exists. The current (orphaned) article is unacceptable for an encyclopedia. MZMcBride (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I doubt that an online marketing company founded in 2002 has had any significant impact on the world, and the lack of reliable sources confirms this. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another white hat SEO and online marketing agency that promotes sustainable results and long-term profitability advertising on Wikipedia. A search engine manipulation business spamming Wikipedia? Who'd a thunk? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Democratic Party USA[edit]

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

These don't usually work out well in CSD and get recreated if deleted. The issue is a lack of notability regarding a "newly forming" political party. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No reliable third party sources. Its present notability seems to be nonexistent. Bzweebl (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete News searches come up empty - this new political party doesn't seem to have done anything of note beyond building a website and a facebook page. No opposition to recreation in future if notability is established, but right now it's too soon. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After searching, not finding coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence of coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - No apparent existing reliable secondary sources, purely original research.--JayJasper (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of RS, WP:HAMMER. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 18:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources here, none that I can find anywhere that are reliable. Aaron Booth (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon for this one. While various Christian Democratic Partys have notability in other countries,[10] this "newly forming third party platform" does not have the coverage required. Maybe after it actually forms up. Maybe not. But for now.... nope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yaloe (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion, not a poll. Could you please explain your reasoning? Thanks. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 21:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Parcell[edit]

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

Character not notable enough to warrant an article, article as it stands is pure fan article, an extensive retelling of actions in episodes as if telling a biography, such as the first time he tried coffee. Only thing of note is Critial Response which is two sentences and can be quite readily merged into his entry on List of 30 Rock characters. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with [List of 30 Rock characters]] - With no reliable sources, the character is not notable himself. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Already has 2 RS references and per Primetime_Emmy_Award_for_Outstanding_Supporting_Actor_in_a_Comedy_Series#2000s, the actor was Emmy nominated for this role in this show. tons more Google News hits for will unquestionably yield more RS coverage. Speedy close as a poster-child for why a cursory effort at WP:BEFORE should be mandatory. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then it should be redirected, being nominated for an Emmy can be covered in thirteen words. Anyone searching for it can be redirected to an appropriate entry on the list of characters. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment The first page of Google results (I didn't check further) from your link mostly aren't even to do with him and those that are, are not discussing the character. There's nothing there to justify him needing an article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What standards is the nominator proposing to apply to this article? I don't often wade into this area, but we have many articles on notable characters from high profile shows, and even less notable ones that are kept at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venus Flytrap (WKRP in Cincinnati).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply One doing it does not justify all? I'm proposing necessary standards, that is all and I agree that others should be removed such as many from Parks & Recreation such as Jean-Ralphio Saperstein and Donna Meagle, but others aswell, or Todd Packer from the Office, a minor character at best with few appearances. I tried dealing with that in the past and the user behind them would not see reason and bloated the articles out with any episode review that detailed the characters actions in that episode and I gave up. I'm not saying dealing with obvious fan bias isn't hard but it isn't an excuse to allow the articles to continue. Most of these articles are just plot regurgitation, the argument I believe for keeping Jean Ralphio was that it would make the List of Parks & Recreation characters too long, which is bull. I'd be happy to be informed of any AfD concerning characters in the future and participate where notability that requires an article is questionable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further reply That Venus Flytrap thing is mind-boggling and horrifying that it survived an AfD, and an unfortunate example of fan bias. There's no notability demonstrated there at all. Honestly you raise a point that needs addressing, needs to be a better way to deal with fictional character articles that cuts out fan bias because now I'm looking it's kind of irritating.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can scarcely vote on this, being a big fan of the show and, as such, probably a victim of my own bias, but a archive search on "Kenneth Parcell" and "30 Rock" reveals 93 results, the vast majority of which appear to be in reliable sources. I suspect the vast majority of them are also mentions, 1-2 paragraphs within larger articles about 30 Rock themes, and interviews with Jack McBrayer. As such, I am unable to find some kind of slam dunk individual source to establish notability. Notability is much clearer for characters like Liz Lemon, Tracy Jordan, and Jack Donaghy. That said, that's a lot of coverage (of admittedly varying significance) in reliable sources for a character whose portrayal has been the subject of an Emmy nomination. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Well I'd be content with a redirect as the name may be a search term, but i believe any vital info about him could be covered in a paragraph or two which can comfortably fit on the List page. I'm a 30 Rock fan too but I just can't see this as justified, beyond redirecting at most. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Against: Kenneth is a notable character, and has too much information about him (like his age) to be merged into just one section. Please do not delete the page, I am working on the issues to make it acceptable for Wikipedia. NetflixSoup (talk) 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You can't make a non-notable character notable, subplot trivia about his age does not warrant an article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable character in a notable show, with enough character background to justify a stand-alone article. I admit this version of the article is a bit fansitey, and intend to begin tightening it up within the next few days. However, McBrayer's village-idiot portrayal of Kenneth is a central component of 30 Rock's popularity. Miniapolis (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then restore the article when you have information available that backs up your claim. That he is a central component of the show's popularity is a pretty bold statement to make without backing it up in a deletion discussion. And what character background? In universe or out? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that this proposal is at odds with WP:DEL#REASON? That is, the fact that an article currently lacks sources is irrelevant to its inclusion. BTW, arguing with everyone else in the AfD is generally not seen as persuasive by closing admins. Some have articulated that it can be seen as counterproductive... Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't lacking sources that has caused the nomination. And I am not arguing, I'm trying to divine reasoning in opposition because at the moment I'm just being given "Because". "Because he is notable", "Because he is significant", "Because there is too much plot bloat to merge elsewhere", "The show is popular because of him".Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original reasons for deletion were non-notability and that it was an article in need of improvement. As this photo (used in 30 Rock) illustrates, Kenneth Parcell is a major character and the other major characters have stand-alone articles; this demonstrates notability. And an article in need of improvement is not reason for deletion. This discussion is getting a bit heated; there seems to be no consensus to delete (and, frankly, I don't like feeling pressured (see comment above) to improve the article now, or else; I'm currently busy with the WikiProject Wikify backlog-reduction drive). There is no deadline. Miniapolis (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no deadline, I said restore it when you can provide the information that ascertains notability. Not do it now or else. A photo does no more ascertain notability than appearing in an episode of the show does. As even Ginseng said above, an admitted fan, he could find no significant external sources to display notability. I'm a fan, I cannot find these sources either. Liz and Jack are notable as they are explored extensively in real world sources and, to a lesser extent, I accept that Tracy and Jenna may be notable though I question that they are at least more notable than Kenneth, particularly Tracy. "Major" is subjective and being used in the same was as "notable", "significant", "important". It does not make him notable to use these words. I read the WP:Notable link above, he fails on these fronts unless external sources can be found to show why he is notable outside out of the in-universe of the show. Anyway, this will be my last message on this page, pending outcome. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading DEADLINE backwards. I realize that was put in as an alternative view (don't add it until it is perfect), but it's wrong-headed and incompatible with a volunteer project. If you don't like the fact that it isn't up to standards, WP:SOFIXIT, because there's been plenty of potential demonstrated in this AfD that is as yet unrealized in the article. Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chicago Tribune article implies notability [11], as does Rolling Stone's coverage of Steve Earle's ballad about the character [12]. Is mentioned in numerous publications [13], one of which refers to him as 'the most intriguing rural figure on contemporary television' [14] --I take it that means he's an interesting hick. The unsourced fancruft can be cut from the article. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there are going to be any fictional characters with articles in Wikipedia, especially from successful television shows, this one would definately qualify. Great memorable character and great award-winning show. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 23:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Kaloian[edit]

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

Lacks any reliable sources to establish claims/notability. Kelly ^hi! 16:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any sources, beyond track listings and adverts, which would establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - Kaloian is considered a living representative composer of Armenian Nationalism, especially in Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora and has several forthcoming Albums for release worldwide - he and his publishers are ASCAP members — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmahan (talk • contribs) 04:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC) — Rmahan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet our notability criteria. If they can be shown to be met, I'm happy to reconsider my !vote. Subjective non-referenced statements such as "is considered ..." above will not meet our standards; nor will ASCAP membership, even if RS sourced.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No news hits, passing mention in google books, nothing notable. No scholar hits. Web hits don't come from reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 23:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the google book hits are from compilations of Wikipedia articles. The only real mention I could find was this, which is simply a listing. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per G11, (non-admin closure) JayJay^{Talk to me} 17:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Thorne[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR - no significant roles, only roles as an extra. Article is also written like an autobiography possibly by an agent of the subject based on images used and name of the original author. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to President's Cup (Maldives). (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 President's Cup (Maldives)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This is an article about a future event of questionable notability, with little to no content, and as such fails WP:CRYSTAL. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Crystal. Cloudz 679 17:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to President's Cup (Maldives) until such time as this edition of the tournament becomes independently notable. Giant Snowman 19:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GS. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bzweebl (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per GiantSnowman. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Absurd, really. I would've probably redirected it to Seamus (dog) but that's utterly pointless given that no-one is ever going to type this title - including the scare quotes - into a search box. Black Kite (talk) 02:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for "romney" neologism[edit]

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

Procedural proposal. I've just declined a speedy deletion proposal on this, but the community will want to debate it so I'm opening it up to comment. ~~I personally am not taking a view as to whether this article should be deleted~~, just that it should not be deleted via the speedy deletion process. (striking that as I've subsequently commented) Ϣere SpielChequers 16:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Neo. Its a rather blatant attempt at trying to use wiki to increase the neologism's use, as opposed to an article on a term that has already established notability. Rorshacma (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not convinced that the two sources provided in the article are sufficient to establish notability, and I cannot find anything else about the campaign or the neologism. ItsZippy ^{(talk contributions)} 19:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually 4 independent references. Two had been deleted before this article was sent to AfD. I restored the 2 additional references.Debbie W. 19:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 2. One was a wikinews story, which is not a RS. The other to the NY Post is Dead. I don't know much about "Newser" but I don't think it is a very high quality source. Arzel (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 5 references. I fixed the New York Post reference which may have broke during editing, and I added references from CNN and the International Business Times. If you were not satisfied with my references, it would have been preferrable to simply add new references.Debbie W. 21:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge I created this article because of increased publicity that I saw about new word. Although I heard about the neologism about a month ago, I didn't think that there was sufficent usage or news coverage of it until the last week. Wikipedia's neologism guidelines states that there have to be independent sources which discuss the development of the new word, not just sources that use the term. Since there is a campaign for "santorum" neologism Wikipedia article which discusses the development of that neologism, and now there are multiple media sources discussing the origin of the romney neologism, I think there now can also be an article for the romney neologism. We just need to ensure that the article is written as NPOV as possible.Addendum: After reading everyone's comments, and seeing what a mess the santorum neologism Wikipedia page has become, I think we should merge this article with the Seamus article.Debbie W. 23:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the original nominator. This is a nothing of a story. WP should not be used to push a political cause. WP should not be used for activism. The creator of this article has been pushing this and it's related story on several Romney related articles, and is using poor sourcing to make it appear to be more than it is. Arzel (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Seamus (dog) as suggested by Mark Arsten. It's definitely getting coverage in reliable sources, but we do not know if this coverage will be persistent or if the neologism will dog Romney in his campaign (pun totally intended) the way the santorum neologism is playing in its namesake's campaign. ~~If it isn't kept (I'm not voting because it's too soon to tell), I'd recommend userfying it so the work isn't lost in case it continues to receive coverage that merits an article.~~ A merge will put reliably-sourced content in an accessible location while not keeping a separate article on what may be a flash-in-the-pan, and the structure and content will be preserved in the edit history so the work isn't lost in case it continues to receive coverage that merits an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Debbie W. 01:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Debbie W. 01:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Debbie W. 01:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could someone please link to the most relevant notability guideline(s)? Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Wikipedia's neologism guideline. My reading of it indicates that the references must actually describe the basis or origin of the neologism, rather than just using the word.Debbie W. 01:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. That isn't a notability guidelines; that page describes what doesn't belong on Wikipedia and the exceptions to the rule. The exceptions are not automatically notable based solely on that page. The appropriate guideline is actually plain ol' WP:GNG.--v/r -T P 16:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that WP:NEO is not the same as WP:NOTE, but I think that this article meets the guidelines needed to use a neologism. The neologism guideline says: "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term....when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." This article has five references that discuss the origin and usage of the "romney" neologism. Since secondary sources are available, we are allowed to create an article about the word or use the word in other Wikipedia articles.Debbie W. 19:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too early to judge whether this particular campaign will achieve notability in and of itself. For now, I think it can be a subsection of the article on the campaign for the "santorum" neologism. "Parallel campaigns: in 2012, (this guy) started a campaign to redefine the name of Mitt Romney...(etc)." Maybe make this into a redirect. DS (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless the reliable sources drop this or are found unreliable. I'm not sure that we should be deleting articles on notable subjects simply because we discover they have been staged for Political effect. Such a rule would take out quite a few stories, a major bridge, and possibly even some wars. There is a subtle line between boosting bad news and giving a neutral presentation of it. In my view if the subject is notable before we create an article and we then create a neutrally worded article which explains it and puts it into appropriate context then we are doing no ill service to anyone. There is a broader question as to whether we need this neologism, but if American English lacks an equivalent of Brown Trousers moment, then perhaps it is needed. We also need to be aware of the BLP issues around this case and the Santorum neologism, "Attack now so notable that it gets a Wikipedia article" is not that bad a story, "Wikipedia waives neutrality to censor article unfavourable to ******" is a problem for both us and potentially for the person we might think we are protecting. Also, if we are to censor ourselves to avoid causing offence, then where do we stop? There are many subjects where a neutrally worded reliably sourced article would offend someone. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have to disagree with the last part of your rationale. It suggests we are obligated to display an article for fear of someone accusing us of censorship. Check out my rationale below, I think the issue should be about combating the use of Wikipedia for political reasons rather than censorship.--v/r - TP 14:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well yes I am saying that; If a subject meets the GNG we should allow the creation of an article and if not we are vulnerable to accusations of censorship. If we want a policy that makes exceptions to the GNG we need to be clear why some things are exceptions and others aren't. I'm aware that the campaign to create this neologism is Politically motivated, but so were 9/11 and the Boston Tea Party. Our role is to cover Politically motivated stories neutrally. So the article on the candidate needs to be neutral about the candidate, but the article about a vicious smear against them can be clear that this is a vicious smear. As long as the sources talk more about the smear than the neologism then call the article "campaign for "romney"_neologism" as opposed to Romney (neologism). But the way to combat such campaigns is to create a neutrally worded article such as this one which clearly sets out what is happening and why, not in my view to bend our rules to delete something because the story has been Politically inspired. Ask yourself, is the story already so notable that people can find it via Google? If the answer is yes then surely it is better to have a neutrally worded wikipedia article than just a bunch of sites that repeat or discuss the attack. I'd accept that deletion was the right approach if this failed the GNG, but I'm not sure that even those who support deletion really assert that. As for precedents, try Charles Boycott, Joseph Hooker and Thomas Crapper, but most seriously David Icke, the Lizards and the Jews. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, I'd have to disagree. It's not that it's politically inspired that I disapprove of. It's that it was specifically targeted to abuse Wikipedia's popularity. It also seems to have no notability outside of the Santorum neologism. It would not have received the attention it did if the Santorum one didn't already exist.--v/r - TP 19:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure whether either campaign was taking advantage of us so much as of the Internet. As for how it achieved the coverage it did, well that isn't our business as long as it was covered in reliable sources before an article was created here. Yes this is clearly a less original campaign than the Santorum one. But we don't require originality for article subjects, otherwise Hollywood might be in trouble. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We can't delete this when we continue to support the outrageous Santorum equivalent. I suggest that all such cases be redirected to a general dumping ground such as dirty tricks or smear campaign. Those articles should have an encyclopaedic and historical perspective from which an impartial selection of suitable examples can be made. Per WP:RECENTISM, WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS, we should not be covering these matters in real time as part of the campaigning process. Warden (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Things made up in one day during political silly season to attack candidates for office are not worthy of standalone articles, this would be serious undue weight to the fringiest of fringe criticism of the subject. Sourcing is not the argument here. At most, a mention in Romney's 2012 campaign article, but that is an issue for editors to take up locally. Honestly, if this project retains this article, we lose anything remotely resembling neutrality and credibility. Tarc (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest a selective Merge here--probably to Seamus (dog), though that article also appears to be a product of America's current "silly season". Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I originally voted to keep the article on romney neologism, I like your proposal to merge it with the Seamus (dog) article. The two topics are related, and I think that if we have to merge this article, it would be far better to merge it with the Seamus article than to add it the Mitt Romney article, where it would be considered undue weight.Debbie W. 01:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tarc. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This wouldn't have received any traction if it wasn't for the Santorum word. It has no independent notability, and I challenge any of the keep voters to show multiple reliable sources that discuss this word without Santorum. The notability of this is solely based on Santorum and at the most it should have a small 1 sentence blip on that article. This article is an attempt by a political opponent (I'm not referring to the article creator, I'm referring to the guy who created the 'verb') to game Wikipedia's notability guidelines in an effort to hit the top of Google search results. At the very least, we should WP:IAR delete this to prevent similar gaming and using Wikipedia for political slander in the future. This isn't about WP:NPOV or WP:CENSOR, it's simply about misusing Wikipedia's google search results for political gain.--v/r - T P 15:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will take you up on your challenge. I listed below three legitimate news sources which discuss the romney neologism without discussing Santorum. While there is a definite parallel between the santorum neologism and the romney neologism, the romney neologism has more to do with the story about Seamus (dog) than anything about Rick Santorum.Debbie W. 19:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100138018/mitt-romney-suffers-from-the-weirdo-factor/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/mitt-romney-detroit_n_1279565.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/02/16/romney_s_dog_seamus_did_he_run_away_to_canada_.html

First off, thanks for taking up the challenge. Your first source, the telegraph, is exactly what I was looking for and I grant you that one although the specific part about the neologism is quite small; about two sentences. The Huffington post doesn't even mention the neologism but does discuss the dog incident (I could be wrong, feel free to point out if I missed it). The slate source says "in a Dan Savage-like move" which is exactly what I am talking about above. This story's notability is based on the Santorum neologism.--v/r - T P 19:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first mentions it in passing in a larger blog post about Romney's weirdness, the second is from a very liberal leaning HuffPo, and you must have missed the Santorum link in the third article, a link that points directly to the Wikipedia's "campaign for "santorum" neologism" article. What this sort of thing brings to mind is the "forced meme" meme. Tarc (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 4, line 5 of the Huffington Post article mentions 'defecate in terror', and this line links to the spreadingromney.com website that created the romney neologism. Although this article is from February 15, my understanding is that HuffPo was the first media organization (on Jan. 6th) to use the term 'defecate in terror'. I agree that the Slate article indirectly alludes to Santorum. Debbie W. 22:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't honestly believe anyone is going to buy that "which inspired the poor canine to defecate in terror" used in the context of the dog itself is going to satisfy WP:GNG for an article /about the neologism/. That source would be great for the dog's article. That's just not going to be acceptable for this article. The HuffPo article does not discuss the /neologism/ which is specifically addressed in WP:NOT that you quoted earlier and more clearly described in WP:GNG which says that the sources must be multiple, reliable, and also that they must significantly cover the /subject of the article/. That does not include using the term nor does it include using the meaning of the term. That HuffPo just isn't a source /at all/ for this article. I've already said my bit on the other two.--v/r - T P 22:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 references that I listed here are not the references that the romney neologism article currently utilizes. The article has 5 separate references which do discuss the romney neologism. Just because those reference allude to santorum does not mean that they are invalid references. For example, any reference to the Watergate scandal will mention Richard Nixon, but that doesn't mean that the references are invalid, or that there shouldn't be an article on Watergate. Debbie W. 23:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That analogy makes little sense and the two are not even in the same plane of existence. Even then, the existence of one does not preclude the existence of the other. Watergate could have happened without Nixon, however this little juvenile smear campaign would certainly not have begun if not for Savage setting the bar. Arzel (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. When the challenge is made, you accept it gleefully. When you cannot meet the challenge, you question the very foundation of the challenge. As Arzel said, Watergate would be notable without Nixon. This, on the other hand, would not have been notable unless a notable radio personality with considerable clout had not already started the Santorum neologism. That's why the challenge was made. Nixon's involvement with Watergate is a single event. Santorum and Romney neologisms are supposed to be two seperate events. The sources show that the Romney neologism's notability does not exist outside the wider Santorum neologism and Dan Savage notability. That is what my delete is based off of and you haven't been able to prove it wrong. My delete !vote is reaffirmed but I will say that I am not opposed to a merger to the dog's article or the Santorum neologism article. I prefer a delete though as a WP:IAR battle against gaming notability guidelines to use Wikipedia for political activism.--v/r - T P 01:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we going to ever fully agree on this issue, but I am also okay with a merger of this article with the Seamus. I'm not sure if Wikipedia's notability guidelines have been gamed, but I do think that the creators of these neologisms have gamed Google.Debbie W. 12:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tarc. -- PBS (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:GNG. Its a follow-on of santorum, of course. Maybe it could be mentioned in that article, though the war is constant over that one right now, its frankly not worth it until after November.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarc et al. This neologism is not catching on yet, unlike, let's say, santorum. There's nothing against WP:5P or WP:BOLD that would prevent someone from merging the two articles during this discussion, if one were so inclined. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I agree that a smerger of the barest possible mention, well sourced, would also be appropriate. 23:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - reductio ad absurdum JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a pure attack page. Juno (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) B music ian 07:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Wahab Wardak[edit]

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

Not notable enough JayJay^{Talk to me} 16:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The Afghan Air Corps Chief of Staff is notable. Period. The fact he's a Major General just makes it more so. Yes, the article is a one-sentence stub. WP:SOFIXIT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bushranger. It seems reasonable to assume that there's sufficient coverage of this person in the English-language military press and the general Afghani press. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A general and commander of a national air force. Of course he's notable. Why on earth was this ever nominated? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His Wikipedia article certainly isn't much, but a quick google search will show you that he meets notability guidelines. Remember that WP:DELETE asks us to check for sources and improve the article, if possible, prior to nominating for deletion. There is plenty out there to improve this article and prove notability. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 21:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep; per WP:SOLDIER. Chief of Staff of the Afghanistan Air Force. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, non-admin closure JayJay^{Talk to me} 17:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ASSOCHAM[edit]

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

No references does not suggest notability JayJay^{Talk to me} 16:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep: Google search gives more than 700000 results. The article was created years before and it is the community of wikipedians who should have provided enough references by now. It is the weakness on our part that we have failed to develop this page properly. How many organizations are there in world that represent more than 200000 firms? --Bhadani (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, Google News gives at least 240 news results pertaining to this entity and news during last few weeks. How many pages of English Wikipedia commands so much news coverage? --Bhadani (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nomination withdrawn JayJay^{Talk to me} 17:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP (non-admin closure). 5-1 vote in favor of keep. WP:OUTCOMES#Schools is clear here. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 04:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arben Broci High School, Tirana[edit]

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

No references or suggest notability JayJay^{Talk to me} 16:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the existence of this high school can be verified then we should treat this article in the same way that we treat any other high school article. I think the Albanian for this would be "Gjimnazi Arben Broci", but none of the sources found by Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL leap out as reliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The initial searches were too restrictive. If you search for "Abren Broci" AND school AND Tirana then a wider range of hits shows up though it would take some time to sort through them all if anyone has the time. I did find a page here written in English. Gjimnazi sounds like the Albanian equivalent of Gymnasium - a selective school like the English grammar schools. The Albanian word for school seems to be shkollë. Dahliarose (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the existence of this school is verified by the municipality website; now added to the page. Long-established precedent is that we keep verifiable high schools since experience shows that a diligent search for local sources invariably throws up sufficient sources to meet WP:OR. TerriersFan (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per TerriersFan above. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – agree with comments above. A further reference regarding its existence: [15] which lists students receiving some sort of bursary in 2004, and includes a student from the school — Hebrides (talk) 07:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My understanding is that our convention is to keep all high schools/secondary schools if their existence as such is verifiable. See, for example, the recent AFDs at AFD Guagua National Colleges (closed Feb. 11 as a keep), AFD Stonehill International School (closed Feb. 11 as a keep), and AFD Chandra Imam Ali High School & College (closed Jan. 11 as a keep). I participated in all 3 AFDs, and from what I have seen over the past 2 or 3 months, it does appear to be the convention to keep high schools that are verifiable. This high school, though its coverage is very light, is verifiable and should therefore be kept.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable secondary educational institutions are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shiro (cat)[edit]

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

Not encyclopedically notable, only refs are to youtube, blogs, and facebook. -- Jeandré, 2012-02-19t15:59z 15:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rorshacma (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liam O'Connor (Irish footballer)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NSPORT Generally acceptable standards "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". In this case, O'Connor played for the Ireland national Australian rules football team, which is the highest level of competition for Australian rules football.
The article is currently very weak, with a lack of sourcing to independent reliable sources, so I see a case for merging it to a list until more sources are found. But the subject is notable, so the page and its history should not be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the AFL International Cup is purely a development league played by amateurs and is a much lower level of play than most suburban leagues, it is nowhere near the "highest level of competition for Australian rules football". None of the references provided are significant coverage in major independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:29, 19 February 2012 (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/2012 February 19. Snotbot t • c » 14:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, with due respect to the Keep !vote above, Australian rules football is an unusual situation where the international level is significantly lower quality and professionalism compared to the domestic league in Australia (and probably even some of the Australian state leagues). In this case I don't feel that applying the usual sorts of rules results in a sensible outcome here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fender Precision Bass. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Mike Dirnt Precision Bass[edit]

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

I'm a Fender man, own a gaggle of them, but this particular product doesn't pass the bar as a stand alone product. Redirect doesn't make sense as it is fairly implausible as a search term. Only has links to catalog and to buy one. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Detune as unlikely search term. I'm an amateur bassist too, by the way. Easier than guitar on my little hands. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it meets notability guidelines. Already mentioned at Fender Precision Bass and Mike Dirnt, however, probably worth no more than that. (And yes, I'm also a guitarist.) Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 00:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or make it a redirect to Fender Precision Bass. My search for sources turned up nothing to suggest that this model has enough standalone notability for its own article. I like bass, I like Green Day, I like Fender, but this don't cut it. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted G7, AFD nominator is the original and only significant author. GB fan 00:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exicardo Cayones[edit]

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

Notability is in question for this article. Page is about a minor league prospect that was tagged for a Proposed deletion. –BuickCentury Driver 10:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. I don't think he's notable enough for a blurb on the minor league player page. He's just a guy in A ball whose name we've heard of because he's in the A. J. Burnett trade. The bar needs to be set higher than this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't played a game above Rookie league. Fails WP:BASEBALL/N. Bgwhite (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reasons as others.--Yankees10 21:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted G7, AFD nominator is the original and only significant author. GB fan 00:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Moreno[edit]

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

Notability is in question for this article. Article is about a prospect that was involved in a trade between the Yankees and Pirates recently for starting pitcher A. J. Burnett. –BuickCentury Driver 10:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am nto shure why this was taken to AfD when there is an active WP:PROD on the article. Rlendog (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't think articles could be PROD'd and Afd'd at the same time. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has only played 11 games above A ball. Fails WP:BASEBALL/N. I'm also the person who did the original Prod. Strange, not sure why the creating editor of the article is taking this to AfD. Bgwhite (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, aside from his involvement in an A. J. Burnett trade, which makes him WP:BLP1E. Not notable enough for a blurb on a minor league player page, so I oppose a merge and redirect in this case. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reasons as others.--Yankees10 21:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While "its useful" and "its important" are generally poor arguments to keep an article, others have detailed that the article has been covered in sources. Likewise, we don't delete articles because they have a title similar to a more substantial article, we create a disambiguation page. That, or a hatnote, is proably the way to go here. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 02:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Loret[edit]

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

Unsourced article that has usurped an existing sourced article. noq (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've gone to the trouble of adding a few references, as well as a dab to the existing article on Jean-Marie Loret who was in the news last week ([16]). The recent creation of this article doesn't seem to be so much of a "usurpation" as a sorting out of things as the French article about this poet ([17]) has been around since 2007. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - was an important precursor in the history of journalism, and there were several pre-existing links to Jean Loret which were intended for the writer rather than the claimed son of Hitler. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moving a sourced existing article twice and replacing it with another unsourced article while complaining about no afd to put things back is usurping. WP:BRD requires that the original mover should discuss, not repeat the same mistake. This move should have been discussed and consensus reached - creating a sourced article under a different title and then arguing for a DAB page would have made more sense. noq (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noq, you deleted the orginal stub without giving any notice or even prodding it first. That's problematic and a violation of Wikipedia:Deletion policy ("If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.") and your deletion met none of the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion ie your original mistake was your deleting the article unilaterally without any discussion. In any case, the Jean Loret article is now well sourced so deletion is not justifiable. Jean-Marie Loret is the common name of the subject of the other article (see Google) so the renaming was appropriate. Will you withdraw the AFD? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as WP:BRD goes, it's rather hard to discuss a unilateral deletion of an article, since the talk pages of deleted articles are also deleted. I guess the WP:BURO thing to do would have been to have taken the matter to WP:DRV, which is asking a bit much. In any case, everything seems sorted now per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main target of first encyclopaedia creators was to make an full info about every worth writing people. What may be more worthy than this writer? Even it is good to expand Wikipedia, because China encyclopaedia is getting bigger... ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.103.25 (talk • contribs)

Keep It would be ridiculous to delete this important article. Somebody must be crazy even to suggest it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.228.199 (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. There is no reason to remove this article, it provides useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.173.245 (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressor (band)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND and WP:GNG. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree this band seem to be excellent self-publicists (their albums are self-published too) and there are no signs of them meeting the WP notability crieria. Sionk (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree that this group seems to fail the 12 parameters of WP:BAND. Shearonink (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the merits; the band doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BAND or the GNG. That said, the Usual Caveats do apply; one release that hits the charts and an article would be appropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect. Fram (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Sab Ka Pakistan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No gnews or gbooks hits. The first two pages of google yield nothing. Guerillero | My Talk 07:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I totally agree to this view here but atleast provide some other sources which could provide notability for this topic...--Dude7190 (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added two sources, found by this trick Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those links pass WP:RS --Guerillero | My Talk 15:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL, for most albums it is sufficient to proof that the album exists. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - AfD isn't about the existence of something, it is examining if it passes the WP:GNG or a WP:SNG. For albums, the SNG is just a redirect to the GNG. To pass the GNG there needs to be several reliable sources. Seeing that the sources that you added are shaky at best, the page does not pass the GNG. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since when? SL93 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with the above editors that a) neither of these links are RSs (I've tagged them as questionable in the article, given our stated concerns in that regard); and b) that Night's statement that "for most albums it is sufficient to proof that the album exists" is not accurate.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you following me around, Eppie? Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        He PRODed the article; it should be assumed that he keeps on watching it --Guerillero | My Talk 18:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Night—You, for reasons I cannot fathom, ask whether I am following you around. By the edit history of the article, clearly the opposite is the case here (as elsewhere). I first PRODed the article. You then removed the PROD, with your first edit to the article. Minutes later. This is in line with your admission that you are following me around.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had PRODed this article. Night of the Big Wind removed the PROD. For further background re this pattern, see here. I would have AfD'd it, had nom not beat me to it. The subject fails to meet GNG or our more specific notability criteria. Night's above statement that "for most albums it is sufficient to proof that the album exists" does not appear to be a true one, as pointed out by the above editors. I'm disturbed that with the above background, Night as he admits following my edits across the project, only to !vote against my PRODs and AfDs on bases such as this one.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of obvious notability. If we have an album by a notable artist, it's that much closer to itself being notable - but we still need proper sourcing. Once deleted, though, I think a redirect to the artist's article is warranted - so Redirect to Alamgir (pop singer). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. I believe a redirect is warranted to Alamgir (pop singer) though. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - Lack of coverage in reliable third party sources, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect: to Alamgir (pop singer) for now. Can always be split if sources are found for general notability. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of North Texas. Anything worth merging can be done from the history, as long as the content is attributed properly. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 02:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Life at the University of North Texas[edit]

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

Clearly not even close to meeting Wikipedia notability standards. See Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines for more, but see section on sub-articles especially. Quoting from that page:

Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article (even if the parent organization is notable). Local chapters may be notable if sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included. This especially applies to Greek organizations.
Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.

This entire page falls under WP:CRUFT -Runfellow (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of North Texas. MikeWazowski (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of North Texas per nom. Bzweebl (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Letterkenny. Black Kite (talk) 02:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Letterkenny Shopping Centre[edit]

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

Non-notable 57-store, 102,000 sf shopping centre, which lacks non-run-of-the-mill, substantial, RS coverage. Epeefleche (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Letterkenny. You should expect more working sources on an article that survived two earlier nominations. Shopping Mall itself is also not very convincing in notability. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First -- that is a mis-statement. It did not "survive... two earlier nominations". It was deleted at one of them. Second -- are you again following me around the Project? And, in doing so, confronting my comment here with a statement that is not true?--Epeefleche (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know it is not illegal to comment on a deletion nomination. Assume good faith, Eppie. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By itself, no. But AGF is a rebuttable presumption. For further background re this pattern, which leads to this question, see here. And you haven't responded to my questions.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - Article meets WP:N. It would help if the nominator actually read the article or explained why the references fail WP:N. I wouldn't call coverage in two independent national newspapers as not meeting WP:N. --HighKing (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- States in AfD the article "lacks non-run-of-the-mill, substantial, RS coverage" Sunday Bussiness POst and the Indo, are RS.Murry1975 (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources amount to routine mentions of the existence of the place. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

Um....no they don't. They mention a significant overhaul and expansion as part of a relaunch. Granted, not the most exciting news... --HighKing (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DGG that such references are routine. Overhaul and expansion of a 57-store, 102,000 sf mall.

Furthermore, WP:NPLACE indicates: "Very small malls ... are generally deleted." From what I have seen at our mall AfDs, and from what I have been told by two sysops who are active in that area, a 102,000 sf mall falls within what NPLACE refers to as a very small mall.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these things have guidelines but size is relative. What conts as samll and not notible in the US isnt necessarily the same in other countries and common sense should be used.Murry1975 (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hear your point. But what was communicated to me by one sysop was that the dividing line was 1 million sf, and the other sysop said he believed it was 500,000 sf. This mall is far below both those cut-offs, at 102,000 sf, and in fact one of the smallest size malls I've seen reflected on the Project.

Those weren't US-specific guidelines. And ~~Canada~~ Ireland is one of the 40 120 largest countries in the world (out of 242) -- Tuvalu, it ain't.

Recent AfDs involving Canadian malls include AFD Stonegate Shopping Centre (432,000 sf mall; deleted February 20) and Abbottsfield Mall (186,000 sf mall; deleted February 15). Recent AfDs involving Australian malls include Rosebud Plaza (100,000 sf mall; deleted February 12) and Wagga Wagga Marketplace (21,000 sm mall; kept February 12).--Epeefleche (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about Canada for?Murry1975 (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right -- revised. Canada and Australia are the examples, as they are the 2 non-US countries with the most recent mall AfDs as to which there is square footage info.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done you have just read where the article is about even though you nominated it.Murry1975 (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. You wrote: "what counts as small and notable in the US isnt necessarily the same in other countries". Looking to address your concern that we look at standards for non-US malls, I checked our most recent non-US AfDs that mention square footage. The first such non-US malls I first found were Canadian. I didn't find Irish malls at the most recent AfDs that I checked, but I've included the most recent other non-US malls, which are Australian.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I note that size matters Wagga Wagga Marketplace is still there a fifth of the size, with a poplulation of 22million. Ratio population to size 22m:4.5m I think this shows common sense both when to keep an article and when to nominate one.Murry1975 (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that size is relative. The WP:NPLACE essay uses "relative" terms and doesn't specifiy a cutoff. It's helpful, but altogether too general for many articles, and incorrect to lead editors to believe that size trumps WP:N policy. If an article meets WP:N, it is notable. Start there. While there's seemingly nothing extraordinary about this centre from an international point of view, it is a well-known local landmark. And more importantly it has had coverage in two national newspapers and that's why I've !voted to keep. Barely. That, and the fact that it is the largest shopping centre in the county. On it's own, that fact is sufficiently notable. --HighKing (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi High. A couple of points. First, just so its clear in the event you were wondering, I don't have any personal strong views as to specifically what the notability criteria should be for malls. I am trying to apply what I understand to be our rules and conventions, evenly, however.

As to the specifics here, Ireland has 34 counties.[18] I'm not sure I agree that the largest mall in each of those 34 counties -- even if it is as small as this one -- should under our criteria have a wp article. I think that that sort of approach would suggest that we have thousands (say, 8,000?) malls that qualify for articles on wp -- even those that are 50-odd stores large, with 100,000 sf of space, as is this one. I don't believe that is in keeping with what I've seen (feel free to take a look at the mall AfD archives yourself to check me), or what has been communicated to me by the sysops. I do, however, see how if we had a mall this size in, say the Marshall Islands, that the "size is relative" argument would have much to support it.

Then again, reasonable people can disagree on this, and I expect that editors who are more Ireland-focused and less mall-AfD-focused (if that is the case ... I don't know) will be more likely to see things differently. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable and knowledgable people know that there are only 26 (historical) Counties in the Republic plus six in Northern-Ireland. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE isnt being conducted either in nomination of article or even in research to show points. The local government article if read would show how many admin counties there are, as opposed to traditional counties, Epeefleche it still aint 34. Nominator is failing to use Wiki guidelines and having a a disruptive effect on the project.Murry1975 (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bhardwaj[edit]

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

I can't seem to find any reliable sources covering this as a group, clan or surname Ironholds (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it did have realiable sources it would have to be totally redone JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the above - there's no sourcing, and I can find no evidence elsewhere to show this as a notable subgroup. That said, should the title be redirected anywhere? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be found. --regentspark (comment) 17:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources.Pernoctator (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the content in this article is copied from Bharadwaja and Saraswat Brahmin. Anbu121 (talk me) 06:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Room Girl[edit]

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

Does not suggest notability or qualify under WP:NMUSIC JayJay^{Talk to me} 02:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per its position on the Oricon charts. St Anselm (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The song reached #87 and only charted for 2 weeks does that suggest notability? JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feep per the charting position --Guerillero | My Talk 15:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Meg (singer).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge. No in-depth coverage is provided to indicate notability, and peaking at No. 87 in the charts hardly suggests notability. --DAJF (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My suggestion for Meg is that we keep the articles on her full-length albums because most if not all are independently notable, and redirect the "singles" articles to their proper albums. This would be best way to organize the coverage of this popular japanese artist. Otherwise we are going to end up with a nonsensical hodgepodge of articles.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. Clear that either there was a failure of WP:BEFORE or outright bad faith in nomination. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Community Church of New York[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage; only mentioned in directories; passing mentions in news sources. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this title is a little more than a passing mention: "Eric M. Rodriguez and Suzanne C. Ouellette, "The Metropolitan Community Church of New York: A Gay and Lesbian Community," The Community Psychologist 32, no. 3 ( 1999): 24-29"·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:20, 19 February 2012 (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/2012 February 19. Snotbot t • c » 02:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At one level, this is just a single church with about 500 members. However, that doesn't start to tell the story, as this institution is historically important as part of the history of the gay rights movement in America. The New York church seems to be connected with similar Metropolitan Community Churches in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, CA. Its papers are collected with those of these parallel institutions, see the Finding Aid for the ONLINE CATALOG OF CALIFORNIA, which is effectively Reliable Source #1 in this notability challenge. I suspect that much of the coverage here will be in the gay press and I hope that RESCUE SQUAD or one or two Wikipedians specializing in the history of the gay rights movement in America will take the time to source this piece out. Carrite (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't just speculate about its potential notability, find sources demonstrating it. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the sources available through the searches above show quite extensive coverage, in fact, including a significant number of books (many of them by academics). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are all passing mentions; no reason why any noteworthy content can't be put in Metropolitan Community Church. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Sources exist and clearly notable for gay rights history.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to the sources here? NYyankees51 (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already provided one above. And better yet - I've put some of them in the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Sources already added to the article. Also there are news stories like this:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/nyregion/sylvias-place-faces-licensing-problems.html?pagewanted=all--В и к и T 02:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've gone ahead and added sources to the article and other information, along with the New York Times article above. I think its notability is pretty clear at this point and I didn't even have to look hard. Silver seren^C 02:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very clear WP:POINT violation by nominator. — Cirt (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 02:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FreedomKnot[edit]

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

Non-notable invention/product, which fails WP:N and smells like a WP:MADEUP violation. The article, created by the knot's self-proclaimed inventor, has been awaiting reliable third-party sourcing to demonstrate notability for over three years. A Google search for "FreedomKnot" turns up over 7,000 hits, which at first glance seems impressive until one finds out that all of these are related to the website name, which the owner appears to have done a good job of promoting. The only non-primary source I can find is the one external link already present in the article. --DAJF (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No established notability. Rorshacma (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. What limited web presence it has seems to be entirely the result of one person's tireless (some might say 'desperate') self-promotion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not think WP:VERIFY can be met at the current time. User:Richard Lazear stated as much in the article's talk page: "The FreedomKnot wiki page however has been carefully constructed using current and historically factual data that no one knows sum total better than I." Also seems like a clear cut case of WP:SELFPROMOTE.

Just as an aside, the alleged non-primary source mentioned above (Ian Fieggen's shoelace knot site) is actually picturing a different knot than the one presented on the official FreedomKnot page. As shown in the diagrams on the official page, the FreedomKnot is a doubly-slipped single/double granny knot. Ian's site shows the reef (non-granny) form of the knot. My "single/double" terminology here indicates first overhand knot (i.e. half-knot) is a normal single overhand, second overhand is a double. For instance a surgeon's knot, as generally shown (e.g. ABOK #1209), would be a "double/single" reef knot. --Dfred (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Good catch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 02:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Cooper (voice-over artist)[edit]

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

I'm thinking WP:ENT applies to voice over artists. in any case he fails WP:BIO. he's not even listed on IMDB and could not find any coverage of him [19]. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I feel uncomfortable deleting this article because if Cooper has narrated programmes, news bulletins etc. for the BBC World Service and numerous TV channels, he would certainly meet WP:ENT. However, on the flipside, I feel uncomfortable keeping an article cited only to a blog. I'm struggling to find reliable independent verification of Cooper's work. If someone can find sources, I'd vote 'keep'. Sionk (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - fully meets the WP:ENT. Issues with sourcing are unfortunate but not enough to delete the article, on contrary it is an invitation to improve it. Deleting is easy, improving is not, so try doing that instead.--Avala (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible assertion of notability ("known for his work" appears to be untrue) and no reliable sources to indicate notability. The person exists, but existing and having a job are not the criteria by which we include people on Wikipedia. Fails basic inclusion criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the only reference sources that can be found are blog-based, then there is not sufficient reliable third-party coverage to satisfy the notability criteria for a self-standing biographical article. --DAJF (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Amateurs of Canada[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, no discussion of this organization in secondary reliable sources, does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The private club has undetectable effect on the world outside its members. Existence of the organization could be noted in Amateur radio or some similar article. Wtshymanski (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the RAC is the Canadian member of the International Amateur Radio Union, the administrators of the Amateur Radio Emergency Service in Canada, and they serve in a substantial advisory capacity to the Canadian government with respect to the regulation of radio communications. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Right now there are no references for that in the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a couple of sources. National amateur radio societies should have articles here.--Michig (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominator's AfD voting score is pretty poor [20]. In 184 AFDs, has voted to delete 170 times. Only 96 actual deletions among his delete votes, meaning an accuracy rate below 60%.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Score? Voting? Relevance? How many of the "keep" not-votes were on articles that got kept? And since the possible three outcomes of these not-votes are "delete", "keep" or "no consensus" = "keep", 56% is better than chance. Do your statistics include AfDs that I originated? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree Wts that your nom should stand on its own merits, but at the same time I can understand concerns that a nom pay heed to wp:BEFORE (perhaps you have, and just view "discussion" differently than I do?) and seek to get a sense for what consensus views are on AfDs.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Grandmartin11's reasoning. If their government takes them seriously, as do other established experts/organizations in this field, then they are notable. Someone just needs to find a trade magazine. Dream Focus 22:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are even more RS sources discoverable in a wp:BEFORE search. Meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The reasons given at nomination seem bogus. Wikipedia:OBSCURE is not a reason to delete; the nominator seems to be confounding notability with importance. "Assertion of notability" is only to avoid speedy deletion - articles in AfD don't require assertion of notability but "being notable". WP:ORG is not needed as long as there are sources that meet WP:GNG. An the nominator thinks that some of the content should be included in another article, so this should have been a merge discussion and not a deletion. Diego (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We can certainly have a roll-call of hobby clubs, but obscure also means "not verifiable" and not notable. I read the Globe and Mail and my local paper, I watch TV news and listen to the radio - no-one ever talks about the ham club in the media. I've done a Google search and not found anything significant that shows any influence of this club on anything other than its members. Ham radio has become so unimportant to government that they've privatized licesning to this club...this doesn't seem to indicate that their activities or recommendations carry any weight. I'm sure the National China Dolls Collector's Association gives advice to goverment, too...but does anyone listen to the advice? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it is an awful nomination. I've seen far worse. But the gnews and even moreso the gbooks hits suggest wide coverage, for years now, with the coverage not being limited to Canadian sources. Often the mentions are brief -- a paragraph or so in many books -- but the number of such mentions is so great that in aggregate I think they clearly confer notability. All that has to be shown is that the subject has been sufficiently "noted" -- not that it shows any influence or is in any way famous or the like.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Pretty clear that this is a notable topic and I'm Non-Admin Closing this as a keep giving the nominator the benefit of the doubt that they were a little quick on the draw here.--RadioFan (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 02:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Currane[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NSPORT Generally acceptable standards "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". In this case, he played for the Ireland national Australian rules football team, which is the highest level of competition for Australian rules football.
The article is currently very weak, with a lack of sourcing to independent reliable sources, so I see a case for merging it to a list until more sources are found. But the subject is notable, so the page and its history should not be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sorry about the copy paste from other ones. After the second one, I realised I wasn't going to write up each individual vote. The tournament is the major international amateur competition for Australian rules football, which uses a modified rule set to allow the game to be more readily adapted for use where Australian rules isn't as popular. The tournament is televised in Australia and receives media coverage in the Herald Sun and The Age. It is also covered on the AFL's website. It is likely that if these sources were searched, this player would be mentioned. It passes WP:NSPORT and there is a possibility it may pass WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the AFL International Cup is purely a development league played by amateurs and is a much lower level of play than most suburban leagues, it is nowhere near the "highest level of competition for Australian rules football". None of the references provided are significant coverage in major independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 02:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roch Hanmore[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NSPORT Generally acceptable standards "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". In this case, he played for the Ireland national Australian rules football team, which is the highest level of competition for Australian rules football.
The article is currently very weak, with a lack of sourcing to independent reliable sources, so I see a case for merging it to a list until more sources are found. But the subject is notable, so the page and its history should not be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment International Aussie rules is hardly a major international amateur competition. It doesn't even get a mention on Australian rules football Gnevin (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Weak keep based on sport notability. The tournament does receive coverage in Australia as an international tournament. Australia is prohibited by rules from participating and there is a modified version of the game which allows Australians who play Aussie rules to compete against Irish who play GAA code. See mention of athlete and tournament in the Herald Sun. He was also mentioned in the Australian newspaper for Irish expats. He is also mentioned on the AFL's website. So while he may not be playing the top level, his international appearance for Ireland makes him notable. --LauraHale (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the AFL International Cup is purely a development league played by amateurs and is a much lower level of play than most suburban leagues, it is nowhere near the "highest level of competition for Australian rules football". None of the references provided are significant coverage in major independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to One Life to Live miscellaneous characters. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One Life to Live children[edit]

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

Sourced only to episode recaps, no secondary sources whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - *Ugh* Wikipedia's goal is teaching general overview of any topic. This page is too much to be general, and lack of out-of-universe entries doesn't help matters at all. WP:Articles for deletion/List of miscellaneous General Hospital characters can prove why this article shouldn't exist, and the cancellation of the soap opera doesn't help matters, anyways. List of Sailor Moon characters and List of The Price Is Right pricing games are messy, but I couldn't nominate them for deletion because... I may be accused of being a crusader again and be blocked again. Without out-of-universe coverages within this page, I can't think any reason why this article must exist at all. --George Ho (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing but plot. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim, or merge to a character list. Character lists from notable television shows derive their notability from the show itself, so the individual entries need not have independent RS to establish notability--Verifiability (without interpretation) of such fictional material can be established via primary sources themselves. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How does your point make this list of fictional children notable? The list itself is the topic, not the individual characters; it needs something, like this: List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters... Well, not exactly like that, but it needs reception. Without reception, or out-of-universe notability, there is no need or point to have a separate list of children, is there? Well, I don't think critics and scholars significantly covered those children in general. ~~--George Ho (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)~~ One question: which is more important, the plot or reception? --George Ho (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - One Life to Live is notable. Characters lists are WP:SS breakouts from the main article, usually based on WP:LENGTH, and derive their notability from the main topic. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The show's notability doesn't make the list notable; out-of-universe significant coverages of children do. Per WP:AADD, that argument to me is nothing more than WP:ASSERTN or WP:INHERIT, no offense. --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Merge with One Life to Live miscellaneous characters because it takes on the same meaning. Children I don't believe deserve a separate article. Casanova88 (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with One Life to Live miscellaneous characters (which could also use some heavy trimming). There is no reason to have a separate list for the children. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 02:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cunnane[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NSPORT Generally acceptable standards "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". In this case, Cunnane played for the Ireland national Australian rules football team, which is the highest level of competition for Australian rules football. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep: Per BrownHairedGirl, he appears to meet WP:NSPORT . The tournament he participated in is the major international event for the sport. (Australia is prohibited from participating in it.) The competition does get media attention, and Cunnane has received mentions as a result. See The Age. He's also been mentioned on the AFL's website here and here. --LauraHale (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the AFL International Cup is purely a development league played by amateurs and is a much lower level of play than most suburban leagues, it is nowhere near the "highest level of competition for Australian rules football". None of the references provided are significant coverage in major independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 02:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fergal Bradshaw[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NSPORT Generally acceptable standards "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". In this case, Bradshaw played for the Ireland national Australian rules football team, which is the highest level of competition for Australian rules football. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sorry about the copy paste from other ones. After the second one, I realised I wasn't going to write up each individual vote. The tournament is the major international amateur competition for Australian rules football, which uses a modified rule set to allow the game to be more readily adapted for use where Australian rules isn't as popular. The tournament is televised in Australia and receives media coverage in the Herald Sun and The Age. It is also covered on the AFL's website. It is likely that if these sources were searched, this player would be mentioned. It passes WP:NSPORT and there is a possibility it may pass WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the AFL International Cup is purely a development league played by amateurs and is a much lower level of play than most suburban leagues, it is nowhere near the "highest level of competition for Australian rules football". None of the references provided are significant coverage in major independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. --Allen3 ^talk 12:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Forn Sed Assembly[edit]

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

Not a notable organization, judging from the paucity of hits in Google Books and News (under the new and the old name). Article itself is unsourced. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neopaganism in Scandinavia#Sweden, where most of the information in the stub is already also located. LadyofShalott 04:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know redirects are cheap (I read that somewhere on Wikipedia), but why a redirect for a term with so little currency? While dinosaurs are dying to be turned into oil to provide the energy for Wikipedia's server to preserve the information? Drmies (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, is this is our first quarrel? ♥ Drmies (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The problem was that an editor had changed the spelling of the organization's original name from Asatrosamfund to the incorrect Asatrusamfund. And it only changed its name in mid-2010. It's one of the most frequently mentioned Scandinavian heathen groups; lots of passing mentions in the emerging scholarly field of the study of neopaganism, and I hope to find online some of the newspaper coverage of the blót at Gamla Uppsala, which made a splash. In addition I discovered it was the primary subject of an academic monograph published in 2000 (Asatro i tiden), and there is a multi-page segment in another academic book (Hedendomen i historiens spegel, published in 2005, reissued 2009). I have not yet added the latter to the article or made the newspaper search, but I've fleshed out the article with references including a review of the 2000 monograph. At this point it clearly demonstrates notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Noting that I did add the coverage in the second book I referred to above, and that I've now added references to three Swedish newspapers, including an external link to an interview with a member about modern Ásatrú. The article is now pretty full of references to independent and reliable sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Nothing I ever seen in the sources listed, nor the newspaper articles listed seems to support statements that this very obscure organisation should be able to support its 300 members claim to date. The information is very spurious at best, and very clearly, contributor "Ylvadottir" could well be on of its very few remaining members. At this point intime, there is nothing that suggests notability, and all relevant facts can easily be found on the "neopaganism in Scandinavia" page

(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. Its membership has apparently fluctuated a lot, and I didn't find a source on that any more recent than 2009. But it's been covered in numerous reliable sources, which is our criterion for notability. Did you look at the sources I added? Perhaps you are unaware that non-English-language sources are acceptable? Do you require me to translate any key sentences that I did not translate? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and note that AdamDavid72 seems to be a single purpose account dedicated to this AFD. See contributions. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I heard about this group longtime back, definately notable. Do also note that notability is not limited by time. --Soman (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Charles Guthridge[edit]

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

A farm worker with a few descendants and of no notability Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator may well have a low opinion of farm workers but the subject was "recognised in 1998 by the Premier of Victoria in Australia as one of the earliest and most significant pioneers of the State". Few descendants is also no barrier to notability although thirteen children does not strike me a "few". There are sufficient independent, significant, reliable sources (in relation to his commemoration) for notability to be supported. Thincat (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Thincat and a check of Trove showing multiple sources. --LauraHale (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I don't have a low opinion of farmworkers, I was born on a farm and trace my ancestry back to 1250 through a family of predominantly farmworkers. Anybody can have a commemorative plaque erected for dear old granddad and if one of the family happens to know the Premier and an election is in the offing then the Premier may well unveil the plaque. The fact remains that Guthridge did nothing of note, arrived quite late after Victoria was already a State, the gold rushes were old news and he farmed a bit of scrub in a settled area of the state. I have 21 ancestors who came to Australia from 26 January 1788 until a final late straggler in 1848 and who had sufficient descendants in Australia to populate a small town when Guthridge was still in nappies- if I was to copy/paste a couple of thousand genealogy articles of my earlier antecedents to Wikipedia, even with Trove references, would the community suggest they be kept? Perhaps John Nichols (Scarborough, 1788) goes close to notability but I am no hurry to create an article for him Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per multiple sources. If the nominator does indeed have lots of ancestors who can boast a similar number of mentions in reliable sources, I invite them to get writing! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Western Canadian Championship (Gaelic football)[edit]

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

Non-notable Canadian Provinces Gaelic football competition. PRODed, but PROD was removed by creator. Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do you want to move for the 2004-08 Western Canadian Championship articles as well?Tyrenon (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likely. I'll wait a moment, to see if there is reaction to this and 2 parallel noms.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Axed the article to a stub and added refs. Now good enough to stay. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Addition: The seperate year articles do not add anything of note that is not covered by the now stubbed parent. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Three thoughts. First -- we need multiple, substantial, independent RSs as refs. It seems that we still lack that. Second -- even the lone book that is used as a ref is a book published by Trafford Publishing, a publisher that requires payment from the author to cover set-up costs and prints shorter runs or even one copy at a time in response to orders from the author or from retail customers, and therefore does not appear to be an RS. See the content guideline WP:USERGENERATED. Third -- may I refer/link to your comment above at the individual year articles? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, you can not refer to my comments. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apart from the source provided by NotBW, I can find nothing else mentioning the league. As Epeefleche has noted, the O'Flynn source is not incredibly reliable, and it seems to be all we have. Unless more sources can be found, this does not meet our notability guidelines. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did find a lot of coverage in "Celtic Connection". Unfortunately, I am not sure if it is a newspaper or a "club magazine". Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To answer Night of the Big Wind's question above, GNews turns up some references to Celtic Connection as a legitimate community newspaper, including this one from the Vancouver Sun saying, "For month-by-month, year-by-year coverage of Celtic doings, though, nothing approaches publisher Maura McCay's monthly Celtic Connection newspaper -- www.celtic-connection.com -- the 153rd edition of which is out now and as handsomely wide-reaching as ever." Adding that to the book, there's (barely) enough to support the topic. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that means? Fail or pass? Night of the Big Wind _talk

The book does not count at all towards notability. As discussed above, it is clearly not an RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a senior championship and therefore meets notability for gaelic games. Murry1975 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one umbrella article: I came here from the comment on the individual championships. I think that those should be merged into this, and this should be kept Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Purple. All those articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Canadian Championship 2009 redirect to this one. It should definitely be kept from that consensus. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 15:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article completely fails WP:VERIFY. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pathorghata Govt. Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary school. Fails WP:ORG Edison (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: not notable. "Pepper" @ 15:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bzweebl (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Although the Article does not give online references it may be a case of wp:BIAS . I propose merging the article to the main article of its district with a redirection to the subsection--Ðℬig XЯaɣ 11:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This one's been open for a little while, so I'll close it. Consensus here is that the subject meets the GNG. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 02:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Philippe Lemercier Laroche[edit]

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

Delete. Except for connection with Titanic, not notable. There were 1,500 other fatalities. 90% of them were WP:NN either. Citations do not provide any suggestion of notability. Student7 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. None of the other passenger victims were black. An Ebony magazine article and other sources[21][22][23] attest to this distinction and the lack of notice it received until recently. A three-act opera was based on his life, according to Atlanta magazine. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - based on WP:GNG and WP:RS, this should be kept; but from WP:ONEEVENT, I'd lean against it. What do others think? Bearian (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The claim, and it is just a claim, he was the only black passenger to die (others lived). Are they claiming that there were no black stewards or cooks who died? Or other staff? A bit elitist if the crew were overlooked IMO. Also, the claim is very 1990s PC. What about the only Tibetan? Or only Native American? Or only Peruvian? Or only follower of Zoroaster. This can be carried on ad infiniturm without improving the encyclopedia very much. Bearian has hit on the correct answer with ONEEVENT. People need more for true notability. Student7 (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It isn't "just a claim". Did you not notice the multiple references backing it up? Also, he was the only black passenger period (unless you count his two half black/half white daughters). If there had been a sole Tibetan or Native American or Zoroastrian Titanic fatality, perhaps they too would have been written about or had operas based on them many decades later. Laroche did. To me, that shows long-term notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The opera based on his life, his relationship to Haitian President Leconte, and his unique experience on the RMS Titanic more than establish his notability. Am86 (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonably rescued by Clarityfiend. Locador (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Max Jones. Anyhthing worth merging can be done so, as long as it's properly attributed. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 02:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Felice News[edit]

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

An earlier version of this article was deleted previously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felice News. The sourcing has improved somewhat since then such that I didn't want to invoke WP:CSD#G4 to have it speedily deleted as a repost of deleted content. However, the article is still sufficiently problematic that I don't think the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant an article.

The subject is a web site created by a then-12-year-old, now 14-year-old, to report only positive news. Apparently the site once had a weekly news webcast, but as far as I can tell that was abandoned a while back in favor of rare webcasts on special occasions, although none of those are archived. The site now focuses primarily on reprinting articles from wire services, most of which are attributed to "Newsroom Staff".

This article claims that "Felice News is currently the world's largest & most popular all-positive news outlet" -- sourced to Felice News's own Twitter feed. "The website has reporters on all continents, including Antarctica" -- that's sourced to the site's "About Us" page, but I have found no articles on the site that were reported from Antarctica. "The show Jones hosted, entitled Felice Royal Wedding, was broadcasted live around the world via Felice News' website, which generated hundreds of thousands of viewers worldwide" -- that's sourced to the site's "About Us" page again, which doesn't claim hundreds of thousands of viewers for the show anyway.

Felice News appears to be an ambitious and well-meaning project, and it has received a small amount of mainstream news coverage, but I don't see any evidence that it actually is as significant as it is portrayed in this article or has achieved as much as this article claims it has. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just updated to include some other links. Not all articles are from 'Newsroom Staff/Wires'. The majority are actually done by reporters. Sure, the site isn't updated as often as most, but they have a pretty big following, and have also achieved a number of pretty high-profile interviews. See Good News Toronto Article. • SayItRight1(talk) 15:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Talk:Felice News. I've been reviewing the sections of the site to determine whether the majority of their articles are original reporting or from other sources. In the sections I've reviewed so far, the majority have been from other sources. I also question whether the site has a "pretty big following" -- its Alexa ranking is 593,072 [24]. By contrast, HappyNews.com, another positive news site, ranks 70,525 [25]. Thus, it is unlikely that Felice News could be the "most popular all-positive news outlet" as this article claims. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Max Jones. Coverage mentioning the site is primarily about him and what he has done and Felice can be aduquetly covered on that page. Given the hoaxy and spammy nature of this article it should not remain. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as Duffbeerforme. The article is, as far as I can tell, supported by almost 100% self-published sources, thus not meeting the eligibility for having its own article. Cloudz 679 12:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Glenmore Park, New South Wales. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surveyors Creek Public School[edit]

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

Primary school. Years kindergarten-6. Review of gbooks and gnews fails to turn up multiple, notable, substantial, non-passing, independent RS coverage. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no argument for deletion here. The phrase "...they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article" says nothing about deletion, and only implies a case for merger. Unscintillating (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N states (emphasis added): "Articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, although there are alternatives."--Epeefleche (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If when the cock crows, the sun generally rises; this does not mean that the sun rises because the cock crows. If when articles fail notability, they generally get deleted; this does not mean that the article was deleted because the topic failed notability. Unscintillating (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with this one, no evidence of any particular notability. The school is already listed in the article for Glenmore Park, New South Wales, which should be sufficient. Sionk (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no argument for deletion here, WP:SK#1 remains applicable. Unscintillating (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All primary schools with WP:V verifiable sources will be prominent. I have only looked at the article page, and see that the topic has reliable, WP:V verifiable sources. I don't know that this school is or is not notable, but it is not a question that needs to be answered. We want to keep the edit history, and the issue of being both prominent and non-notable and where to redirect can be dealt with on the article talk page. Note that WP:N is just a guideline, so if no suitable redirects can be agreed to on the talk page, it is acceptable to keep this article as a standalone. Unscintillating (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary schools are not deemed notable and worthy of a stand-alone article on the basis that there are verifiable sources as to their existence. As WP:N puts it, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists".

Rather, "notability" is the test used to decide whether a school can have its own article. As WP:N states, the "Article .. must be notable".

Furthermore, the guideline tells us "Articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, although there are alternatives."

WP:N is a guideline, and as such is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:N is a generally accepted guideline that editors should attempt to follow, and WP:N exists in the context of the content policies from which it derives. As per WP:N, wp:Notability is not by itself a reason to delete an article, without there being objectionable material as per content policies to support hiding the edit history from public view:

Notability does not directly affect the content of articles...
The primary purpose of these [notability] standards is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies.
...these requirements are based on major content policies... Unscintillating (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N states (emphasis added): "Articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, although there are alternatives." If you follow our ongoing AfDs, you will see that every day many articles are deleted for failing to meet our notability guidelines. That is all that is needed. There is not -- as you suggest -- a requirement that we keep articles that are non-notable per our standards, but do not have "objectionable material". Quite the opposite, as the quote that begins this post indicates.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than reference WP:WHAT_OTHER_PEOPLE_DO, your argument that notability is by itself a reason for deletion would be stronger if you cited WP:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion. But doing so brings us directly to the next section that is titled WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, which says, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing". This statement is our policy. Because we have WP:V verifiable material and a topic that we want to include in the encyclopedia somewhere somehow, and in the worst case we want to keep the redirect and the edit history, there is no case for deletion here. Unscintillating (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it deeply interesting the argument that we can delete the work of volunteer editors even when there is nothing objectionable about the material. Unscintillating (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to redirect to Glenmore Park, New South Wales. There's no evidence of this meeting WP:ORG. Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have never seen an AfD decision to merge protected at the article by the admin closing the AfD. This is one of the reasons that bringing a topic to AfD without an argument for deletion is a diversion of editorial resources. Unscintillating (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I do not see anything particularly notable about this school --Guerillero | My Talk 15:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Feldman[edit]

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

borderline musician. article is a resume, BLPProded multiple times and removed. Refs included do not meet RS standards imo. proposing for deletion to achieve consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to fail WP:BIO as a basically unremarkable person. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources myself. Robofish (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the merits; even if the UNC program were to get substantial coverage, there would need to be substantial coverage of Mr. Feldman himself in order to meet the requirements of our Notability rules; I'm not seeing that coverage at present. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clearly to keep and improve here. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 02:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crimesterdam[edit]

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

All of the people are redlinks, and does not assert notability with third-party sources. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is about an Armenian rock band. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, article is about an Armenia-based band. Would it be better if people get unlinked, at least from main content? Or I can deliver band members' pages as soon as possible. Although, it might be another problem as most of the sources (not all) would be in Armenian. Goyushek (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep. I'd vote for removing the unnecessary bunch of links instead, and providing a couple of third-party sources for the band biography, releases information, etc. Dharmist (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinks removed, more sources added. Goyushek (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:AGF (I don't speak Armenian). It looks like we've got enough sources to justify an article, which was one of the main concerns above. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Treating as an uncontested PROD. Can be recreated or restored by a reguest to WP:REFUND. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brimstone Butterfly (music)[edit]

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

I found no notability. The MTV Up North Chart does not appear to be a significant chart. This band fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bandana thrash[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources to be found. Even one of the three sources currently in the article states that the genre doesn't exist. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by User:Fastily under criteria G7. Gongshow ^Talk 14:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spell 336[edit]

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

I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources; the article's current references consist of links to non-notable blogs, online retailers and social networking sites. The discography entries don't appear to satisfy criterion 5 of WP:MUSIC, and I'm not finding evidence of subject meeting any of the guideline's other criteria - or WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 00:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 00:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gloom[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of User:82.132.242.60. Reason given was "the page is purely synthesis and a definition of a word. Gloom is not a notable concept". FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 11:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This seems redundant to darkness. Portions of this are actually superior to Darkness#Artistic, and as such are worth preserving. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gloom is not darkness. It is a dim light with a specific physiological basis as explained by the source "The physiological basis for the sensation of gloom. Warden (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gloom is both an ambient lighting condition and an emotion, and there are serious scientific works linking the twain. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Smerdis. Either move dab page here or redirect to Gloom (disambiguation). Keep per discussion below. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The topic is obviously notable per the WP:GNG as it is the subject of independent, reliable sources such as "The physiological basis for the sensation of gloom and Gloom as a psychophysical phenomenon. No specific synthetic proposition is detailed and so that is just name-calling unsupported by logic or evidence. The nomination seems quite improper in several respects: the authors of the article were not notified; there was no talk page discussion; and there's a history of disruption of this article being harassment by the banned sockmaster Claritas. Nominations on behalf of banned users are obviously improper per WP:BAN and so the discussion should be speedily closed per WP:SK#2. Warden (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Colonel Warden, except for the "Speedy" part and the propriety of the nomination. Fastily wasn't acting in bad faith, but a quick look at Special:Contributions/82.132.242.60 does strongly indicate that xe was duped into this nomination by a vandal. Researching the subject, I see things like Zhang, Julian & Purcell 2008 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFZhangJulianPurcell2008 (help) in addition to what Colonel Warden has turned up. Yes, this appears to be two concepts, that serious scientific research has studied and linked. There's probably stuff to say on the subject from a literary analysis viewpoint, too, although I've only given that a cursory look. de Maar 1924 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFde_Maar1924 (help) wrote about the 18th century "literature of Gloom", for example, and Docker 1984 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDocker1984 (help) espouses a gloom thesis in Australian literature that others have picked up (e.g. Huggan 2007 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHuggan2007 (help)).
- Zhang, Y; Julian, W; Purcell, T (2008). "Visual perception of gloom". Perception. 37 ECVP Abstract Supplement: 103.
- de Maar, Harko Gerrit (1924). "The Literature of Gloom". A history of modern English romanticism: Elizabethan and modern romanticism in the eighteenth century. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Ardent Media.
- Docker, John (1984). "The Gloom Thesis". In a critical condition: reading Australian literature. Penguin Books. ISBN 9780140225679.
- Huggan, Graham (2007). Australian literature: postcolonialism, racism, transnationalism. Oxford studies in postcolonial literatures in English. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199274628.
Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks to me as if there are sufficient sources to support notability as an optical condition, and also as a psychological effect arising from or analogous to that condition. And it's not the same as darkness, -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An article this size with tons of references (all good ones) makes it clearly notable. Notability is established, along with reliable sources given. The term "gloom" as mentioned above, is distinct from darkness. Tinton5 (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Noone seems to dispute the verifiability of the article content, but there are differing opinions on whether or not Kernighan meets our notability guidelines. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Kernighan[edit]

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

WP:POLITICIAN Notability of article subject: 1) City councilmember is not a statewide/provincialwide office. 2) A search failed to find significant press coverage. 3) There are no reliable sources, independent of the subject, which indicate Kernighan to be a major political figure with significant press coverage. Callanecc (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Copied from the article's talk page.

notable for Independent Run-off Voting advocacy
notable for election to city council of 8th largest city in state, covered extensively in that role
Previously notable as district 2's chief of staff

(also, remember to search for "pat kernighan", not just "patricia kernighan") --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whilst independent run-off voting maybe an important issue. To reach the required level, it must be demostrated that she is both a major local political figure and that she has received significant press coverage. I submit that neither of these has been established. Callanecc (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Please note that callanecc is the nominator, and has thus already !voted above. Kevin (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Appears to meet and have established wp:notability. Also has RW notability, council-person for a city of 390,000 people, with some extra prominence & coverage for advocacy. North8000 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seven years running a major US city = plenty of RSes for WP:BASIC. Article is still young and stub-ish, but subject is a notable local politician covered extensively over the past decade. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Councillor in a largish city is not sufficient for notability. Mayor would be, council member is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and the refs in the article are not about her, they're about legislation that she had a role in passing. Searching doesn't turn up anything major about her. Valenciano (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extended comment-- please, don't get all deletey, gang.

Let's remember about WP:POLITICIAN: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."

Kernighan does not automatically get notability for her seat, but she's been covered extensively over the past few decades in the local, regional and sometimes national media. She's been covered in multiple independent sources across a variety of sources, subjects, and timeframes.

Notable means "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".-- not "famous".

The point of notablity is that just that we need reliable sources to be able to talk intelligently about a subject. The point of notability is NOT 'importance' of subject. Notability means sufficient RSes exist that we can create an article, it's not a 'badge' we bestow on a subject based on our own judgement.

I realize city councilperson may not seem like a very 'notable' person to most people in most places. But if you're a resident of oakland, the city with the fifth highest crime rate in the nation, your city councilmember would probably matter a lot to you. and indeed, we see this reflected by all the Reliable Sources that make mention of this leader too.

Too long to read? WP:BASIC is obviously met, even if WP:POLITICIAN isn't obviously met. --HectorMoffet (talk)

QUOTE: "I realize city councilperson may not seem like a very 'notable' person to most people in most places. But if you're a resident of oakland, the city with the fifth highest crime rate in the nation, your city councilmember would probably matter a lot to you. and indeed, we see this reflected by all the Reliable Sources that make mention of this leader too."

You could make that argument about just about every local councillor everywhere. If these reliable sources exist, why aren't they in the article? Also why do you keep saying she's a leader? None of the sources give her any kind of leadership role?

Okay then let's take WP:NOTABILITY: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."

I'd submit that certainly on the basis of the sources currently in the article, she definitely does not meet notability criteria. Let's take the refs in turn....

Ref 1 Seems to be a very local paper reporting election results. Nothing exceptional about that. Just about every local councillor will have their election reported somewhere.

Ref 2 news in passing and a blog to boot therefore likely not a reliable source.

Ref 3 is about Danny Wan and she gets a brief one line mention. Definitely not the type of in depth coverage we're looking for here.

Ref 4 from the East Bay Young Democrats, can definitely be dismissed as it is not independent of the subject.

Ref 5 is behind a pay archive but the title "local elections carry weight" hardly seems promising. Lacking access, I'd say an educated guess would suggest that it's about the change to the electoral system, not about Kernighan.

Refs 6 and 7 are from fairvote.org which seems to fail reliable sourcing criteria as a pressure or special interest group.

Ref 8 Kernighan isn't even mentioned, so we can forget that.

Ref 9 about the introduction of a new voting system, briefly mentions that she co-sponsored the legislation, doesn't cover her in any depth.

Ref 10 the same as ref 9, with the added disadvantage of being in a very local paper.

Ref 11 is dead but seems to suffer the same issue as refs 9 and 10.

Ref 12 is from the Oakland city homepage, not independent of her and can therefore be dismissed.

Ref 13], has her doing the type of thing that every local councillor does: supporting very local legislation. The focus in the source is the legislation passed, not her.

There are a few more links messily tagged on at the end. Of those this is a blog and therefore doesn't count per WP:BLOG. An official bio from the council page, again not relevant for judging notability per ref 12 reasoning above. One of them, which I just removed, duplicates ref 4 above. This one a blog albeit from a larger newspaper, is mostly about the resignation of a police chief, with Kernighan supplying a few quotes.

As sources go The New York Times is a bit better, but again isn't about her, let alone covering her in depth. It's about the marijuana issue.

Finally, we're left with an interview in the Berkeley Daily Planet. While that's getting closer to what we need, the source itself is of questionable quality. Here's what Wikipedia currently says: "The Berkeley Daily Planet was a free weekly newspaper published in Berkeley, California, which continues today as an internet-based news publication. The Daily Planet is politically progressive, and offers endorsements of progressive and liberal to left leaning candidates." That doesn't sound like a reliable source to me.

BDP isn't a RS?!? An unorthodox conclusion indeed. Biased, perhaps-- but journalistic organizations with biases can still be reliable sources-- especially as used here, to establish basic, undisputed facts. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Hector. The BDP is a reliable source, especially in the context of interviewing a local politician. It has editorial oversight, is a recognized news organization, and at the time the piece was published had a print edition that was widely distributed in the area and employed fulltime journalists. (of course, having a print edition is certainly not a requirement for reliability.) Kevin (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So in summary what are we left with? Lots of sources in the article yes, but a classic case of quantity not quality. Not all of them even mention her and when we get down to it, they either are associated with her, are unreliable sources or mention her very briefly. The in depth coverage in reliable sources is therefore lacking and WP:GNG is therefore not met. Valenciano (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds more like the crux of your argument is that the current version of the article isn't very good. But a young article does not imply a non-notable subject.

As you look through the references, none of them claim "this person is famous". But notability is the standard. The Councilwoman is notable-- indeed, SF bay area media have been 'taking note' of her for many years now. Even the NYT has taken note of her.

The article could be better-- there ARE many more sources out there-- but let's invoke WP:SOFIXIT, not deletion. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability as in, "she got a few brief mentions here and there in passing in stories about other issues or people" is NOT the standard. The standard is at WP:NOTABILITY: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The coverage in almost all the sources listed is about issues. Not about her. I completely disagree that the NYT has taken note of her, its article is plainly about the issue of marijuana, not about her, that applies to the bulk of the other sources, as I've detailed above.

The crux of my argument isn't that article isn't very good, that's fixable. It's that the sources in the article aren't good enough to sustain an independent bio and further that searching for other sources per WP:BEFORE doesn't turn up anything better. Valenciano (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess your ideal Wikipedia is just a lot thinner than my ideal Wikipedia. Oakland has a population about the size of the nation of Iceland-- the citizens of those places deserve Wikipedia's help in documenting the basic verifiable facts about their leaders. Sometimes there may not any RS to go on, but in this case, there are. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to George Louis below. Valenciano (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreeing with HectorMoffet. My "Keep" was for meeting WP:GNG, not for meeting a "being famous" criteria which does not exist. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources already present pass the GNG, and more are likely to exist (not all news sources in the area have online archives that are indexed by google news.) She's an influential city council member in a large city who has received at least some media coverage focused on her, and, additionally, all of the tangential mentions of her already posted mean that there are certainly enough sources to write a well verified article about her. Kevin (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People who live in the San Francisco Bay Area, indeed in almost all of Northern California, want to know about her. Wikipedia is the place to find the information. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such arguments often come up in these type of discussions: "Readers have a right to find out info about person X" or "Wikipedia has a duty to its readers to provide info about..." but they have absolutely no basis in policy, readers have no such right and wikipedia has no such duty. In fact such arguments are specifically discouraged. WP:INTERESTING says: "Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals, and potentially, any subject or topic may be of interest to some editor somewhere. However, personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article."

The question per policy that we need to ask ourselves in deletion debates are: has the person met the notability criteria or have they met the criteria for their profession? The person clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. On WP:NOTABILITY, (If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention) I've detailed above why the refs provided are insufficient, being as they are either blogs, sources connected with the subject (East Bay Young Dems/Oakland council page) or trivial mentions which do not address the subject directly in detail, are about other people (the police chief, another politician) or in some cases, fail to mention her at all.

We need to consider this on the basis of what Wikipedia says is notable, not on what editors believe should be notable. Valenciano (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She seems to have adequate coverage to qualify for notability. See [26] and [27] which show multiple stories about her in multiple Independent Reliable Sources, at least two of which (the Oakland Tribune and the San Francisco Chronicle) are regional rather than purely local in scope. Valenciano please note: notability is independent of the article's current state. Whether or not you consider the sources currently provided in the article to be sufficient, sources DO exist which prove notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I was going to close this as "delete" or "no consensus" after discounting the "X needs to know about Y" type !votes and consensus is that the sources currently in the article don't cut it but MelenieM has suggested that there is independent significant coverage from regional news sources found by google news but not currently in the article so I'm giving this some more time to consider such sources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Kevin (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gets regional coverage, not just local. Passes WP:GNG Dream Focus 15:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A losing candidate who only has local coverage doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. This should never have been relisted after almost all the references in the article were discounted. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, a losing candidate? So I take it - you haven't read the article? Kevin (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the refs do not demonstrate notability. Mt king ^(edits) 01:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meta Comment: What's it like on this side of deletion.

My time is surprisingly valuable to me. I have family duties, I have work duties, I balance them all.

I gave Wikipedia a gift of my time. I gave it a little piece of my life.

If you keep and improve it, I will be vastly more inclined to donate even more of my time in the future.

If you take my time and throw it in the trash, I will have a different reaction. I probably won't feel very welcome here at Wikipedia, and I probably won't feel very open to giving Wikipedia any of my own time-- after all why waste more time on things that will just get deleted??

Again, the point about isn't me personally-- I'm just one person, not an important one, and I'll probably keep contributing anyway. But u guys need to know-- deletions have a very real, lasting emotional consequence that cripples editor morale. Make sure you realize that, make sure you remember that "Delete !votes" carry a cost to our mission.

I do understand-- we must have deletions-- bad-faith contributions, illegal contributions, etc. And I understand my personal feelings can't influence this deletion discussion-- that'd be inappropriate.

But in future-- if we continue deleting our inexperienced volunteers contributions, left and right, for failure to comply with byzantine codes of rules that are indecipherable to newcomers- we will see recruitment dry up, at least with "normal people".

(End Comment, pls disregard these remarks in closing, I recognize they're meta-issues not relevant to the actual issue at hand, but this seemed best venue) --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above "meta-comment" was also posted at the Village Pump, and the discussion is taking place there. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:POLITICIAN. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG with no difficulty. Rich Farmbrough, 16:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Yaloe Yaloe (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it because she is a Notable person, having been elected to a public office and having the required Reliable Sources, not simply because she is Interesting to any individual Editor. Yes, some of the sources are rather self-serving, but they can be discounted in favor of the neutral sources. It really doesn't matter how big or small the city is: The criterion is Notability. She and the other Oakland City Council members are Notable and should be included in WP when there are Reliable Sources to prove it. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My initial plan was to try to generate good articles for all the oakland city councilmembers who meet GNG, but obviously, only if Wikipedia wants me to attempt to do so.--HectorMoffet (talk) 02:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; being a city council member doesn't make someone instantaneously notable. We had a series of recent AfDs regarding city council members from Sacramento, some that were deleted, others were kept. They were judged by the same standards of GNG, BIO, and POLITICIAN like any other politician. Now due to the level of one's office a subject maybe considered automatically notable, such as a mayor of a major city, however past consensus was that Council Members are not automatically notable as their office hasn't been considered notable in and of themselves. For instance should there be an article for every councilmember of a City of population greater than X? If so what is X? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't decide in advance, we let the reliable sources dictate it for us. If you're on city council of a sleepy little village with no real budget and major agenda, then you won't get covered in the major press.

If your city council role is very important, then journalists will have taken note of it, and we in turn will be able to write an article using only reliable sources.

We can write a thousand words of policy creep, but notable just means "Enough Reliable Sources available to write a good, verified article". --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript-- if we were to set a 'target goal', I would shoot for trying to write good articles for elected officials who represent 100,000 or more people-- that's about how many constituents a UK MP has, for example. But that number's pretty meaningless-- WP:RS means we have to decide on case by case basis. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Fire Safety. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fire safety plan[edit]

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

Deprodded for no good reason. Listy, somewhere between a how-to and a dicdef. Can't see this being anything more than what it is now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited to date (see WP:NOEFFORT) --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We already have Fire Safety. The style is also non-encyclopedic in parts. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is worthy. Could be merged to Fire safety, as a section or kept separate per WP:Summary style.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 19:35, 12 February 2012‎

Fire safety plan a plausible redirect to Fire safety. Accordingly "listy, somewhere between a how-to and a dicdef" is not a valid rationale for deletion. AfD is not for merger proposals. James500 (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As very note worthy and is used in commercial buildings throughout the US. It is required by law through building codes. It should be included as a separate listing within the Wiki.. Other sources of reference might include [[28]]. Similar codes may exist world wide.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fire Safety. Article seems a bit redundant, and this info can be merged into the primary topic. Also, this page is not globalized, since it mentions only North America. Tinton5 (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 07:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ligi Ndogo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Whatever material is of any importance could be folded into Ligi Ndogo S.F.C., which already has a reference to it in the lead. Reviewing news coverage is confusing because it's hard (at least for me) to tell what relates to the "soccer club" or school, and what relates to the "senior football club". Currently, this article has no secondary sources establishing any notability. Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Sources given don't establish notability. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bzweebl (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ear Force X31[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I repeat the same rationale behind the PROD: Non-notable headset that has already been discontinued. Perhaps a mention of the series of headphones in the Turtle Beach Systems article, but I don't see how a specific headphone such as this warrants a separate article. --MuZemike 21:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) --MuZemike 21:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Derek Andrews (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I do see coverage, such as, [29][30][31], though it's mostly announcements paraphrasing the original press release. So it's "primary" and not critical evaluation/review. Probably fails product notability. I don't see where a claim like "It become the top-seller headset that has spun over 130,000 purchases of the X31" is backed up. It does sound just like WP:PROMO. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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