Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 February	5 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 keep. L Faraone 02:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Gentile[edit]

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

Apparent autobiography, or at least someone with a similar name created the article. Non-notable minor league hockey player. A prod tag was removed by the article's creator. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claims of playing for the New York Islanders cannot be verified. The reference that was in the article earlier does not mention the pro team. ... discospinster _talk 23:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article didn't say he played for the Islanders it said he played for the Islanders organization. What that means is that he plays for one of its farm teams. The reference in the article did actually support what he was saying. Per WP:NHOCKEY he meets the notability requirements by playing 100 games on a minor league team. -DJSasso (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Couldn't find a player with this name on the Islander's official website/roster. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NHOCKEY by playing more than 100 games in a professional league. In his case the ECHL, IHL and AHL as seen at hockeydb.com. As for autobiography I don't think that is the case, I am thinking its a fan of the team he plays for. -DJSasso (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NHOCKEY criteria #3 as also pointed out by DJSasso above. -Pparazorback (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Patken4 (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while he is not a member of the Islanders organization, he is a professional ice hockey players with WP:RS backing. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As discussed above, meets the relevant hockey notability guideline.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DJSasso. Rlendog (talk) 17:51, 10 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. L Faraone 02:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Black Light[edit]

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

Article about a box set containing recordings that already have their own articles. Box set not notable enough to have it's own as it does not seem to meet WP:NALBUMS. --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any coverage for this "very limited" box set in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Gongshow ^Talk 08:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced. I'm not seeing any good references in google. Notability not inheritable from contents. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:20, 11 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 speedily deleted by Fastily (WP:CSD#G7, author requested). --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rasheed Sulaimon[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NBASKETBALL. --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This page was recreated but I cannot verify how close this page is to the original, so I did not nominate for speedy. --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Hairhorn (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This article contains content about a notable person who is comparable to several notable people who have approved Wikipedia pages i.e. Marcus Paige, Shabazz Muhammad, Alex Murphy (basketball), Mitch McGary etc. <--- If this page is subject to possible delete then the referenced similar pages should also be subject to deletion. This page references several verfied independent objective sources to back up all content on the page. Google the name and it is pretty obvious that this is a notable person more so than some of the pages referenced above. Searching for Rasheed Sulaimon generates over 53,000 results on Google that include national articles, images, videos, and more. Sulaimon has also has participated in (All American Championship - ESPN, Boost Mobile Elite 24 - ESPNU) and is scheduled to appear (2012 Jordan Brand Classic All American game - ESPN, alumni for this event include several NBA players) in several nationally televised events on ESPN and ESPNU. Also note that Sulaimon also clearly meets the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) criteria for High school and pre-high school athletes which states: High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Note that the first clause would exclude all school papers and school websites that cover their sports teams and other teams they compete against. The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability. -BasketballNeverStops (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it's time to re-assess notability standards for American HS and college athletes. Now, in the internet and 200-channel age there are a plethora of media outlets that cover college and HS sports. All of these are going to reach fairly deeply into the pool they cover to come up with content since there is so much competition for eyeballs. Sites like Scout and Rivals have to come up with 24/7 content and they are going to profile the top 200 or so HS players regardless of what their future holds. The question is if there is now a new standard of "routine coverage" or not. I am open-minded about the direction we go, but I think it needs to be clarified. How can guys like Sulaimon and Marcus Paige be notable when we are having AfD discussions about productive college players like JaMychal Green and Jon Leuer? A lot of these guys won't even pan out to be good college players, let alone professionals. If we can clearly define the standard beyond the nebulous GNG I think it would help a lot. Frankly, with the proliferation of media outlets, I think a LOT of people and things pass GNG - more than you would expect to see in an encyclopedia for certain. At any rate, this definitely shouldn't be "speedy kept" if for no other reason than it was deleted once and the subject hasn't suddenly become more notable since. Rikster2 (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Worth Noting - The article creator seems to be conected to the subject. Rikster2 (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to User:BasketballNeverStops' assertion that this should be kept since articles like Marcus Paige, Shabazz Muhammad, and Alex Murphy (basketball) exist, that argument holds no water at all per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What exists on this website is judged on a case-by-case basis, not a catch-all topical criterion. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a closer call than most basketball-related AfD entries, but here's why my !vote is for delete: Perusing the sources on his article, most of them are directly off of Duke's athletic website or some derivative Duke fanboy website (failing independent coverage). Looking at the rosters of some top tier national high school all-star games, it doesn't go into any coverage on him other than basic vitals (name, age, height, weight, school, position etc.). The fact that he was selected to play in any of these games does not bestow inherent notability. Furthermore, the 3- or 4-sentence write-ups about each participant is a decent start but just not nearly enough to satisfy GNG, let alone when it comes to a high school player (i.e. high school players need to be more carefully scrutinized since their futures are so much more up in the air than even college athletes' are). Once I got through the rest of the listed sources it became clear that they are just athlete profiles, not articles.
My next step was to Google him. Everything I found on the first 3 pages of results led to either blogs, recruiting websites (whose inherent flaws as sources were pointed out by Rikster) or otherwise unreliable sources for various other reasons. Is Rasheed Sulaimon notable? Well, he has certainly garnered a lot more attention than 99.9% of high school basketball players, but that is not a criterion for notability and neither is Ghits, which User:BasketballNeverStops tried to argue. He may become notable a year from now, but to !vote keep on the presumption of his future notability is clearly crystal-balling. Great high school player? You bet. Notable per Wikipedia standards at the moment? No. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG, also seems that persons recommending delete have possible COI as they are creators of similar pages or go to alma maters different from the ones on this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.142 (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you can put the COI stuff in your pipe and smoke it. I am a Carolina fan, but I'm also the guy who put Leslie McDonald up for AfD. And I didn't vote delete either. Jrcla2 is a Duke fan so don't you look like a bozo? Rikster2 (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just wanted to let the record show that that yes, I am a Duke fan even though I graduated from William & Mary. I've created UNC basketball players' articles in the past and I'm voting delete on a future Dookie. Wow, that sure came back to bite you right in the butt. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments about the IP who !voted keep - This is a comment to any closing administrator that the IP who !voted keep is most likely the same person who created the article. This IP blanked the first AfD nomination, removed the AfD notice from the article, removed Rikster's and my comments from this AfD and also blanked Rasheed's talk page. Furthermore, this IP tried to !vote keep by saying it "meets GNG" without specifying how it does (which, by the way, my delete !vote clearly explained why GNG doesn't apply here), and then finally attempted to diminish Rikster's !vote by using the strawman fallacy. Whatever administrator is reading this should think very carefully about how much weight s/he wants to give this IP sockpuppet. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established. Duke sources and being on some basketball counting doe not prove notability to me. --GrapedApe (talk) 05:47, 8 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. L Faraone 02:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devils drop[edit]

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

Disputed prod - see article talk page. I cannot find any evidence for this place, let alone the extensive history given in the article. Fails WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. The proposed film that the author mentions on the article talk page, and about which there are "rumours" according to the article, is Devils hill, which I have nominated in a separate AfD. Jll (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My searches yielded nothing even approaching substantial coverage in reliable sources, and very little about anything with this name in Bradford (various other places are also nicknamed Devil's Drop). Seems very much like this article was created in order to attempt to form a background story for Devils hill, a seemingly unnotable future film being discussed at another AfD. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot find any substantiating mention outside of WP. I also note that the creator of both articles and one other significant contributor have only edited these two articles. Claret Ash 00:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of third party sources, seems like it was created for the purpose of promoting the project(s)... Sergecross73 msg me 21:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This appears to be unreferenced WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 10 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. Note: 1 IP voted twice, maybe thrice Xavexgoem (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al Garza[edit]

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

It should be noted this BLP is for Al Garza II, son of the founder of the Matrix System. The subject has no supported claims of martial arts notability. His MMA record on Sherdog is 1-2, but the author keeps changing it to 15-2. Training with notable fighters does not show notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Having received a $2000 government contract doesn't show notability, either. Finally, I can find nothing to show his writing passes WP:AUTHOR. Papaursa (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should noted that Al Garza's MMA record is before Sherdog became an online fight status. He has been fighting since 1996 and his record is 15-2-0. Sherdog has only 2 fights recorded because when they started recording fighters they didn't have access to his total record. His government contracts show credibility for his background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.55.60 (talk • contribs) 6 February 2012 98.112.55.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's fine as long as there are sources for his MMA record, otherwise the SOP is to go with what is sourced--and Sherdog is the standard reference for MMA records. I know Sherdog's records go back to at least 1996 (see Travis Fulton). Papaursa (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources for his underground fighting, that is why you cannot find sources for fights that have not been sanctioned. Even with fighters like Rickson Gracie who has hundreds of fights and most of them cannot be verified except through the family. Many fighters come in with a previous record not found on places like Sherdog. Let's get real here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.200.90 (talk • contribs) 7 February 2012

Please don't post comments in front of the nomination. If there are no sources, then it doesn't meet WP:V and shouldn't be listed. Please leave the verified facts alone unless you can source your changes. Papaursa (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing that shows this person is notable. Youtube videos don't show notability and IMO he doesn't meet WP:MMANOT, WP:MANOTE, or WP:AUTHOR. Astudent0 (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPThen you better start deleting a number of other people who have the same in-house sources. The sources come direct from the source just like many MMA fighters including the Gracie's, so delete them too. Al Garza and his father have been involved in the Martial Arts longer then you have been around including over a dozen books written, all found at Barnes and Noble, Amazon etc. They both are very notable. Get your facts straight.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.200.90 (talk • contribs) 10 February 2012

Please don't remove votes by other editors. I would also suggest you might want to look at WP:CIV and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Papaursa (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~Then you should follow it yourself WP:CIV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.200.90 (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can comment all you want, but just vote once. Papaursa (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria. In addition to previous comments, I would also say that being "a student of the Bible for over 20 years" does not make you notable, nor does being the son of a founder of a martial arts system. Unsubstantiated claims of championships and fights don't show notability either. I don't care how many books he's written, the question is whether he passes WP:AUTHOR, and I don't see any sources showing he does. Mdtemp (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing martial arts notability requirements. Also seems to be lacking independent sources for academic qualifications. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Independent sources? He has links to all his credentials. His Martial Arts background is very solid. Has anyone writing DELETE ever done anything successful like win titles and written books? Give me a break. You all act like Al Garza being posted here is so wrong, It's just Wikipedia for information. This isn't some special members only site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.55.60 (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails gng Pass a Method talk 09:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:RS. I also strongly object to the personal attacks that are coming from the article's sole champion, who should brush up on WP:CIV as well as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Qworty (talk) 06:54, 12 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 as a hoax. Kubigula (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weight-Increase Phobia[edit]

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

WP:NEOLOGISM, zero Google hits. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and perhaps wp:hoax. --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V and WP:NOR, based on Google books. Unscintillating (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The topic of "Weight phobia" itself is covered in tertiary sources: The encyclopedia of obesity and eating disorders, Eating disorders in the Mediterranean area: an exploration in transcultural psychology. Renamed to Weight phobia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what this article is about. This is someone posting about an insult he and someone else had for another over weightlifting. That's it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~The article's scope and content have been completely revised (see below).~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and important note) - The article has been entirely restructured with a new topical focus upon Weight phobia, all original research has been removed. I'm working on the article, here's two references I've added to it:

~~Cassell, Dana K.; et al. (2000). "The encyclopedia of obesity and eating disorders". Facts On File. ISBN 0816040427. Retrieved February 4, 2012.~~
~~Ruggiero, Giovanni Maria (2003). "Eating disorders in the Mediterranean area: an exploration in transcultural psychology". Nova Biomedical Books. Retrieved February 4, 2012. ISBN 1590337131~~

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying in effect is that you've gone ahead and unlaterally deleted an article that was under AfD so that you could create an article on a different topic under a different name? That is tremendously inappropriate. If you feel that there should be an article on weight phobia, good for you, go start one, but changing title and content of an existing article is not the way that that is done. I am going to go revert the article to what it was so that this AfD can properly continue. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Topic is entirely original research, and likely a hoax. The new article Weight phobia covers this topic appropriately. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of that, and for putting in good effort on weight phobia! --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:45, 5 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Community Treatment Solutions[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows this organization's notability. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local organization, whose scope is limited to Monmouth Country, NJ. Such are almost never notable unless there's something really unusual. I consider this a possible speedy A7. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur with DGG's analysis. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as SPAM and as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:28, 11 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. Snow consensus for delete. Topic currently lacks coverage to show notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devils hill[edit]

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

Disputed prod - see article talk page. Fails WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. I cannot find any references to this project apart from its website. Jll (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unremarkable project. No references, no significant performers/artists involved. Pure speculation. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnotable future film. If it receives the widespread attention required to ascertain notability, then a new article can be created, but at the moment it doesn't meet the threshold for films. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any reliable mention of the topic outside of WP. I note too that the article creator and one other user have not edited anything beyond these two articles. Claret Ash 00:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After some searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:58, 5 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) • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above; I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this project; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 08:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No third party coverage, kind of looks like a hastily slapped together ad to direct people to their website... Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It reads like an advert. The only detail given, really, is the location while everything else is abstract. What sort of movie? How does the game relate? What sort of game is it? SilentVendetta (talk) 03:57, 9 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angélica Lozano Correa[edit]

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

This article is more than a month old and yet has multiple issues 1. No biographical information 2. Does not meet the layout requirements 3. Is not adequately referenced.

So please delete Wikishagnik (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand issues 1 and 2. The article does have biographical information, and I don't know what the layout requirements are, but the layout of this article looks perfectly normal to me. On the other hand, the article does need better referencing, so I would recommend that that issue be the one focused on in this AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep None of the deletion reasons given seems valid. 1. There is biographical information: birthplace, date, education career. 2. The layout is just what it ought to be for a stub article. 3. It is indeed not fully referenced to third party sources, but the criterion is unreferenceable, not unreferenced. Furthermore, the idea that articles need to be completed in the first month is against policy. There is no deadline. (As for the merits of the article, recent precedent is that members of the city council of major cities are notable , and Bogota qualifies. there is pretty sure to be references for the GNG, also.) DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for her position per precedent on councilmembers of major cities being notable, probably notable per coverage in reliable sources, nom hasn't provided anything policy-based. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is established - seems to be a case of WP:SOFIXIT issues StarM 17:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luce–Celler Act of 1946[edit]

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

This act is not noteworthy because the act was just symbolic—the immigration quotas were for 100 people each. It doesn't deserve an article of its own. The current article misleads—the last sentence is the crucial part—the bill was a token grant of rights.

See http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/immigration_chron.cfm

    1946
    ...
    The Luce-Cellar Act extends the right to become naturalized citizens to Filipinos and Asian Indians. The immigration quota is 100 people a year.

I tried to dig up secondary sources on the act to correct the article, and realized how non-notable it was:

The govt. immigration agency's (CIS) website : http://www.uscitizenship.info/ins-usimmigration-insoverview.html on the history of US immigration laws does not mention this act in a lengthy summary.

The official US historian's site (from the Department of State) does not mention this act, though it does mention the 1952 immigration act in the milestones of the 1945-52 period (http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952).

The PBS timeline on US immigration (using a different source than any of the above) does not include this act (http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/newamericans/foreducators_lesson_plan_03.html)

Nor does this timeline of immigration laws from http://www.unc.edu/~perreira/198timeline.html maintained by Krista M. Perreira, a CPC faculty fellow at University of North Carolina (see http://www.cpc.unc.edu/people/fellows?person=kperreira). One has to burrow deeper to get to a one-line summary of the act. Once we get to the subpages where every law is noted, we see this: "- Luce- Celler bill grants right of naturalization and small immigration quotas to Asian Indians and Filipinos."

This kind of an article has real consequences; enotes has already copied us (http://www.enotes.com/topic/Luce%E2%80%93Celler_Act_of_1946).

PS: Even those who oppose immigration, granted a source with an agenda, do not mention this act: (http://www.fairus.org/site/PageNavigator/facts/research_us_laws/). For 1946 we see: "Procedures were adopted to facilitate immigration of foreign-born wives, fiance(e)s, husbands, and children of U.S. armed forces personnel." That is not the Luce-Celler act. It is hard to see why FAIR would fail to mention a notable immigration act, given their agenda. Ajoykt (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The fact that an Act of Congress is "merely" symbolic is in no way a reason to delete its article. James500 (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is being an "Act of Congress" enough to fulfil the Wikipedia notability criteria? 68.126.188.48 (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By analogy to criteria 5 of Wikipedia:Notability (books), I suggest that it may be. James500 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The US Code which lists all acts of Congress is 200,000 pages long, many times the length of Encyclopaedia Britannica. By your criteria, Wikipedia will become a law encyclopedia, with the law articles interfering with most searches and eating up most of server space. Ajoykt (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Wikipedia is not paper. (2) I am not proposing that we should include the full original text of any Act, because that can go on Wikisource. (3) I think that you seriously underestimate the amount of material available on subjects other than law. I also think that you overestimate the number of people who are willing to work on articles related to law, a subject that is, for the most part, only taught at an advanced level to relatively small numbers of people. WikiProject Biography, for example, says that it has about a million articles. WikiProject Law, on the other hand, says that it has about twenty thousand. I do not think that we are in any danger of being "swamped" by articles on the subject of law, even that was a problem, a proposition for which you have not offered any evidence, and which seems to conflict with Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. James500 (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case there does not appear to be an assertion that the Act does not meet WP:GNG, per WP:BEFORE, only that it is either not mentioned or is only briefly mentioned in a list of specified sources, to the exclusion of all other sources. Moreover the sources that are offered do not look like the type of sources that I would expect to be looking at. My knowledge of the literature that is available on the law of the United States is limited, but, to begin with, does the United States not have publications equivalent to Halsbury's Statutes and the like? James500 (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure the list of all laws of every country gets published in some official document or the other. Is that grounds for notability? By this criteria just the legal statutes alone will amount to most of Wikipedia. I think for a law to be notable, it has to have been mentioned by the media, academia and the like. If you can point me where to look, I am happy to update the article. The AfD is because WP:RS is impossible, and WP:GNG is questionable (mention in a federal gazette isn't notability) These abstract objections don't really help; does anybody have any sources which can disprove assertion of non-notability? Ajoykt (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, this does satisfy WP:GNG. James500 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The example that I gave, Halsbury's Statutes, is not merely a list of legislation. For each Act it provides details of all case law, amendments and subordinate legislation, and extensive annotations explaining what the Act means. And it, and several publications like it, are conclusive proof that that sort of information is notable. To begin with, I want you to positively tell me that there are no amendments to this statute, no case law on it, and no secondary legislation under it, and I want you to positively tell me that you know where to look for this sort of information.

Could you clarify what you mean by a federal gazette, and why you think that a mention in it isn't notable? James500 (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the federal gazette, I meant the US Code which is just a listing of laws. To answer your question, Luce Celler was overridden by the Hart-Celler Act of 1965. As to the rest, we are not a law encyclopedia. If we really included all statutes with case law, I think Wikipedia will soon become a law encyclopedia (what about laws of states like California, laws of other countries?) I think the onus really is on those who want to retain the article to show where reliable information shows its notability. The Google books results are pretty much one-line summaries. I agree with merging it into a larger article on US immigration, and making this title a redirect. How does one do that without deleting the article though? Ajoykt (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a law encyclopedia, just as much as it is a geography encyclopedia or a mathematics encyclopedia or a popular culture encyclopedia: it is a general encyclopedia that includes all of these. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ajoykt: The Google Books results are not just one line summaries. If you look more closely you will see, IIRC, things like the number of people naturalized under the Act, and one that says that the East Indian community in the US would have disappeared if the Act had not been passed, that it took four years for it to pass, and etc. James500 (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC) In my view, we do need to include all statutory provisions and all case law somewhere. James500 (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: discussion not properly listed. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Luce-Celler Act" does produce results in Google Books. Even if this Act does not require a separate article, its name must be a plausible redirect to something, possibly History of immigration to the United States, and is not therefore suitable for deletion. James500 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC) "Luce-Celler Bill" produces more results. James500 (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article (History of immigration to the United States) already says all the article on L-C says: "In 1946, the Luce-Celler Act extended the right to become naturalized citizens to newly freed Filipinos and Asian Indians. The immigration quota was set at 100 people a year". 68.126.188.48 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which would make Luce-Celler Act of 1946 a plausible redirect to History of immigration to the United States even if there weren't sufficient sources to expand it, which there probably are. And merger does not involve deletion. James500 (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or userfy - I think there are enough sources out there to justify an article, but a lot of work needs to be done. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That its effect was symbolic does not mean it was unimportant. That people of these nationalities at all were given quotas was a significant step at the time, however feeble it sounds now. That's why we have articles on historical subjects: history gives perspective. There is sufficient sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Keep and improve - This particular law might probably not be significant for most Americans, but in the history of the Philippines, this could be more than just a footnote in my country's history, given the long record of US migration by Filipinos. I'll try to check local bookstores and see if this act does get mentioned in any major history textbook. --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; the act is a major piece of legislation regarding the History of Asian American immigration, the History of Filipino Americans, and the effects it has on the historical settlement of Filipino Americans in the United States. Yes, the article needs to be improved drastically, but it is as important as the War Brides Act or the Magnuson Act. Additionally there are over one thousand mentions of the act in books, and 84 mentions in scholarly papers. The subject of the article clearly passes WP:GNG by a wide margin.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. James500 (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have something about it somewhere: If this isn't kept, I think at least some of the content should be merged into another article related to the topic Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep—Any act which increased a quota from zero is not "merely symbolic." Note that this would plausibly be linked from many pages such as Dalip Singh Saund, the first Indian member of the House of Representatives, who was naturalized in the wake of the act.--Carwil (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources reflect its notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep national laws as notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:31, 11 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 keep. Nominator has withdrawn his deletion nomination, and there are no other advocates for deletion. (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Rego[edit]

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

This article is more than a month old and yet has multiple issues 1. No biographical information 2. Does not meet the layout requirements 3. Is not adequately referenced.

So please delete Wikishagnik (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject appears to pass WP:ATHLETE having appeared with the US national rugby team, and the article contains at least one reference. Nominator appears not to understand the criteria or process for deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per reasons stated by WikiDan61. Flaviusvulso (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I honestly assumed that notability standards are same in all fields but that patently is not the case. Hence, with a bitter taste in my mouth I withdraw my request Wikishagnik (talk) 21:31, 4 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. JohnCD (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies Live Longer[edit]

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

This article has multiple issues 1. No biographical information 2. Does not meet the layout requirements 3. Is not adequately referenced.

So please delete Wikishagnik (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because they won the Funny Women 2011 Variety Award. The Funny Women awards are sufficiently notable to have national media coverage. Jll (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, their award is pay for play. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the award is for new entrants into the industry, they didn't win and there doesn't actually seem to be much coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:51, 11 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salesi Tongamoa[edit]

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

This article has multiple issues 1. Does not meet style layout 2. Does not meet notability requirements 3. Does not say much about the player at all

So I suggest delete it Wikishagnik (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe redirect to Atlanta Legion. Per WP:RLN, playing for the US in a non-World Cup match is not notable. And rightly so. The US is not a full member of the RLIF; rugby league is the smallest of fringe sports there. Also, it does not appear that Tongamoa has been covered significantly by reliable sources (as opposed to non-independent official rugby league write-ups). --Mkativerata (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:RLN. Mattlore (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SmitFraud[edit]

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

I found no notability for this computer virus. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary source to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The best source I could find was a Google books result that's helpful but not sufficient, at least for me. Msnicki (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: while there is quite a few of references from third-party sources, the notability per WP:NSOFT is not established anywhere. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NSOFT. If extra references are added to the article, feel free to ping me on my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:39, 11 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. L Faraone 02:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thewittyshit.com[edit]

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

A7 speedies on this article have been declined twice before, and a third nomination just popped up. Although I personally see no reason to advocate the deletion of this article, I've brought it here to settle the matter once and for all. Neutral. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing indicates notability of this webste. I nominated it for deletion, as I had not realized it had been nominated before. The fact that people keep wanting to nominate it indicates evidence that a lot of people don't think it's notable. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The coverage cited in the article is probably sufficient, although some of it is as much about the website's creators as the website itself.--Michig (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What notability does the article claim? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GNG. If it has received significant coverage in reliable sources, it's notable.--Michig (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keepThis article provides sufficient information and also has enough external links to prove its notability..Brat tariq (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC). — Brat tariq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The number of sources is not a claim of notability. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple third party reliable sources are available then it has notability...its notable. --Brat tariq (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable website. I'm not seeing significant coverage from the provided sources, tho - I see some passing mentions and what look like product placement/press releases in local papers - not enough to signify greater notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
local paper..? sources mentioned here like DNA newspaper,India Today are national publications and hold a great significance in India.thus they definitely provide notability--Brat tariq (talk) 18:16, 29 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources: India Today, DNA News. There's also coverage in Yahoo Campus (India) and mentions in Mid-Day. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one round of publicity less than six months after founding doesn't notability make. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:43, 11 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Underdark (band)[edit]

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

No evidence that this meets WP:MUSIC. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Haven't found anything significant about them.--Cavarrone (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

for now, change to Neutral per below. I took a look at these websites, and at first glance they appear reliable secondary sources. Probably more in-depth researches in Polish websites could reveal further sources. Cavarrone (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are several Polish sources from Google News, which may or may not be reliable: [1], [2]. Also this. Even if these are deemed reliable sources, it's still a bit thin to support an article.--Michig (talk) 08:17, 28 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?} 16:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be an entry on the Polish WP, however... ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:54, 29 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?} 18:02, 4 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 Iris (software). JohnCD (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dexetra[edit]

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

According to WP:ORG, An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. There is no secondary source that discusses Dexetra (the company) in detail, the sources are about Iris (the product, not the company). The only reference I can find which has an incidental and trivial coverage about this company is this which I believe is not sufficient to meet the criteria of WP:ORG. SupernovaExplosion (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I declined this speedy delete because of the claim to produce Iris (software) which is famous enough to be discussed om Tech Talk Radio podcast. However I have not check if there is any substantial coverage on the company. Searchers should also use local languages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep I have added three independent references to show WP:GNG is satisfied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:11, 29 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?} 18:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not think the sources are sufficient to show .notability I see the first source indicates that it received funding -- but for only $200,000. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and possibly selective merge to Iris (software). The larger question is whether that also-ran personal assistant software for some mobile phones has the kind of significance for all the rest of human history (yes, all 10 1/2 months left of it) needed to support an encyclopedia article at this time; but that isn't the question posed here. But assuming for the moment that Iris (software) merits an article, a brief notice of the developer in its article would not be out of order. Startup announcements from "Techie Buzz" and mobile phone application trade blogs do not establish significance on their own. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Smerdis of Tlön's rationale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:22, 13 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, default to keep since deletion obviously isn't the correct outcome. Whether the article should be merged to Pez is now beyond the remit of AfD. Der yck C. 16:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Pez[edit]

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

No assertion of WP:GNG. While cited sources verify the existence of the line, they do not offer significant, focused discussion of impact, relevance, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There don't seem to be any other Pez product lists on Wikipedia, and absent some verifiable information beyond "this was made" I don't see a reason to have them (a WP:NOTCATALOG issue, perhaps?). The Star Wars series maybe merit a mention at Pez#Characters. postdlf (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE - it took me literally two clicks to find two sources: [3] and [4]. Many pezzes (pezi?) exist, but few end up in museum collections. See also WP:ODD. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One fan's amateur museum, with Star Wars Pez being one among 7,600 various items? The Weird Maryland piece might marginally establish the museum's notability, but I didn't even see a mention of pez. The WM book doesn't establish Star Wars pez notability any more than it establishes Star Wars kite, yo-yo, or keychain notability (which are mentioned in the essay). --EEMIV (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please give me some time. I've been adding some other sources, many of them fairly recent news items. See also WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 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?} 17:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pez#Characters. Let us dispense with the notion that we need an article about a particular Pez variation. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- there's too much there to merge anywhere, quite frankly. More than enough sourced info to support its own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Clarity. Seems an appropriate place to mention it. Maybe a merge to Cultural impact of Star Wars if that article were expanded to have some details on fans who collect items like this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the major cleanup and sources added by Bearian. Based on the sources added to the article, it appears that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources and therefore meets the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge individual pez's don't seem notable from the sources; but taken together they are. There is no reason or rationale given for abandoning the long-standing method of grouping pez's. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is this particular set of pez's not notable? The vast majority of the coverage in the article is not about the generic pez, but specifically the Star Wars Pez. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The sources now are enough to establish notability, thanks to User:Bearian's help. --B music ian 14:18, 14 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Panagiotis Andreou[edit]

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

Non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N. Cloudz 679 17:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Can't find a single Google hit so possibly a hoax. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL GauchoDude (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article links to a "fantasy" football game website; it's a hoax. Jogurney (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if this article isn't a hoax, there is no indication it meets WP:GNG, and he has not played in a fully pro league meaning it fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:37, 11 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 Legality of cannabis by country. Anything useful can be merged from the article's history. Sandstein 17:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of drugs[edit]

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

Article is not what the title says; title is too broad/undefined. Article as it currently exists largely duplicates information in Legality of cannabis by country; encyclopaedia would be better served by a series of articles, one per drug, perhaps, which seems more intuitive a search. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 17:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or improve. Nomination argues for improvement, not for why the article's information is bad a priori. So go improve it. Sai ¿?✍

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. It's all just about one drug, the Devil's Weed, hence redundant due an existing article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Title is too broad" is, in of itself, a non-argument. Law is vastly broader than this page, but no one proposes that it be deleted. See Wikipedia:Summary style.
Unless it is expanded to include other drugs, this article should be merged into to Legality of cannabis by country, and redirected to that article, unless anyone can think of a better target. I think that it is a plausible search term. James500 (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Improve or merge per above. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. this article has broader scope than the cannabis article, but I think hard drugs are banned in most countries. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 06:50, 6 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. Possible renaming can be considered as part of normal editing. JohnCD (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth completion[edit]

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

This article is better suited for Wiktionary Wikishagnik (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete: "Smooth completion" is a non sourced terminology, which contradicts the usual mathematical meaning of "completion", which supposes that the completed space is embedded in its completion (this is not the case here). Moreover, this terminology is not notable, the usual one being "normalization of the projective completion" or "desingularization of the projective completion". D.Lazard (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a mathematical error on D.Lazard's part. If the affine curve is nonsingular, then it is indeed imbedded in the smooth completion. Tkuvho (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood your logic but the article still belongs to Wiktionary Wikishagnik (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your comment is based on the assumption that the current form of the stub is its current form. You may have noticed, however, that the article was only created a short while ago, and has not received the attention it deserves. The "wiktionary" idea does not apply to it more than any other math article in wikipedia. Tkuvho (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short While Ago? The Article was created on 5th Jan 2012?Wikishagnik (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Smooth compactification: It seems like the term "smooth completion" is used (from a quick google scholar search), but I've never heard it. On the other hand, "smooth compactification" is a quite common term for what seems to be the subject of this article (and it applies to varieties of higher dimension) and it a quite notable subject. I disagree with the statement that this belongs on wiktionary for the same reason Tkuvho mentions above: the same would hold for plently of other math articles (especially stubs). RobHar (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "compactification" title is more logical, but I happened to have heard "smooth completion" in this context. I guess the thing to do is to look at reliable sources. What would this be called in a standard textbook? Tkuvho (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (although have not objections against renaming), it is a quite common subject in complex geometry.
Sadly, there are many Wikipedians which basically misunderstand the purpose of Wiktionary and think about it as about "unWikipedia for very short articles". But the difference is actually in the subject, not size. Wikipedia should describe pieces of knowledge represented by words. Wiktionary is for knowledge about words, which obviously is not this case. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this confusion will exist till the time people think of Wiktionary to be an inferior cousin of Wikipedia. Agreed that people and experts spend more time on Wikipedia but that does not mean we create pages for every documented variation of a mathematical formula. Wiktionary is better suited to understand a concept while Wikipedia is better suited for giving it a historical context, contribution to humanity. I know that a lot of people try to use Wikipedia as a textbook on scientific topics but that defeats the whole purpose of an encyclopedia. We cant confuse an article on sauce with its cooking instructions. Wikishagnik (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with affine algebraic curve i don't see why this article deserves a whole page, then every exception to every mathematical formula will get a new page. I still hold on to Delete because their is nothing encyclopedic about this article. Its just a concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikishagnik (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Just a concept": We have many articles that are "just" about "concepts". That's a silly reason to vote delete. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: This is not a candidate to move to Wiktionary but notability is still borderline. The term does have some traction in the literature, though most of the sources I found defined it for a variety rather than just a curve as given in the article. I could not find any sources that were accessible to someone without a degree in algebraic geometry, or more specifically I couldn't find any secondary sources, so I think this subject is more suitable for a section of larger article than for an article on its own. The article as it is does have a number of serious issues, lack of sources being the most serious, but also the article consists simply of a definition and an example, so notability aside it would be better to include it in another article until there is enough material to do a split. I'd suggest Resolution of singularities as a merge target but there may be better ones.--RDBury (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. First, smooth completion (compactification) may involve resolutions of singularities (e.g. where a curve has self-intersections at infinity), but is not always the case. There are no singularities in curves $y=x$ or $y^{2}=x^{2}+1$ , but their compactifications are non-trivial. Second, the article "resolution of singularities" is about various methods, by contrast with "smooth completion" where blowing up is always used. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: widely used term, see here. It would be nice however to add some references. Sasha (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting hits on Google scholar is not a criterion for keep. First, are you getting hits on the actual topic or hits on the same phrase being used with a different meaning? You have to actually follow the links and understand what they say to make that determination. Also, are any of the hits for secondary sources? Again you have to follow the links and determine if they are primary research. WP shouldn't have articles where only a few researchers can verify their accuracy.--RDBury (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material is in Hartshorne chapter 4, a standard reference (see current version of article). Tkuvho (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly where in Hartshorne is the term "smooth completion" used? Does he call it something else? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@RDBury: Well, I am not an expert in algebraic geometry, but I hope I am not totally incompetent. Obviously, I have looked through the some of the links (to the best of my modest ability) before posting the link to google hits here. Most of the links that I saw are secondary sources which refer to the same mathematical object which is discussed in the article.

As to accuracy, the same reasoning can be used (and has been used) to argue that there should be no technical mathematical articles on Wikipedia at all. Sasha (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page requires expansion but is obviously a notable subject. Tkuvho (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I maybe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikishagnik (talk • contribs) 21:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to affine algebraic curve if it can't be significantly expanded with references; it's just too short and dict def like as it is, though yes not the sort of definition that would be welcome at wiktionary.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to which article? Did you walk through the link affine algebraic curve, yourself? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards keep. Assertions that the article has no possibility of expansion seem farfetched to me. A glance at some of the scholar hits shows, for instance, that researchers also talk about smooth completions of higher-dimensional varieties. So right there is something that could be used to expand the article (and also make the merge targets so far proposed inappropriate). Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps I should add a comment concerning how important smooth compactifications are (and Smooth completion appears to be a special case/synonym though I've never heard the term). Off the top of my head, here are just a few names of people who have put a lot of effort into constructing smooth compactifications (of Shimura varieties): Deligne–Rapoport, Faltings–Chai, Mumford, Katz–Mazur. And I'll just stop there, that's 3 Fields medalists already. This subject is extremely important in the whole Langlands/Serre automorphic/Galois representations business. RobHar (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Variations of Hodge structures of a Teichmüller curve" by M Möller in J. Amer. Math. Soc. 2006 uses the term "smooth completion". Tkuvho (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say was that before this AfD, I had never heard of "smooth completion", though when I searched for it on the google I found many results. The difference in terminology seems to be partially a difference between which field of math you're reading. Another difference may be that "complete" is usually used for varieties, so if you are looking at more general things (which may not even be schemes), you might use "compactification" (as a synonym of the never-used "properification"). From looking at a few papers it seems like a "smooth completion" of U might be a variety V that has a divisor D which has locally normal crossings and such that V\D = U. One might use "smooth compactification" more generally. RobHar (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but possibly move to smooth compactification (183 hits on MathSciNet vs only 26 for smooth completion, and a little more general as RobHar says). There is an entire book on this topic: Ash, Mumford, Rapoport, and Tai, "Smooth compactifications of locally symmetric varieties", 2nd ed., MR2590897. To me that seems convincing enough evidence that it can stand alone. And the article has been significantly improved since it was first nominated. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
changing my !vote to keep based on it's current expanded state, per David Eppstein and others.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:39, 8 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lokmanya nagar[edit]

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

This article has multiple issues This article reads like a travel advisory so a website like TripAdvisor seems to be better suited for this article There is no geographical (state, city, country information), population or other info available. Is this a ghost town? Any notable persons from this town? I think articles like this which are more than a month old need to be deleted. If the author is not interested for months then so should we. Wikishagnik (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not necessary for notable people to come from a town for a town to be notable. The town is clearly not a ghost town since it has public transport services. Inactivity of the articles author is in no way an indicator of an articles notability. The town has been mentioned in a "The Times Of India". This nomination is a clear example of cultural bias.Flaviusvulso (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An incomplete and not balanced article, but all places are notable at Wikipedia, and so there is basis only for editing, not deletion. I suggest the nominator learn a little about WP:Deletion policy before making further nominations. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt: Are localities in a town also automatically notable? This is just an area of Thane city. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per DGG, all places are notable in Wikipedia KuwarOnline ^Talk 19:19, 8 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry of John Seymour (Semer) of Sawbridgeworth[edit]

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

This appears to be a genealogical paper about a WP:NN cobbler who lived in the 1500's. While some of his descendants may be notable, it does not appear that this individual is. As a genealogical study, it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, #2, "Genealogical entries." Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: The article is NOT about John Seymour the cobbler. It IS about his ancestry, as indicated by the title. Please show where ALL articles included in Wikipedia must be about notable persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- It is not about his ancestry (from ancestors), it's about his descendants. Dru of Id (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and original research. I appreciate that a great deal of work has been put into this article, and the discussion would be appropriate to a genealogy site, but not Wikipedia. I confess though that I found it quite difficult to follow. It is claiming that John Semer/Seymour is an ancestor of Richard Seymour, one of the early settlers of Connecticut, and many notable Americans, but that does not in itself make the subject of this article notable because notability is not inherited. A complication comes, however, in discussing John's ancestry which is the subject of this article, because it is being asserted that he was himself related to Sir John Seymour who is undoubtedly notable. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be verifiable, and even if it were, again we run up against the problem that notability does not transfer automatically to offspring legitimate or otherwise. --AJHingston (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The man may have some notable descendants, but notability is not inherited in either direction, and Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of genealogical entries. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly some very hard work has been put into this article, but it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Looks like it contains some original research, and notability here is not inherited. AniMate 19:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article seems to have quite a bit of content about the family of Jane Seymour, wife of King Henry VIII of England, but I couldn't see anywhere in the article where it mentioned that the ostensible subject, John Seymour of Sawbridgeworth, was any relation to that Seymour family. As Roscelese says, notability is not inherited in either direction. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a delightful and fascinating genealogical study (I am NOT stating an argument here), but unfortunately it is not a Wikipedia article. There is as stated above no evidence of notability for John Seymour himself, and so the article must go. I am sure there is plenty of room for such an article on other websites. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research which mentions many people with the same last name, without even documenting they are related to the person who is the subject of the article, as well as some supposed descendants. Nothing here satisfies WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete It's difficult to understand why anyone would say that the article is not about John Sawbridgeworth's ancestry. It's entirely about his ancestry. Please further explain how you reached this conclusion.

As previously noted, John's notability is completely irrelevant. There are countless Wikipedia articles on a wide variety of topics, many of them not being notable persons. His ancestors, however, are quite notable, and the article has interest for a variety of reasons far beyond whether John himself was notable or not. Again, I implore you to actually read the article, and to glean it's very obvious subject matter, which is that historical evidence supports the fact that he's descended from very notable people. His notable descendents are merely further evidence of that fact.

This is obviously not original research as proved by the 70+ historical references cited. It is merely historical data presented in a new form as explicitly covered in Wikipedia's definition of original research

I would assert that the subject of John's ancestry is quite notable on its own merit without regard to whether or not John was able to live a notable life. I would further assert that the article would probably find wide interest by many in the general public who are not as interested in the genealogical aspects, as probably would be the 100,000+ descendents of John Sawbridgeworth, and possibly descendents of other branches within the clan as well totaling millions of people. This period of history continues to generate great public interest, and in particular any facts related to Henry VIII, and his royal court. This has been recently evidenced by the fact that Hilary Mantel, in 2009, won the Man Booker Prize for her novel Wolf Hall (named after the Seymour family manor although given more modern spelling). This article merely expands on that seemingly interesting subject by gathering together many related historical facts in a new way.

Therefore, as it's been repeated over and over again that John is not a notable person, I'll reiterate that the notability of his own personal accomplishments are not the subject of this article, and are therefore irrelevant. Furthermore, the subject of his ancestry, due to the notability of the other people involved, and the period of history which it affected, is completely notable and worthy of being included in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talk • contribs) 13:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose that I should be flattered that my little article is receiving so much attention. It makes it hard to imagine how so many millions of articles currently exist on Wikipedia. Keep up the diligent work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talk • contribs) 13:35, 5 February 2012‎

Just so you know, it's not your article. Toddst1 (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also so as you know, Pablocombiano, Original Research is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here has questioned that the subject is interesting. But because Wikipedia simply cannot be a repository of everything interesting, any more than it can catalogue everything that exists, it is necessary to apply guidelines and policies on what should and should not go in. In this case, we accept that there have been a lot of Seymours on both sides of the Atlantic who are very notable and should be in Wikipedia. There is already an article on the Seymour family. The probability that they are all connected in some way seems quite strong. However, anyone who has involved themselves in this sort of research knows that it frequently impossible to conclusively prove family relationships especially this far back. Other possibilities exist than the one premised here. We expect articles to be properly referenced, but the point about the original research rule in this context is that also applies to conclusions. These need to be referenced to reliable sources. And even if the conclusions are right, the topic seems to belong within an article about the Seymour family, or one part of it, and does not appear to have a notability of its own. --AJHingston (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you Toddst1 for very correctly pointing out that this is a Wikipedia article. Secondly, Chiswick Chap, I think we've previously more than adequately addressed whether or not it's original research. Under the original research guidelines of Wikipedia, it is not. I will repeat--that it's existing historical evidence simply reproduced in a new format. If anyone would like to remake the same erroneous comment, please address this point. Thirdly, AJHingston states that it's "frequently impossible to conclusively prove". I'd like to make a point on that topic as well, by paraphrasing George Dudley Seymour as stated in his book A History of the Seymour Family: "Admittedly, we lack direct record evidence. This is not the same as to say that legal proof is lacking. Many things can be proved in a court of law by cumulative circumstantial evidence. Historians too look with favor on this type of evidence when its weight is sufficient. A single piece of direct evidence may be a lie; it may have been forged by a fraudulent dealer for the sake of profit, for example. But when we review all the known facts, and each circumstance harmonizes with all the other circumstances, and every bit of evidence fits neatly into the picture as if by magic, - then we feel entitled to claim that theory has given way to proof." The article doesn't purport to draw any particular conclusion, it's merely a conglomeration of facts on a single topic. Why don't we just let the reader decide? Is there something to fear here? Finally, I can't help but feel a little bit demonized. If the article needs a few changes, please suggest them. To say that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, doesn't seem a valid point. I think I've already adequately pointed out that it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talk • contribs) 12:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take any of this personally. You're not deliberately disrupting wikipedia - clearly, you are here to contribute and doing so with the best of intentions. However, this article appears to fall outside our guidelines on what we have articles on. I'm sure that you could add tremendous value here, but probably not on this article. Toddst1 (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess persistent would be a better word than offended. I feel strongly about this articles inclusion on Wikipedia, and so far I haven't seen a valid reason, under Wikipedia guidelines, to exclude it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.169.113.186 (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, you haven't been paying attention. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is rather confusing, as there are several John Seymours. But there is no definite indication given except the name and the similar place of origin that "John Seymour (1535-1605) (contemporarily Semer) lived and worked as a cobbler," has any direct connection with the aristocrat of the same name, John Seymour (1474–1536), "a member of the English gentry and a courtier to King Henry VIII,". Presumably he was a humble collateral or by-blow of that line, or perhaps someone from the same area named after the leading gentry family. But no information about this is given in the article. The connection seems to be that "There are remarkable parallels in personal characteristics, and lifetime achievements, between members of the British ducal branch of the family, and the American branch descended from John." and that some of the cobbler's family had the same first name as some of the nobleman's;--and the vague non evidence of a similar seal. This is the sort of work done by the less rigorous genealogists of earlier centuries, and amateurs of our own, when they were trying to prove a connection between the status-seaking descendants of the American immigrants and the high-born families in England they hoped to show they were connected with. This is not history, but the sort of thing which made genealogy a synonym for everything too vague to be part of real history. I suppose we could have an article on the american family as such, and we certainly could have one on the English; the appropriate inclusion in the article on the American "branch" would be "It has been suggested that they might have some connection with the English family", referenced to the first two references in the present article. Wikipedia has managed to distance itself from this sort of speculative web pseudo-information, or it wouldn't be worth the trouble of using or making. The relevant basis policy is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia , and the consequent WP:V and WP:OR, DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete The conclusions reached by DGG are certainly valid possibilities. One also might conclude, after carefully reviewing the historical evidence, that John Seymour (1535-1605) was a political liability of the family in 1535, and could not be recognized for fear of damaging repercussions. I disagree that the only evidence presented is based upon similar personal characteristics, although I do agree that it's a persuasive piece of the puzzle. The section entitled "Historical Evidence" lists thirteen other coincidental points. Whether DGG has been able to correctly evaluate the evidence provided or not isn't the issue at hand. The article presents worthwhile historical information on the topic, and readers deserve the chance to evaluate that evidence, and then to draw their own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.99.197.114 (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This could well be an accidental IP usage by the creator (rather than intentional sock). If so, it's a duplicate vote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 8 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Al Thuwaini[edit]

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

Existing references do not verify any asserted information. No indication of notability. Cloudz 679 15:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 15:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL GauchoDude (talk) 19:16, 4 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, since the presence of significant external coverage has been established. I also implore editors involved in this discussion to expand the article with the references given here to prevent another AfD. Der yck C. 16:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-Dutch[edit]

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

Good effort but this is an un-encyclopedic article. 1. There is no history 2. This article is best suited for Wiktionary unless many of the mentioned people credit their heritage with their success 3. There is no independent source referred. The website linked is a dead-end. The topic might be good the page isn't Wikishagnik (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though a rename to Afro-Dutch people might be advisable. The article seems the standard format for articles like this: a description of what is being listed, and a list of examples. The rule for including examples is that they need to be notable enough to have Wikipedia articles , and these do. Additionally, there are suitable general references. The nom may not be aware or it, but printed books ar perfectly good references at Wikipedia, we're a general encyclopedic , not a encyclopedic of those things that happen to be online this year--what that would be, is a web guide. (see WP:NOT). DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References noted to date do not satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple references sufficient to establish the topic something more than a dictionary definition. The sources prove Afro-Dutch is not a term only, but a community with a history. The article needs expansion, AfD is the wrong venue. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and SupernovaExplosion. There's plenty of good sources out there if you take time to look. Bearian (talk) 01:56, 14 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guagua National Colleges[edit]

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

Deprodded with "secondary and tertiary colleges are generally accepted as notable". However, I still think WP:GNG trumps that, as I find virtually nothing in the way of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable secondary and tertiary institution. Therefore notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tertiary school. Google News Archives show national coverage, incidental but Google News only has records for Philippine secondary sources from around 2000. Being established in 1918 also makes it one of the older schools of the Philippines. Google Book Search reveals more coverage, and Googling with its older name verifies age, with sources going back to 1935 when the Philippine education system was still under the U.S. Dept. of Education. A presumption of further significant offline sources is not uncalled for here. That said, the article needs work.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - by long-standing precedent we keep verifiable tertiary institutions. In Filipino terms this is a historic institution and no evidence that there has been a search for local sources. Sources likely to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My understanding is that the general practice is to keep such secondary schools, if they are verifiable. This secondary school, though its coverage is very light, is verifiable. The article is in a grave state, and most of its text presently fails our core policy of wp:v. But AfD is not for cleanup.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 11 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 Hyperion Cantos. Consensus is that this should not be a separate article, but there's disagreement about whether and what to merge. A redirect allows merging whatever's useful (and sourceable!) later from the history. Sandstein 20:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Shrike[edit]

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

Plot element from a series of novels, not independently notable (WP:GNG) for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the author of the fictional work described. Not appropriate for a merger, as it consists only of excessive plot summary (WP:WAF). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hyperion Cantos per WP:ATD, trimming appropriately. The "not suitable merger" comment from this nom, and similar ones by others, ignore the point that deletion removes ALL plot summary, not just the excessive bit, such that a trim in the process of merging is correction through normal editing, triggering WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect of "The Shrike" to Hyperion Cantos, as there will be those who will look for the character from a reference thereto, not knowing the author or novels. htom (talk) 23:24, 4 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. As a navigational list, maybe retitle? Sandstein 20:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of South Asia[edit]

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

At the moment, this page is simply a massive See Also section, just listing various history articles. This isn't much of an article. If this page was an article, its contents would have to be almost identical to those of History of India, and although there is perhaps some room to say the two topics are not exactly identical, there is no denying that there is such a huge range of overlap that any article will suffer from massive duplication. CMD (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful outline page for navigation. Wouldn't have a problem with a rename to "Outline of South Asian history" if nom thinks that would clear up some confusion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind if it was set up as an outline article, but even if it was, it would still be hard to justify it having a different title to the article it is outlining. CMD (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of India (note that this article is not about the country, but the subcontinent). There's even currently a major merge discussion ongoing to merge South Asia with Indian subcontinent. As the two are essentially the same, this would indeed be a duplication of History of India. Links and navigational aids can be incorporated into Template:History of South Asia, used on both pages. Nightw 19:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of lists are useful navigation tools, and no policy-based reason for deletion has been articulated. Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I articulated WP:CFORK. CMD (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article may be renamed to Outline of South Asian history. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what is currently in this article being part of an outline, which would make sense if we make it stretch up to modern times. However, the page History of South Asia shouldn't redirect to the Outline, but to the history article. CMD (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve History of South Asia is a different topic than History of X country articles. A lot of books are available titled "History of South Asia". Before the advent of present-day nation-states, there were interconnection between the different geographical regions. In many aspect, South Asia stands as a unique and unified whole compared to the other regions. For example, South Asian Stone Age is different from Stone Age in general. The article in its current form is unencyclopedic, but there is scope to improve and expand this topic. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of India is not a History of a country article, but basically a history of (at least the vast majority of) the South Asian region. CMD (talk) 10:18, 8 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 keep. Masturbation is a suitable topic for an encyclopedia and has been subject of scientific publications. If you disagree with some specific part of the article's content, please take it to the talk page. (By the way, what do you mean by "Wikipedia policies 2.3, 2.7"?) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masturbation[edit]

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

This and other articles on masturbation infringe Wikipedia policies 2.3, 2.7. In addition any attempts to make articles more scholarly and objective , even though they are not really general encyclopedia subjects, are being immediately deleted. RevRoland (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oppose. The good reverend has made four edits to this page which have reverted as unconstructive. sour grapes? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I'd also like to politely ask that the nominator please stop being disruptive and vandalizing the article itself. OSU1980 14:40, 4 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 keep, bad-faith disruptive nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naturism[edit]

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

This article contravenes Wikipedia guidelines on content policy. As confirmation, all editing to make the article more objective have been consistently deleted or 'vandalised' RevRoland (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

clearly not. Article is 96K long, and has grown bo 2k this year, so is being updated/ improved and not "constanly deleted". I see the Rev also wants to delete masturbation. Am I seeing an agenda? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

clearly not:RevRoland has only made two edits to the article both of which were unreferenced POVs. They were reverted. In March 2010 he added

Modern naturism is often associated with 'swinging' or sexual promiscuity, and some naturist magazines cater for this. Naturism may be seen in traditional terms as a form of natural witchcraft where no formally laid out ceremonies are involved.

And in September he had another swipe. Then again he comes out of nowhere with a AfD. I have 'watched' this page since I did the major rewrite some years back, and all serious suggestions have be taken to the talk page and integrated someway. This is the first time that vandalism has taken the form of a malicious AfD (edit conflict)--ClemRutter (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: See nominator's recent AFD. Lost on Belmont (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Well-referenced article about encyclopedic subject. --bonadea contributions talk 14:51, 4 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trelby[edit]

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

I hate to do this. I am sure you are quite excited about this product but I found the following strong negatives

1. No News articles or scholar reviews of this software. I am sure your page has this but its not enough 2. The only hits in Google are the odd troubleshooting questions. Please note that blogs don't count as articles. 3. The only reference on this page is the home page of the project and that's not enough. You need more independent websites.

Please get this work done urgently. Its important to keep this page Wikishagnik (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added third party news references. Anil.verve (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that's not enough. You still need more verifiable third party references. Please go though all the guidelines Wikishagnik (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Those who wish to improve an article, as the nominator does, should improve it, or ask the contributor to improve it, not nominate it for deletion. There seem two reasonable quality third party references with substantial coverage that do not read like press releases, which is sufficient for any product. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it was not all that good idea to write about a software that was just resurrected, but as it is already written and contains two WP:RS, it should be left alone. Both sources comply with WP:N and WP:NSOFT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found [5]. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Though indeed reliable, it is the same publisher as The H reference in article. It even links there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:48, 10 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. Sourcing/hoax concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Gongshow ^Talk 03:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samad (crater)[edit]

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

Hoax/mistake? Google found only mirrors of Wikipedia, without sources since 2005 and with unreferenced stub template since 2009. Bulwersator (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as {{db-reason|1=G3 hoax, no hits outside Wikipedia mirrors}} by TenPoundHammer Bulwersator (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And there is entire category of similar articles (Category:Impact craters on Enceladus). Also images are without sources Bulwersator (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is not a hoax, it appears in the IAU Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. I have added a reference to the article. JohnCD (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is now referenced and the image was uploaded by trusted editor User:Volcanopele -- Kheider (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/Feature/5288 Any question? Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, article is OK Bulwersator (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – valid feature and name, but not much in the way of published content. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:58, 7 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Core synchronism[edit]

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

A non-notable alternative medicine modality. No sources found discussing it on google scholar and only three references on google books. The first two are references to a guy who practices CS (i.e. in the "about the author/s" section it mentions this) and the third is a wikipedia reprint. There do not appear to be any reliable sources that substantively discuss it, and Wikipedia is the third link to show up on google search with most of the rest on the first page being people who do it. I recently gutted the page since most of it was unjustified or used a series of unrelated articles to advance a synthesis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fringe medical concept; article admits it's pseudoscience; virtually unsourceable; and essentially WP:Complete Bollocks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's excellent research. This appears to be somebody's personal invention and has not received notice outside of their particular circle. Non-notable even for fringe science. MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per all above, fails GNG. but why is it categorized as a society topic? --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'cos I hate categories, the initial AFD autotemplate doesn't list medicine as a possible category, and I'll be damned if I'm going to put it in with "science and technology"

WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:42, 11 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forex Forecast[edit]

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

Unreferenced, written as an essay, possibly non-encyclopaedic material. Fails WP:NOT. Osarius Talk 11:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be original research and even if it isn't, the article would need a complete rewrite from top to bottom in order to make it fit notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete: Essay. SL93 (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 4 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Books[edit]

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

This page was incorrectly listed (the discussion page wasn't created, so was redlinked in today's log). As a purely procedural move, I'm listing it properly, and contacting the editor who attempted to nominate it. It should be recognised that the nominator (User:Electricpussycat) has made very few edits outside of this article and this attempted nomination, so there may be issues there. I'd leave the discussion open a day or so to see if they come and provide a deletion rationale, but I totally understand if someone wants to close it early as a speedy keep. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep, without prejudice to renomination. Not sure of notability, because news results will be full of results about creationism, but this appears to be a niche literary publisher, and I do see a fair number of results about books they have published. A notability argument would require some attention to the actual content of the sources which are easily found, and without a statement from the nominator review is going to be fairly superficial. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "easily found" sources? If they're out there and I missed them, then certainly, I'll want to change my !vote. But the article doesn't cite any that could establish notability and when I did my own searches, I couldn't find any. Msnicki (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. I have looked through the various Google searches and based on that, I don't believe the sources exist. Msnicki (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not finding any reliable sources that give substantial coverage of the company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth It appears that the publisher is trying to get this deleted to stem criticism of his company. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. All we care about here is notability, which turns solely on whether there are reliable independent secondary sources. Msnicki (talk) 07:52, 29 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, Sandstein 08:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As infamous as this company has become, there just aren't any reliable sources that would show how it's notable. The only sources I've found have been articles briefly mentioning the company as well as of course a few blogs and websites talking about the controversy over authors not getting their royalties, none of which could be used as a reliable source. There's just nothing out there and since Wikipedia isn't meant to be a soapbox for viewpoints, there's no other choice but to vote to delete.09:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Delete no sign of reliable sources here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 13:04, 4 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hotcow[edit]

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

Not notable. (Won the usual industry awards they all have.) Philafrenzy (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:38, 20 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?} 13:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With only sources I found coming from advertising industry related sites it's difficult to tell if these are not just self promotion. Would suggest delete unless a source can be found that is truly independent of source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mddkpp (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 4 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sal's Pizza (Dallas)[edit]

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

Non-notable local restaurant. Only sources appear to be Dallas-area news outlets, with one mention being a rather trivial listing of restaurants in the entire metro area. I counted several pizza places in that list, with just two or three brief sentences devoted to the subject of the article. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of mention is not a trival listing; despite the whimsical naming scheme, those are annual roundups of the best local establishments. Yes, the sources are Dallas-area, which means they serve 2+ million people. D Magazine - Is Dallas not notable? Sal's has won recognition from two independent, credible news sources. In combination with the restaurant's longevity, that should be enough to establish notability. The Sal's Pizza (New England chain) article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal%27s_Pizza_(New_England_chain) has been online since 2008, and lists no awards. Sal's Pizza, in Dallas, has been around since 1982 and has won several awards. If you delete Sal's, by these standards, Restaurants_in_Dallas,_Texas is going to start being a very small category! D Magazine and Dallas Observer are verifiable, reliable, independent. No original research is required to furnish why the restaurant is notable; those sources have noted it. Awards and positive reviews are the baseline of significant coverage for a restaurant, are they not? Merely because no citations have been provided for non-Dallas news sources does not mean they do not exist, or could not in the future. Pawsplay (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic meets WP:GNG, per significant coverage in:

"Best Reason to Think You're in Brooklyn 2003", Dallas Observer. Retrieved 2012-02-03.
Faries, Dave (January 4 2010). "How 'Bout Them Knockers: Sal's Pizza". The Dallas Observer. Retrieved February 03, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Also, here's a short article:

"Best Cheap Italian Food 2003", Dallas Observer. Retrieved 2012-02-04.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only local news. SL93 (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How does this make the topic non-notable? Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite claims to the contrary, the chain does not meet the standard. The First two are local reviews, which fall under the "regular coverage" clause of the notability guidelines. Additionally, it is clearly stated that best of lists and the like are not considered valid sources when establishing notability, so that knocks out the last. Notability has not been established. Pawsplay's, the author of the article, claim about the article on Sal's Pizza in Boston still being around is no more than WP:Other stuff exists. The sources provided are ineffectual in establishing notability because the author made the mistake of confusing actual coverage with trivial mention, which is at the root of the issue. Notability requires quantitative coverage as opposed to trivial coverage which only establishes verifiability. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Could you please be more specific about what you have stated as the "regular coverage clause" in WP:GNG? There is no such clause of GNG that is written this way. Did you make this up?! Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Regular coverage such as police blotters, local business openings and reviews which are part of everyday coverage are not considered eligible for establishing notability. This is otherwise known as significant coverage. You are confusing simple, everyday coverage as opposed to significant coverage. Just because there is mention or a review does not establish notability; there must be significant coverage about the subject. The pieces cited show nothing except what they serves and that the reviewer liked/disliked it. To properly establish notability, we must ask ourselves what is it that makes the company notable? Is it a fast growing chain that the industry is paying attention to? Has it contributed to the local economy in some meaningful way? Does it have some social impact on the community that gives it notice? What in these sources actually makes the company notable? Having a good tasting pizza is not notable. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Audience section of the notability guidelines for organizations and companies looks for "at least one regional, national, or international source." I'm completely unfamiliar with the publications being used for sourcing here. If it can be demonstrated that they constitute "regional" coverage -- that is, that their readership, both online and offline, extends beyond Dallas -- then I think this clears the notability hurdle by a millimeter or two :). I'll see if I can determine this myself. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both D Magazine and the Dallas Observer are themselves notable; you could familiarize yourself reasily simply by reading their Wikipedia pages. :) Pawsplay (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that. Indeed, I used our article on the Dallas Observer to conclude that, while the publication is notable, it is not a regional publication. That the publication is notable does not necessitate that everything it writes about is, too. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not merely "reviews" or trivial mentions, those are awards. D Magazine serves the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, which as noted in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas-Fort_Worth encompasses 12 counties. D Magazine is a glossy monthly magazine. You want to call The New Yorker a local magazine? It seems to me the primary criticisms of the sources are people who are not familar with D/FW. Sal's has won awards from two different news sources that serve more than two million people, not counting people outside the metroplex who take the magazine. It's not called Big D for nothing. I don't even understand the objection itself; Sal's a neighborhood restaurant that has won city-wide awards. Among Dallas restaurants, Sal's is notable; that seems sufficient. The underlying argument seems to be that Dallas restaurants are not notable. Pawsplay (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The New Yorker's readership extends way beyond the NY metro area. I bet its print edition is stocked in Beijing airports. Somehow I doubt D Magazine, the "Dallas Guide to Restaurants, Nightlife, and Things to Do" is getting international distribution, or even distribution outside of DFW. That's not a valid comparison. And we look for notability that is beyond mere local notability. That is part of a guideline. A neighborhood restaurant that has won city-wide awards can't be presumed to have notability beyond its local city in the absence of sourcing that confirms this. And the D Magazine bit is a trivial mention. Sal's Pizza is presented as one of eight top restaurants in one of six neighborhoods (Oak Lawn) in one of Dallas' five areas (Central). I'm not going to take the time to count every restaurant in the D Magazine list, but there appear to be in excess of 150, in which Sal's gets a 3 sentence bullet point. So...I'm sorry, that's an extremely trivial mention. There's no way that source can be used to establish notability. This leaves us with the Observer source, which is demonstrably local. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just wanted to note that the restaurant seems to receive strong and not-just-mentions local coverage.[6]. Perhaps someone will tell me why that's not sufficient, I recall debates about such things before, but currently no delete !votes really do that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Restaurants are notable if various large circulated newspapers and magazines cover them, regardless of them being local coverage or not. It meets WP:GNG Dream Focus 16:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) keep (whatever that means). Individual restaurants, that's always a tricky matter. In this case, the article (now) comes with some local, verifiable, and reliable sources which, in my mind, make it cross the GNG threshold, even if barely. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just about any popular local restaurant is going to get some local coverage and when that restaurant is local to a major metropolitan area then it will likely get even more coverage and it will more likely be in major new sources. This to me amounts to WP:ROUTINE and is not indicative of significant notability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Small town papers cover everything in town. That's routine coverage. A large city on the other hand does not cover every single restaurant. Positive reviews from multiple reliable sources make it notable. Dallas has 1,197,816 in the city, with 6,371,773 in its metropolitan area. Dream Focus 19:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of the news sources are behind a paywall I cannot say for certain what each one is about, but several from the snippets provided in the search results explicitly fit the definition of routine coverage or trivial mentions. That the only mentions are from Dallas news sources says it all. Were it actually notable I would expect some news coverage from outside the Dallas area. Certainly I would expect there to be a whole news article, not a review, dedicated to discussing the restaurant as a major eating establishment in the area. Really, I would prefer some significant mentions in a paper based well outside the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. I can't even find mentions from Fort Worth-area news outlets.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I see no evidence of sourcing/coverage that is more than local. Dallas is a large locale, certainly, but I don't think this is what is meant by "regional" coverage, which is the established bare minimum for a topic like this. I'm saying "tentative" instead of "weak" because...well, I don't know, really. I'm not 100% certain on this one, but for now I think it's a delete. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see anything about "regional" coverage? Dream Focus 22:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"[A]ttention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary". Goodvac (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a secondary guideline. WP:GNG has already been met. Dream Focus 23:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial local coverage. Everything I've seen has been reviews and blogs. I don't think we want to greenlight every big-city restaurant that's been reviewed in a local paper or two. --JaGa^talk 04:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSLOCAL and WP:IDONTLIKEIT? That !vote was easy to debunk ;-) Diego (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promo reviews and local news - there are great off wiki places for such as this promotion of food outlets. - Youreallycan 18:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...but this one might hold some weight. Being local is not relevant, but what if the sources found can be seen as promotional? I'd like to find out what arguments are usually used with respect to reviews by professional critics; I consider this to be significant, but I could understand that someone could find this one bordering the routine and not significant. Somebody want to comment on this? Diego (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Of rewards are not routine. Any establishment in the Dallas area that wins one is more than likely going to display their certificate in a place of pride. Best Reason to Think You're in Brooklyn means "Best New York-style pizza and Italian comfort food" in Dallas. I can understand why someone unfamiliar with the publication might, at first reading, mistake "Best Reason to Think You're in Brooklyn" for a casual mention by a beat writer, but if you will review the categories, you will see that many of the awards are named that way, even if the award is actually for an established category. Those are are actual annual awards, with one, maybe two or three or three winners out of each category for entire Dallas area. Considering that the Observer doesn't hand out an award for NY slices every year, this is basically a case where they split the Best Pizza category specifically in order to recognize Sal's. Pawsplay (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Corp: Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists generally does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is so notable that each entry can be presumed notable. That being said, on what basis is your claim being made? How is the Dallas Morning News Best of list different than Boston Magazine's annual Best of list? They give a plaque which the winners get, and they usually post it. Can you state what the criteria is for making the list? Is it some sort of metric, or is it a popularity poll? What makes this "Best of" list any different than any other one published by any other publication in the world? The answer you and others have been giving, It appeared in the biggest paper in the state of Texas therefore it is notable is not a valid reason to keep the article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy, the link provided does not just illustrate inclusion in a "best of" list, it's also accompanied by a review so it can still be used to confer notability as "significant coverage". My doubt is at what point a critical review stops from being routine and begins being significant. Often at AfD there's a view that all critical reviews (such as travel guides and restaurant critics) are routine, but I don't think that this view is sensible. Why being true to the letter of GNG should not be a valid reason to keep the article? Diego (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Three reports from the same local paper do not pass WP:GNG by any stretch. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@JaGa, Rob, Reaper: I find it hard to disagree with you all. This is a borderline case, in my opinion, and if I had to close it right now, based on the evidence and arguments presented here, it'd be a clear delete. This is not an article I would break a lance for. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Routine local and promotional coverage falls far short of establishing notability per WP:ROTM. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local news is actually an issue. After doing a search, there was only coverage from Dallas Morning news or other Dallas local periodicals. No news, it seems, even outside of the city, so it doesn't seem to bypass WP:ROUTINE. Silver seren^C 01:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Routine links to Wikipedia:Notability (events) which is about events only. WP:CORPDEPTH does include "routine restaurant reviews" though. If any reasonable number of people ever agreed on such things before they were added to there, I might actually take that seriously. It was added in on June of 2011. [7] Not sure why it would fit in there with the rest of these things though. Totally different situation. I think WP:GNG fits here. Dream Focus 01:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that I can't find any significant news outside of Dallas. And we can't have an article on every single restaurant discussed in sources in every city, as has been pointed out by people before. Local newspapers generally do a weekly feature or something on a local restaurant. The main issue with having such an article based on these sources is that the sources generally don't say much, not enough to actually make a complete article with all the sections that made at least a C class article. For example, this source listed in the article. If you read it, sure it's decently long, but it says absolutely nothing about Sal's in specific. The only thing usable from that source is the scores they gave, the text is just rambling garbage that doesn't have a point to it. Silver seren^C 02:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not proposing to add every single restaurant that receives coverage. This specific restaurant is notable because it won category awards from two independent sources. Again, the links provided are not weekly features, but include annual roundup awards for the entire city. Out of every Italian restaurant in Dallas, there was a year that it was decided Sal's should be the one worth noting for being the best cheap eats, the best NY-style pie, etc. I find myself repeating once again that these mentions are NOT weekly featurings. The Dallas Observer's Best Of and D Magazine's Best and Worst are credible mentions. The Knockers article was not added by me; it is a supporting article only and provides some local color. The notability is supported by the separate accolades from Dallas Observer and D Magazine. Sal's is notable because Dallas restaurants are a notable topic, and Sal's is a notable Dallas restaurant. I don't see how Wikipedia becomes more valuable by deleting articles about actual cuisine and retaining articles about S'barro or whatever. Pawsplay (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We agree on one thing: The D Magazine bit is definitely a "mention." If it were significant coverage, and if D Magazine were a non-local source, then we'd have something. Unfortunately for Sal's Pizza, neither of these things are true. Sal's being a member of a notable group (Dallas restaurants) does not necessarily mean that Sal's is in and of itself notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia currently claims that a Metropolitan_area is a region. Examine also North_Texas which lists the Dallas/Fort Worth Area Tourism Council under external links. You are misusing the term "local" here as if D/FW were a single city. Do you understand you are talking about an area that covers 19 counties, around 6 million people, over 14,000 sq miles, and over 100 miles in distance? It is the size of Vermont, with ten times the population. Pawsplay (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - As of the time of this post, the article has been expanded and an additional source has been added to it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the most ridiculous bit of coatracking I have ever seen. A person from your workforce gets murdered, that does nothing to increase the wiki notability of it - he wasn't at work when it happened - the murder has no relation to the pizza place at all - I removed it, if the articles kept or not that content has no place in this article - sheesh - Youreallycan 12:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - (to clarify) I didn't add the information, I only denoted it here for this discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know that the murder was not related to the production of allegedly very good pizza in the Dallas metropolitan area, which probably really has crappy pizza because Texans don't really know pizza and probably also eat cinnamon raisin bagels. Joking aside, I think where we come out here is that the regional coverage of Sal's, though not insignificant, is below the general GNG standard. One or two articles about the shop from a non-Dallas large paper, e.g., say the NY or LA times writing about what to do on a weekend in Dallas, might be sufficient, but that's not what we have here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What complicates finding any other sources, if they exist, is that Sal's Pizza is a general pizza shop name for unaffiliated restaurants. So there's a bunch of them in other cities that have nothing to do with each other. Silver seren^C 17:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The murder information is a classic example of passing mention, why it ever made its way into the article is beyond me. That was poor attempt to derail the discussion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added it because the local coverage of the murders mentioned his longterm employment at Sal's. The objection that he wasn't at work when it happened is absurd. The people writing the articles for the news were the ones who decided to mention the relationship. The reason it was mentioned should be pretty obvious; Sal's is a recognized and notable establishment, and David Jackson was cherished neighborhood figure. Notability does not apply to the contents of an article, only to the article itself. It seems pretty obvious to me that this section was axed simply because someone wants to see the article deleted, not because the paragraph itself was a problem. AFAIK it's still an unsolved murder case involving a well-known employee, and hence is still worthy of inclusion in the article. Please refrain from allowing contention over the article's notability to spill over into vandalism of the article itself. Pawsplay (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*And there it is a resume of why the en wikipedia ia a f**ked up place with f***ed up content that is worthless, in fact, worse than worthless and total example of why quality contributors flee in droves. Youreallycan 20:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)striking my gripe as its not really specific to this deletion discussion. Youreallycan 20:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I understand this correctly. So, winning some awards just for being awesome pizza is not notable enough. But being mentioned in an unsolved murder case is "worthless." Meanwhile, D Magazine is a "local" publication, even though its readership is the combined size of the entire population of several incorporated cities in Vermont. I want to assume good faith, but what I'm really sensing here is some anti-Texas snobbery. can we talk about, maybe? Pawsplay (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - people would do well to remember that "it's just a local source" is considered an invalid argument for deletion, and that neither general notability nor reliable sources say anything against sources being local. "Local" is just from organizations guideline; also avoiding "regular coverage" is a requirement for the events guideline, and both are alternates to GNG, not replacing it. If the general criteria are met, having the sources being local or routine will say nothing against the provided coverage. This decision should be taken because of the strength of sources alone, not extraneous criteria like local or routine which have never been part of the general notability consensus.

As for the comments dismissing sources for being reviews, I'll point out to the main criterion in the WP:SNOWFLAKE essay. I think this article does have potential to be a beautiful snowflake (and thus above a cookie-cutter template), but will reserve my !vote as I'm undecided about the sources. Diego (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could easily become an article of this shape. Pawsplay (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then the ITSLOCAl section needs to be reworded, as there is significant past precedent that only local news stories without a single national or even other region source doesn't meet the cut. For example, see these past AfDs: here, here, here. There's many more besides those with similar results. Silver seren^C 23:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How much of that "precedent" can be counted as community-wide consensus? This and this policy discussions make it clear that the general notability guideline is not bound by the requirement of non-local sources found at WP:Notability (organizations and companies). That's why WP:ITSLOCAL is an invalid argument for deletion (and the section shouldn't be rewritten), and why the above !votes don't hold weight. Previous AfDs can be used to inform consensus-building discussions at the policy talk pages, but their particular weight is small since the local (no pun intended) consensus they can met is mediated by the quality of their particular sources. Fact is that the argument against local sources has never reached wide consensus, or it would have be encoded in the primary guidelines and policies by now. As it stands, it's only used at the complementary guidelines that are used as alternate ways to inform notability but don't supersede the GNG. Diego (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it meets the WP:GNG that's all that matters. You can't have secondary guidelines overriding the primary one. An article must meet the primary or secondary, it doesn't have to meet both, as past consensus has clearly been established. Dream Focus 23:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I'd hope that all editors would devote more time to talk about the quality and significance of the sources, and less about their physical location. ;-) Diego (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The routine restaurant reviews in the Notability for organization and companies article has been removed by me after discussing it on the talk page with other editors. [8] Dream Focus 03:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note: Dream Focus' modification to that notability guideline was swiftly reversed, so "routine restaurant reviews" still appears in the guideline, and I'm alarmed that this is what passes for "discussing it on the talk page with other editors." One person from this AfD agreed with you, one person not from this AfD disagreed, and that was it? Yikes. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I discussed it, two others agreed with me, no one objected, so over 24 hours after I started the discussion and no objections about, I removed it. Didn't think anyone would mind. Then two additional people showed up to participate, disagreeing with me, and put it back in. Dream Focus 14:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a nice mention on gayot.com. Unfortunately, that site is currently blacklisted. I submitted a request to have it de-listed. Pawsplay (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The site has apparently had a history of being spammed in the past. Submitting a whitelisting for www.gayot.com/restaurants/sals-dallas-tx-75219_15df00108.html Pawsplay (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first half of the article is a violation of WP:SPAM the second is coverage of a non-notable, but tragic, crime that happened to be against an employee of the restaurant. J04n(talk page) 21:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not affiliated with Sal's, nor does the article use any laudatory language. What exactly are you identifying as spam? Pawsplay (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that winning an award from a news source for being the best, makes the coverage more than just routine coverage. Dallas Observer gave them their best of award in 1993, and D Magazine listed them in the "Best Neighborhood Restaurants 2008". As has been pointed out, there 6,371,773 people in the Dallas metropolitan area. Dream Focus 15:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The most accurate way of interpreting the D Magazine listing, and this is disregarding that it's local coverage either way, is that Sal's Pizza is one of the 6 best restaurants in the Dallas neighborhood of Oak Lawn, population 48,418. This is not a noteworthy distinction, even if D Magazine were a non-local publication. The Dallas Observer's "Best Cheap Italian Food of 2003" award appears to be the better argument for notability, setting aside, again, the problem of local-only coverage. The notion that a local newspaper's conferring of a "Best Cheap Italian Food of 2003" award on a pizzeria makes that pizzeria a notable topic for encyclopedia is ludicrous. That we're even discussing this single, local award as an argument in favor of notability should tell anyone all they need to know about whether this topic is actually notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:32, 12 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. Snow closure. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imbi Paju[edit]

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

Insufficient sources. TFD (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Insufficient sources in the article, or in existence? Looks like there's plenty of news articles about her.--Michig (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14]. SL93 (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Strong coverage on GNews archives. Cavarrone (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage exists in multiple reliable sources, as evidenced above by User:SL93. Gongshow ^Talk 03:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SL93.Estlandia (dialogue) 08:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject only needs sources to exist; not for them to be reflected in the article (it would be nice of course, but is not what we look at at AfD). Sufficient RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, 9 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) B music ian 01:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Liiv[edit]

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

Few sources exist to support an article. TFD (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- this might be an article where few sources exist on-line but with some effort one could find off-line sources. I don't intend to look myself, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Looks like a notable academci to me. Since he was Estonian and was last at work over 60 years ago, I am not surprised that sources are hard to find. I do not think USSR encouraged reasearch and writign on prominent people in nations it forceably incorporated into itself. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough sources for WP:V, there's a plausible case for WP:PROF#C7 as editor of what still seems to be the main Estonian history journal, and the postage stamp is strong evidence for general notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep, mostly on procedural grounds. "Too few sources" is not a reason for deletion. Notability might be, though. --Sander Säde 08:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Head of a national archives is a sufficiently important position for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:34, 10 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) B music ian 01:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Bogdan[edit]

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

WP:N Львівське (говорити) 03:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a member of the Ukrainian parliament, Bogdan meets the notability criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No rationale for deletion provided. Carrite (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK#1 no argument for deletion, or at least no complete argument as per policy WP:ATD, AfD should be closed within 24 hours WP:NPASR so that nominator can decide whether or not to do the work needed to prepare the community for a discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nominator has nominated for deletion (both PROD and AfD) a number of articles created by user:Orekhova with whom he/she has a content dispute over Rinat Akhmetov article (see here and here. I am not taking sides in this dispute but it seems that these nominations are trigged by the dispute and not by the actual lack of notability of these articles. I thank that this is a violation of the meaning of the AfD procedure. Beagel (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note An admin request has been posted on the talk page to close this AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 18:56, 5 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. Procedural keep as no reason for deletion offered and no deletion !votes. No prejudice against a nomination if reasons are identified. StarM 02:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Berezhna[edit]

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

WP:N Львівське (говорити) 03:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Cookie cutter nomination with no evidence that WP:BEFORE has been followed and not rationale for deletion provided. This is a member of parliament on top of that. Carrite (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a member of national parliament, she easily meets WP:N under WP:POLITICIAN Valenciano (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As per WP:SK#1, nomination is not an argument for deletion. AfD should be closed within 24 hours WP:NPASR so that nominator can decide whether or not to do the work needed to prepare the community for a discussion. See WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. Unscintillating (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nominator has nominated for deletion (both PROD and AfD) a number of articles created by user:Orekhova with whom he/she has a content dispute over Rinat Akhmetov article (see here and here. I am not taking sides in this dispute but it seems that these nominations are trigged by the dispute and not by the actual lack of notability of these articles. I thank that this is a violation of the meaning of the AfD procedure. Beagel (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note Admin request has been made on the talk page to close this AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 20:28, 5 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. Procedural keep as no reason for deletion offered and no deletion !votes. No prejudice against a nomination if reasons are identified. StarM 02:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Fisunenko[edit]

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

WP:N Львівське (говорити) 03:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The nomination simply points to the entire notability guideline page, without delineating why the article should be removed from Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No rationale for deletion provided. Carrite (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep As per WP:SK#1 there is no argument for deletion. AfD should be closed within 24 hours WP:NPASR so that nominator can decide whether or not to do the work needed to prepare the community for a discussion. See also WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. Unscintillating (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nominator has nominated for deletion (both PROD and AfD) a number of articles created by user:Orekhova with whom he/she has a content dispute over Rinat Akhmetov article (see here and here. I am not taking sides in this dispute but it seems that these nominations are trigged by the dispute and not by the actual lack of notability of these articles. I thank that this is a violation of the meaning of the AfD procedure. Beagel (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note Admin request has been made on the talk page to close this AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 18:04, 5 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 iCarly (season 3). (non-admin closure) B music ian 01:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IBeat the Heat[edit]

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

Non-notable episode. Tinton5 (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to iCarly (season 3), from which the text was lifted verbatim. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The episode itself isn't independently notable from the show, but a redirect wouldn't hurt if it's decided to go that way.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete and install redirect to iCarly (season 3). Till I Go Home (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to iCarly (season 3). I can't find sources to establish notability for this episode, but a redirect seems reasonable as it's a plausible search term. Gongshow ^Talk 08:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to iCarly (season 3) as above. Unreferenced, fails WP:PLOT, no evidence of notability. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:32, 6 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. Consensus is that this is still too much of a neologism for Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infodynamics[edit]

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

Neologism, apparently almost unused by anyone but Mansuri & Ceruti. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google searching shows up more like a marketing buzzword than a real area of study. Shadowjams (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt for reasons above, and repeated recreating of this article by the same editor despite multiple explanations on his talk page. Should also consider a speedy delete under G12 as a copyvio from [15]. Singularity42 (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional references were added, and I was asked whether they were sufficient. I do not think they are--almost all of them--as well as the added content -- are perfectly general to information theory or information science. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed a section that was added today for being original research (what the etymology of this specific neologism is) and a copy/paste of other Wikipedia content without attribution (the etymology of "information" and "dynamic"). Singularity42 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a simple term. There is even a department of infodynamics at Rice University. It is a new term of which Wikipedia should be open to. There are plenty of references listed compared numerious wiki articles that do not have any references at all. Despite the above comments, I do not see technical arguements against the term, I'm just hoping people here act out of intelligence rather than emotion. Think about it, it is a very simple term that is being used more frequently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raysonik (talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean for the comment above to be a keep !vote? Singularity42 (talk) 03:34, 11 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 Deleted as A7 by Quarl. Non-admin closure. "Pepper" @ 13:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Lawrence[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 9 months and devoid of secondary sources to support notability per GNG or musician. I've looked for reliable sources related to the musician and his new album but have found nothing. Two other articles created by the same editor have also been deleted for lack of notability. Slp1 (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A7, "sharing the state" is tenuous. Also, it's Randy Rogers Band, no D. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 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. Subject is an author, photographer and actress but the consensus is that she has not achieved notability, in WIkipedia's sense, in any of these fields. JohnCD (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jude Calvert-Toulmin[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:BIO, Non Notable subject[16] with some self published material. Clearly Using Wikipedia for Self promotion Hu12 (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I updated this page today as I am a fan of Jude Calvert-Toulmin and had read on her blog that she has recently had a leading role in a new film and is appearing next week in a British television show. I've never updated Wikipedia before so have obviously put in content which is deemed unadmissable. I have removed the content I added this morning. Kimmy L-F —Preceding undated comment added 06:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Groan. The article was started by an SPA. Her website has the following list of links across the top: Free Kindle Reading App | Email Jude | Wiki | Home | Table Of Contents | Kindle Mother-in-Law, Son-in-Law | Book Mother-in-Law, Son-in-Law | Kindle MY ADVENTURES IN CYBERSPACE | Book MY ADVENTURES IN CYBERSPACE | Fleur De Lys Publishing. My emphasis. Yes, "Wiki" is this article (via a URL-shortening service, strangely). Fleur De Lys publishing is hers, and it's the source for the only evidence in the article that she's a photographer of note. Could this article be just another adventure in cyberspace? I thought I'd click on one of those links to see what kind of adventures these might be. The links go to Amazon, where the products are highly praised by, yes, an SPA. (Unusually, I'm grateful that Amazon isn't on the spam blacklist.) ¶ Google News has never heard of her. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what an SPA is but I have never met the subject and do not know her other than through her work. I became aware/a fan of Jude Calvert-Toulmin via her writing on climbing in the UK nearly ten years ago and have also bought her books (yes, from Amazon). Through her website I've met other fans and although she is not mainstream and recognised by Google News - is this the criteria for noteworthiness? - she does have a large fan base of people around the world who follow her writing. Kimmy L-F (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the Wikipedia-speak; "SPA" means special-purpose account. There is plenty of evidence that those whose editing interests in Wikipedia are limited to narrow subject X are more interested in promoting X than they are in improving Wikipedia. I imagine that in Amazon, those who are exclusively writing reviews of the products of the rather little-known person X are more interested in promoting the works of X than they are in informing people. JCT's fanbase may be giant or tiny or even nonexistent; it doesn't matter. What does matter is the existence of reliable sources. So far there's one article from a Sheffield newspaper, and, I think, that's all. Got any more? -- Hoary (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having read one of Jude Calvert-Toulmin's novels, following her blog for some time and recently finding out that she's going to be on the TV Show Come Dine With Me, I decided to have a look around the web to see what else she has going, at the moment. Strangely enough, I came across this discussion/imminent deletion - despite the fact that: a) she's listed as one of the photographers exhibiting at the Pop Icons exhibition - http://www.portelli-popicon.co.uk/index.php?inc=media ; b) she's widely known as an author on many third party sites - http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/pgfjg/come-dine-with-me--10022012 , http://www.channel4.com/programmes/come-dine-with-me/episode-guide/series-24/episode-27 or http://nowthenmagazine.com/issue-46/filmreel-2/ (for example); and c) she has a (very much in need of updating) filmography on IMDb - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2235332/ - certainly incomplete due to her more recent role in the indie film Mercy - http://brianlt.blogspot.com/2012/02/mercy-dark-tale-of-loss-by-joao-paulo.html and http://frontiermedia.blogspot.com/ (that's her in the right-hand side DVD release picture); — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimino2012 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC) — Cimino2012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Jude Calvert-Toulmin is also identified as an author in this article: http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/food-and-drink/jude_calvert_toulmin_1_451949 and as an author and photojournalist in this article: http://www.thestar.co.uk/lifestyle/features/today_s_woman_taboo_sex_a_winner_for_author_jude_1_267083. As I am in Australia, it's been via these third party sites (including Wikipedia) that I've been able to learn more about her outside of reading her books and blog. In editing the Wikipedia page I am hoping to bring together the information that I have come across for completeness, as the page is currently not up to date. Kimmy L-F (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources, including those listed above, come near to the requirements for notability. The Sheffield Star article is about the best thing out there, but since it takes the form of an interview it veers to close to a primary source for my tastes (and seriously, local papers shouldn't really count towards notability - I've been in my local rag numerous times, and I'm sure as hell not notable.) Blogs and IMDb are no-go per WP:USERG, and listings, as either a photographer or TV cast member/guest don't fulfil the requirement in WP:GNG for "significant coverage". Yunshui 雲‍水 23:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is meant to be impartial. The comments by "hoary" are personal and sarcastic attacks indicating a lack of impartiality which totally contravenes Wiki's rules and ethics. If you read "hoary"'s user page, he has voluminous negative feedback from the Wiki community, being referred to as "the personification of everything that is wrong with wiki and the internet in general, one person who has a bee in his bonnet about something and won't listen to consenus and people with more experience and knowledge"

Sockpuppetry, posting under multiple accounts is illegal in Wikipedia and yet out of the blue, two users both with a specialist interest in Japanese history are citing this article for deletion. I am going to report this user to admin under suspicion of sockpuppetry under the usernames "hoary" and "Yunshui"

Jude Calvert-Toulmin has been referred to as an author in the Sheffield Star and in NowThen magazine, links cited by other users. She is listed as an actress on the IMDB, links cited by other users. She is included as a photographer in a list of contributors to a major photographic exhibition at the Mall Galleries: http://www.portelli-popicon.co.uk/index.php?inc=media - George583— George583 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

On the first two of your three paragraphs, please see your talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about "local rags" and if applied to the paper in my locality I'd also struggle to argue notability. Sheffield is a major city however and research demonstrates that The Star has a print readership of almost 140,000 and an online unique user audience of over 600,000: http://www2.sheffieldtoday.net/media-packs/packs/star/page1.html. The Sheffield Telegraph has a readership of over 40,000 and an online unique user audience of over 80,000: http://www2.sheffieldtoday.net/media-packs/packs/telegraph/page1.html. Both of these publications identify Jude Calvert-Toulmin as an author in articles about her work. Kimmy L-F (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable author. Kimmy, nobody denies that JC-T is an author; but so what? There are millions of writers out there, and most of us are not notable. I've been published; I've appeared in my local rag, and others; and I've got an IMDb listing; but I'm certainly not notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
<JC-T is an author; but so what? There are millions of writers out there, and most of us are not notable> I absolutely agree with you Orange Mike. But not many of us can lay claim to having a top 100 best seller (in both paperback and Kindle) on Amazon within our chosen genre(Erotica) as Jude Calvert-Toulmin can with her latest title. Honestly, I think that's a fair indicator for notability and also refutes some of the discussions we've been having about the breadth of this author's notability (ie. references to "local rags" etc). Kimmy L-F (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply 1. Amazon rankings are notoriously ephemeral and manipulable; they mean nothing as far as notability is concerned. 2. Some books which are bestsellers in real life (NY Times list, etc.) are nonetheless by non-notable authors. 3. "local rag" was not my term. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:33, 13 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Applied Modification[edit]

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

Non-notable theory of behavior change that is essentially original research. No clear record of mainstream scientific peer review. Completely unreferenced article created by a SPA. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google search for ("creative applied modification" sokolovsky) turned up no English-language coverage in legitimate sources; my Russian is too rudimentary to judge the Russian-language sources, but the ads lead me to believe that they're not exactly the New England Journal of Medicine по-русски. There's an abstract on the subject at the Euromedica Hanover website; the abysmal quality of the English throughout the Euromedica site, and the fact that the CAM abstract urges readers to consult Wikipedia's Behaviour therapy article, leave the impression that it's not particularly peer-reviewed. Absent coverage by a reliable journal, or third-party evidence that it's pseudoscience with a serious following, it fails WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:43, 20 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, Wifione ^Message 16:47, 28 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I can find no evidence of notability here. Lack of English sources isn't itself a deal-breaker, but ~~Tom Morris'~~ Ammodramus' analysis is sound; what evidence there is does not support compliance with the GNG. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My fault: I forgot to sign the "delete" !vote, above, which led to my views being mistakenly attributed to Tom Morris. Ammodramus (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and I've amended my comment. Not a huge deal, in the scheme of things. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:52, 9 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Bienstock[edit]

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

No major notability since at the end of the show that he had not won, but no current third-party sources. Therefore, it fails the present notability requirements. ApprenticeFan ^work 11:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 22 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?} 17:05, 28 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. No separate notability from the show. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:13, 4 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 for lack of independent notability. Der yck C. 16:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volt Workforce Solutions[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY - gnews hits are all press releases, job listings, or minor mentions; ghits quickly come down to database entries and other minor matters. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subsidiary of another non-notable business. Contains an entirely unreferenced history section, suggesting conflict of interest. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. One note above says "gnews hits are all press releases, job listings, or minor mentions." The link confirming "11th largest staffing company" is to a list produced by the industry's primary trade group, and it's a list of largest staffing companies. (Every listing is a "minor mention".) The historical information links to the company's website because it is the most comprehensive compilation of the company's history.

Volt Workforce Solutions is indeed a subsidiary of Volt Information Sciences, but it is the customer-facing (and largest) division, and because of its corporate scope (employment agency), we feel Wikipedia readers may want to find information on the company. A cursory glance of Wikipedia content shows that many company's subsidiaries are included on the site (Sikorsky, a subsidiary of United Technologies, has a page; Avanade, a subsidiary of Accenture, has a page.) WReagan (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A simple inclusion on a list is a minor mention; it is not the sort of in-depth coverage that WP:NCORP calls for. The fact that the list is numbered does not make it significant. Subsidiaries certainly aren't barred from having their own pages, so long as the subsidiary itself is sufficiently notable. For example, there are chapters in aviation history books just about Sikorski. If a subsidiary is not notable on its own, however, it ought not get its own article; subsidiaries of notable companies can get coverage in the main company's article, which is what I earlier recommended for VWS, although others have now raised the question of VIS's own notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:02, 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?} 17:21, 28 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being on a list is not significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 15:34, 4 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. The article would be strengethened if independent reviews of his books can be found and cited. JohnCD (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David C. Fisher[edit]

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

Author and pastor with no evidence of notability. Can find nothing of note from news sources of Google Scholar. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he led two of the most influential evangelical churches in the U.S. and has published.Swampyank (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The list of ministers at Park Street Church#Senior Ministers (1811-present) makes it look like it is a notable position. St Anselm (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on this comment, there are fourteen other pastors in this list for which Wikipedia has articles, and only one interim pastor for which there is no article, and this information was available when this article was nominated for deletion 22 minutes after the article was created. Unscintillating (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are a huge number of Google Books hits, but most seem to be different people of the same name. -- 202.124.73.227 (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual is notable and the information in the article is verifiable. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would be happy to keep the article, but I have found no reliable sources that persuade me Fisher is notable. If anyone knows of any (perhaps I've just missed them), please point them out. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:10, 31 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Looks as if he is just about notable, at a minimum. The fact that his book went trhough 8 impressions suggests that it is significnat. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - seems to be (barely) notable: there is news coverage, some of which is listed in the article, and there are numerous reviews of his books. -- 202.124.72.226 (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there are numerous substantial independent reviews of his books, as indeed one would expect for books published by Zondervan, the extremely reputable major US publisher in the field, then he meets WP:AUTHOR without any ambiguity. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – But he might be notable as an AUTHOR, as claimed by DGG, but verification of multiple independent reviews are needed, and I haven't found any. Just being published is not enough. Jance day (talk) 22:00, 8 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 Mortal Engines Quartet. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Haniver (airship)[edit]

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

Plot element from a series of novels, not independently notable (WP:GNG) for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the author of the fictional work described. Not appropriate for a merger, as it consists only of excessive plot summary (WP:WAF). Sandstein 19:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mortal Engines Quartet per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mortal Engines Quartet - The airship herself is not notable, but the series she belongs to is. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:43, 12 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Dobbyn Collection[edit]

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

All I could find on this album in gnews and gbooks was one passing mention, and Allmusic doesn't seem to know it. Zero refs. Tagged for notability and refs for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep; found several newspaper articles noting and verifying the chart position and awards. Ironholds (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to withdraw if you can point me to the RSs. I just now double-checked gnews/gbooks/gscholar, and saw only one passing reference.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I included said RSs in the article. I'm not some fly-by-night !voter - I try to fix the article up first, and argue it should be kept second :). Ironholds (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Dobbyn had 2 collections that I've seen reference to. One -- the subject of this article -- was entitled He also had a second collection, as I understood it, entitled "Overnight Success". The Allmusic EL in the article bears (in the article) the name of one, but points to the other. And, I can't see the offline sources that you've mentioned. I'm happy to withdraw if we can clear this up, and perhaps it is all in the offline sources, but am a bit confused.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I have give it as Overnight Success: The Definitive Dave Dobbyn Collection 1979 – 1999 as the full title. I'm thinking that the confusion comes from the fact that we have one album with two potential shortened titles. Ironholds (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to withdraw, based on what you can see in the offline sources (which I can't see). It might make sense to bring some harmony to the references to the article -- since they are a bit all over the place ... if the title of the album is as given, the title of the article should be changed IMHO (to either "Overnight Success (album)" or, less likely, to "Overnight Success (The Definitive Dave Dobbyn Collection 1979 – 1999)". Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed; happy to move it :). I'll wait until after this is closed, though, just to avoid mucking with links and the like. Ironholds (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 28 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ironholds. Notable and verifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:53, 4 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. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

180 (drink)[edit]

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. Like most beverages there is an entry on the trade website bevnet. Otherwise there is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Possibly notable, but the article is kind of hopeless. Other than the ingredients and nutrition facts, there's nothing. Agent 78787 (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 28 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article fail to explain why the drink is notable. The brewery-energy drink claim is false, per talk page. Thuresson (talk) 19:01, 4 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. Unfortunately, without a single obvious redirect target, redirect isn't a good option. Der yck C. 16:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Herb Robinson[edit]

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

I can't find significant (non-trivial) coverage of this person in multiple reliable sources that are not local reports of his running (e.g. the Wicked Local Newton link). The second reference provided in the article (Craig Crawford) is a broken link. Subject doesn't meet criteria of WP:POLITICIAN as he his only a candidate and has not held prior elected office. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 00:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections, 2012 until such time as a neutral article about the 2012 race in Massachusetts's 4th congressional district is written. The current biography fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I believe the typical/best redirect would be United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts, 2012#District 4. -LtNOWIS (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Cullen328. The article's subject may be somewhat noteworthy after a few months have passed, but the article should then be redirected to the election itself. DCItalk 03:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN and currently not worthy of redirecting too. ●Mehran ^Debate● 07:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Frankly, I see no reason for a redirect, any more than is accorded to any other person who fails WP:BIO going away. This is a fringe candidate who barely registered on the radar last primary around and with little hope of doing so this time. Article created by a SPA with only two other unrelated edits. Ravenswing 08:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this page becuase I saw that Sean Bielat (republican candidate last time around) had a page and I figured it was only fair!? Barney Frank has stepped down, so at this point all candidates could be considered 'fringe candidates' - someone has to win!! (that is until JK3 decides to run). I am planning more edits soon, so hopefully I can swing you guys around. I guess I would be comfortable with a redirect at this point... Jonchalk (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia notability guidelines are not based on "fairness" or any concept of equal time, but on whether subjects have received sufficient mention in "significant detail" in multiple, reliable, published sources, as per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Bielat was extensively covered in the national press and met that bar of notability. Robinson was not and has not. Ravenswing 16:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:42, 13 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.