Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 February	7 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 Speedy delete. The article was deleted for unrelated reasons (G7) some time after this AfD was created.

The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 10:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMETT[edit]

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

WP:CBALL Falcadore (talk) 14:11, 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. henrik•talk 13:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Kent County League Premier Division[edit]

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

The threshold for season articles looks to be level 9–10. Looking at the Kent County League, only one of the teams qualifies for a wiki page. Doubt an individual season would qualify. PROD was removed, no reason given. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
Delete - none of the teams are notable, none of the players are notable, none of the matches are notable. Ergo, the season isn't notable. Giant Snowman 09:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there does not appear to be any indipendant coverage of this competition. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:43, 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 delete. Carrite's view should be taken into consideration by future recreators of this or any related article. Wifione ^Message 04:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim peace movement[edit]

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

Non-notable group. Second reference in the article is the only WP:RS, but it's a trivial mention. No other coverage in reliable sources. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~If any of the information is ever properly sourced I would say just have it included in the page for Islamic Peace.~~ SaveATreeEatAVegan 21:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After further review, no specific value is worthwhile merging. SaveATreeEatAVegan 02:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 7. Snotbot t • c » 04:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article might have some value, and would recommend that it is either kept or merged with Peace in Islamic philosophy. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What value do you specifically think it has that is worthwhile merging to Peace in Islamic philosophy? -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After further evaluation, in response to your question I'd have to say that there is nothing in this article that would be worthwhile to merge into the article on Peace in Islamic philosophy. SaveATreeEatAVegan 02:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is really an article about the Swedish Muslims for Peace and Justice organisation which has not received signficant coverage in indepndent reliable sources. The rest of the article is not useful in any way so there is no reson for any merge. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is obviously a mistitled piece, it should be Swedish Muslims for Peace and Justice. No opinion about inclusion-worthiness at this time, but please do check for sources in languages other than English. This might be a good case for someone to work one-on-one with a new content creator, teaching them how to wikify things, etc. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 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. henrik•talk 13:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hominity[edit]

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

Unreferenced; original research; appears to be promoting ideas of the author. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The word has been re-coined several times, but each coinage seems destined not to take. This text seems to have nothing to do with any of the references I found. Mangoe (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have no indication that it has stuck anywhere, and if it has, I don't know if this can be more than a dicdef + etymology. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research--MLKLewis (talk) 19:29, 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 no consensus. Clearly no consensus to delete (statements that the article "seems to spread hate" are preposterous and are not taken into consideration); no consensus between the options of keep or merge. Sandstein 07:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality and Seventh-day Adventism[edit]

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOAPBOX and should not be used to promote personal opinions or to publish personal essays or original research. Nonogyro (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sourced info into Seventh-day Adventist Church. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources provided. None of the sources in the article establish notability outside the community of this religion. aprock (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Merge Insufficient for a stand-alone article, and dicta of a church should generally be placed in an article on the church, not cropping up with every possible issue combination. Collect (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if merged, I hope the content is reviewed for neutrality, it rather strikes me as POV-ish. 78.26 (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A glance at the title had me thinking this was a POV essay, but upon closer review this one passes muster as encyclopedic coverage of an encyclopedic topic, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Merge - Valid topic? Yes. Enough material for a full page? No.Tyrenon (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into a larger article, but the main article is pushing into a too-large-size. Bearian (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic and merits its own article; other Christian denominations have similar articles, such as Homosexuality and Methodism. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Because it is a WP:SYNTHESIS that fails two of Wikipedia's three core values, being "Neutral point of view" and "No original research", and the third core value of "Verifiability" is stretched to the limit by the use of non-independent sources which have been carefully selected to support the author's POV. Jance day (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I knew of the five pillars, but I have never heard of Wikipedia's three core values. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable topic. The Seventh-day Adventist Church article is already too long to take a merge of this into its Ethics and sexuality section. Maybe this article needs improving for POV issues but that's not a reason to delete or merege it. The title itself is not POV. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic. The current article does not examine the issue very thoroughly. There is much more information available and issues to be examined. drs (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article in the current form is clearly POV and seems to spread hate. Even though this is written in NPOV (which seems highly unlikely), the content of this article at best can be 'Merged' to Seventh-day Adventism article. Abhishikt (talk) 01:47, 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 redirect to The Southern Vampire Mysteries. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlocked (novel)[edit]

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

Too soon? I found the examiner article referenced in the WP article, but other than that the only thing I can find is a very trivial mention in the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal. Everything else is self published, forums, blogs, etc. I'm sure the book exists, but I'm not so sure it is notable yet. Maybe closer to publishing there will be reviews of it, but I'm just not finding notability... yet. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if just delete the examiner.com reference - the rest is official information? There are only 84 days left till the release. Don't delete it, please. Severenika (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the statistics - people have been waiting for the article. Severenika (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - This is too soon; there are not enough references for the book and it is still quite far off. However, the author of the article has obviously put some work in and it will almost certainly be notable in the future (when the book if released). If it is userfied, the author can continue to work on in and the article can be published once the book is released (provided it is notable enough, which I guess it will be). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Severenika, ~~the examiner.com reference is actually the only reference that is usable in the Wikipedia article... the rest come from unreliable sources.~~ The author herself is not a reliable source - we have no way of verifying if her claims are true. It could all be a giant hoax. That said, nobody here really thinks it is a hoax... there's just not any reliable sources to prove it. When there are, the article will for sure belong here... just not yet. For information on reliable sources check out WP:RS. For now, I agree with talk. Let's move it to your user space so you can keep the work you've done, improve it, and when ready, "publish" it back on to the main Wikipedia. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just a note, but Examiner cannot be used as a reliable source at all. The reason behind this is that anyone can sign up to become an editor, making the stories there little better than a random blog entry. I also want to note that the person who wrote the Examiner articles shows up on the spam entry for Examiner (Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/examiner.com) as having repeatedly attempted to add their articles to Wikipedia. [1] In other words, this is the equivalent of someone writing a non-notable blog and trying to add their blog entries to Wikipedia. No matter how well written they are or how informed the writer is, unless they're considered to be an absolute authority, their data cannot be used.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

'Mea Culpa I've never really paid much to them, never seen them as a source here before, and have ben led by non-Wiki people to think of them as more editorial than that. And I think I had them confused with a local paper which has Examiner in the title. "You're just four steps away from becoming an Examiner," indeed! Thanks for setting me straightLivit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the examiner link.Severenika (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. LOL, I made that mistake at least a dozen times before I finally caught on to why it wasn't allowing me to post the link. I learn most of my wiki lessons the hard way, I'm afraid. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Charlaine Harris but keep the article history. Odds are high that the book will get a ton of reviews, but there's not enough here now to justify keeping the article and it's too far off from the book's release date.There's a few brief mentions out there [2] and the major booksellers have the book listed as a sale item, so unless the company decides to change the name at the last minute, the book's name seems to be the only thing that can be backed up at this point. (Of course that can change at the last minute.) I wouldn't really object if the article gets userfied or deleted, though. I just think that a redirect might be a good idea since I can see quite a few people looking it up on Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Redirect to The Southern Vampire Mysteries. It's a more specific target than the author, and more suitable since this is a book in the series. I suspect that the book will garner the coverage needed to establish notability in the future, but it doesn't have it now. The redirect can be undone when that time comes. -- Whpq (talk) 18:37, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Locbook[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and appears to fail the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can see no evidence that this is notable; there are no reliable third party sources. The style of writing also suggests a mild promotional nature: "With the popularity of free software and the lack of it available for the petroleum wholesale market, the developer released the suite as a low-cost alternative." With the notability issue, I don't think the software is really important enough for a Wikipedia article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The three references look nice until one sees that they are used to source advertizing boilerplate. The rest seems to come entirely from the publisher. Mangoe (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing that seems independent significant coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence the subject is notable. Couldn't find anything to grant notability. The 3 provided references have nothing to do with the subject. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I work for a competitor so I would like to see the article deleted, but to be fair this is the only free software product for its target industry and I know the industry very well.174.252.244.142 (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability shown since the December AfD. SL93 (talk) 23:12, 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. henrik•talk 13:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Space Cat[edit]

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

Somehow survived an AFD ages ago. I can't find a single reliable source on it, however — 0 hits in Google Books. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Largely per nom as a discontinued strip that never got beyond at most a few college newspapers, and apparently never got collected in any fashion per nom.Tyrenon (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With something like this, there would need to be substantial coverage to establish notability; there is not in this case. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find reliable sources. A cartoon having previously run in some newspapers doesn't automatically establish notability with reliable sourcing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable underground comic. SaveATreeEatAVegan 21:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There just aren't any sources out there that would be considered to be reliable secondary sources. Most of what I did find were articles that just mirrored this wiki entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Comment: Advised active AFD admin User:CharlieEchoTango of possible closure per WP:SNOW. SaveATreeEatAVegan 23:09, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony Assistant[edit]

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

Most sources are Myriad's own website. Other sources include a musical artist's profile on MacJams, a YouTube video, a download site and reviews from unreliable websites that mostly just provide download links. Prod removed by the article's creator and editor, for whom English does not seem to be a primary laguage — they claimed not to understand the term "red link". I could not find any professional reviews of the software, nor any other reliable sources about it.

I kind of hate to do this since I've used Melody Assistant since I was 12, but it seems to fail the notability guidelines for software. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The creator dumped some "secondary" links on the talk page, but none of them look reliable either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence that this is a notable piece of software. The sources don't really establish any level of improtance for it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources that were added are a strong indication of non-notability. SL93 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not understand the expression "Non-notable software by redlink company." In particular "by redlink company" is not a (UK) English known colloquialism or not even any kind of jargon that I might have come across before. Not even Google mentions this. However I can second guess that on Wikipedia all links to non existent pages appear as red, so maybe this is what you mean. However this makes no sense to me because a red link is supposed to be for notable subjects that have no page, whereas your - valid - argument is that this is an existing page for a non-notable subject. Non-notable as per Wikipedia:Notability (software) or Wikipedia:Notability (music) would have helped me more. Now that I have read both notability criteria, I fully agree that Harmony Assistant should not have its own Wikipedia page. Fgenolini (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Redlink company" indeed means that — the company, Myriad, doesn't have an article, so it shows up as a red link. The problem is you have added sources that are not reliable — YouTube videos are not reliable, nor are sites that merely offer the software for download. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 SmartSE (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Rostami[edit]

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

This person has some mentions on martial arts websites, but I have not seen any reliable sources independent of the subject that discuss this person in any depth. VQuakr (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GHits: zero on News, zero on News archive, and only 96 ghits on the entire web (most of which are to YouTube or one of his own sites). Everything I've found appears to be the same bit of self-promo used to start off the article here. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:16, 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. The consensus below is that this was a notable event under its previous name and that deletion is not an appropriate outcome, though a rename might be considered. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Day of Dialogue[edit]

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

This event does not meet the basic criteria of WP:GNG in that it has not received Significant Coverage in Reliable Sources that are Independent of the Subject. The article is sourced by references to “dayofdialogue.com” and “focusonthefamily.com” which cannot be considered independent sources. The non-independent “alliancedefensefund.org” does not even mention “Day of Dialogue” in their articles. Other references used in the article do not directly mention the subject, and no significant coverage of the event is found elsewhere in independent sources. Nonogyro (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Twenty sources are presented, many of them independent. No reason to delete. Toa Nidhiki05 19:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And we do not need to "Capitalize Every Word in a Sentence" <g>. Noted in Baton Rouge Advocate [3], Cincinnatti Enquirer (Google news archive link available) , Colorado Springs Gazette (link available) , MSNBC (link available - simple Google search but system burps on this here), etc. Meeting WP notability guidelines. Collect (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The topics in the sources are "Day of Silence" and "Day of Truth"; does not even mention "Day of Dialogue". Nonogyro (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As Nonogyro said, none of the reliable sources mention 'Day of Dialogue'. Unless reliable sources which give this actual event coverage can be found, it is not notable, regardless of what other days of something exist. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there is more than sufficient coverage to pass notability (WP:N) however that coverage primarily rests with "Day of Truth." Day of Truth was renamed to Day of Dialogue by the sponsor and likewise the name of the article. If we're going to be so technical we can just rename the article back to "Day of Truth." – Lionel ^(talk) 21:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
tough call, it could seem notable but nmost of the sources go directly back to the organising or such supportive measures and would seem as primary sources. If other better wousrces are found to make it notable beyond the said organising group who seem to be advertising it then i think it should be kept. So in all wait and then renom later.Lihaas (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . CNN, among others, is a significant independent source. Last Lost (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the subject of the CNN source (which, as a newsblog does contribute to establishing notability), and demonstrates that this used to be the 'Day of Truth'. The release by AP seems to have been picked up fairly widely, for example here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7477978/ns/us_news/t/group-makes-noise-over-day-silence/#.TzGP5W-_dUc . There is more around. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No mention of “Day of Dialogue” in CNN article, so not sure how that source is relevant to this discussion. The only source that actually mentions “Day of Dialogue” is the Day of Dialogue website, and that is not independent. Git2010 (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it mentions: Focus on the Family said that the Day of Dialogue "will boast a new name while maintaining the same goal it's had since its 2005 inception. Anyway, this argument is irrelevant, since the equivalence of DoD and DoT, according to Wp rules, may be legally referred from the DoD website, together with other basic facts, such as names of directors, day of incorparation, etc. Last Lost (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The main problem with this article is that no one has updated it for over a year. Possibly move back to Day of Truth, which currently redirects to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The main problem with wikipedia is that it looks like 87% of its articles are updated only by bots and vandals. Anyway, point taken; since the article is under the fire and article creators don't care, I'll throw in a couple lines. Last Lost (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Wait. Peterkingiron is mistaken. He was probably looking here instead of here. Last Lost (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as Day of Truth. A412 (Talk * C) 03:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject meets requirements of WP:N. I would also like to suggest that nominator carefully reads WP:HARASS, which is a serious Wikipedia policy. The majority of nom's AFD request's seem to center around articles that User:Lionelt has created. SaveATreeEatAVegan 07:43, 15 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. But rename to Foreign Language Assistant per PWilkinson. The program doesn't seem notable, but the concept of a foreign language assistant is. henrik•talk 11:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assistant teacher programme of the Educational Exchange Service[edit]

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

I don't think this programme passes the general notability guideline. I have searched for sources both in English and German, and come up with nothing of substance (although my German is admittedly very patchy). Also, as the title is very long, it doesn't seem like a plausible redirect. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after seven years, I think we can safely delete this. There are no reliable sources that I could find. I'll change my mind if someone finds something decent. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 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, Stifle (talk) 16:54, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I find nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see this part of this program being notable; it strikes me as being in the vein of an article on "Teachers Aides in Brooklyn" or "Assistant conductors for CSX". Using it as an example in the "assistant teacher" article might be valid, but the article just doesn't seem to have a clear reason for existing in its own right.Tyrenon (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike some of the imaginary couterexamples used, this is a national program, not one limited to Brooklyn, officially sponsored by the Pädagogischer Austauschdienstsponsored, a major German government agency, not a single railroad --that doesn't have conductors actually, since it just runs freight trains. Anything can be made to look silly by saying it's the same as fanciful silly parallels. saying this is just an example of "assistant teacher" shows a failure to read the article--it's being used in a special sense. It does need some more sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the programme does not look as trivial as the Brooklyn or CSX examples. The problem was that, try as I might, I could not find any sources about it. Does anyone know when this programme was founded? There could be sources offline that I missed if it's reasonably old. If not, it might just be one of those cases of "bias in the real world". (I'm sure there was an essay about that somewhere.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to Foreign Language Assistant, which currently redirects to this article and does have easily findable sources - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. The article as it stands at the moment is too much geared towards the agency responsible for the German side of such schemes (a corresponding role for Great Britain, for example, is taken by the British Council), but correcting that is simply an editing matter (and a smallish one at that). PWilkinson (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with User:Mr. Stradivarius, this article fails WP:GNG. The article itself has been around for ages, and less than 15% of its very few contributions came after 2008. SaveATreeEatAVegan 05:03, 15 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. Sandstein 07:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T. P. Sasikumar[edit]

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

I see no evidence that the person satisfies WP:PROF, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. PROD removed by IP without explanation. Muhandes (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article without independent sources, and with no evidence of notability. Essentially a repost of Dr T P Sasikumar, which was created by the same author, and twice speedily deleted as promotional. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability "elements" in the article. Single digits citations on google scholar. A google search returned nothing of substance, but google news returned this one story in The Hindu: "A senior scientist dealing with the nuances of space technology, Mr. Sasikumar is on a journey to unravel the mysteries of yagas performed at various places. R. Ramabhadran Pillai meets him..." but I don't think it's enough... Tradedia (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N,WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a self-promotional article for an individual who fails WP:PROF, WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:N. SaveATreeEatAVegan —Preceding undated comment added 04:47, 15 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 04:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Andriette[edit]

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

Being a spokesman for the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is not enough to create the presumption of notability; and although references to him can be found, the sources do not provide significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject as required by WP:BIO. Nonogyro (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Five printed sources seem quite enough for an article to me. Toa Nidhiki05 18:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect to the NAMBLA article; he doesn't seem independently notable (that is, in his own right) beyond being a spokesman for a group. From what I can tell, most of the coverage being cited centers on his role within/surrounding NAMBLA rather than him independently.Tyrenon (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are enough reliable sources which establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: more than enough coverage in WP:RS to satisfy notability WP:BASIC. Lionelt ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources provide trivial mentions only, and do not provide significant coverage "that address the subject directly in detail". Nonogyro (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Overdrawn Invader (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sufficient WP:RS to establish notability. Qworty (talk) 06:50, 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 delete. henrik•talk 13:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cork Junior B Football Championship[edit]

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

Wholly unreferenced, so no evidence of notability per WP:GNG. The junior championship is the third level of competition in gaelic football, so it is hard to see a plausible claim for inherent notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article itself claims that the competition is for the lowest level of Gaelic football. There is certainly no inherent notability, and no evidence that the WP:GNG will ever be satisfied. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. A county-wide, junior, amateur, sports competition that -- as pointed out -- is a low level of even county competitions in the county in question. Presumably, could have been a PROD. But I've AfD'd some similar articles myself to ensure some wider editor input on the general principle that articles such as these are not notable per wp standards, though they might well be of interest to certain individual editors/readers.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:44, 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. (non-admin closure) B music ian 05:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Owen Neal House[edit]

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

The house and related individuals are of questionable notability. Furthermore, the property was removed from the National Register of Historic Places. Encycloshave (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not temporary, and consensus at AfD has been that NRHP-listed sites are notable, as any property which has passed the standards for inclusion on the National Register should be well-documented enough to pass the general notability guideline. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My only question was about the fact that the NRHP had removed the site from the register in 2006, thus it doesn't meet their standard. Encycloshave (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, presumed notable. Also, see http://www.preservearkansas.org/index.php?page=2005-list, where it's listed as "Saved" and restored. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, consensus has time and again confirmed that even destroyed and/or delisted NRHP sites remain notable. It being listed in the first place required extensive documentation to prove its notability prior to the original listing. Altairisfar (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Removal from the NR means that the property's historic integrity has been compromised for some reason or another: it doesn't mean that the property's documentation never existed or that they made a mistake in listing it. See Kinzua Bridge, which is a featured article despite its destruction and delisting from the NR; the documentation is still in existence, and it's extremely unlikely that the same is not true for this house. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, at the moment, is that as far we are concerned, the documentation doesn't exist. If the original paperwork could be produced, it could used as a source, but at the moment that paperwork cannot be obtained from NRIS or anywhere else I can find. Mangoe (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, as far as we are concerned, the documentation does exist, or it wouldn't have been listed in the first place. It's not our problem that the documentation isn't online.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is our problem in that it can't be used as a source unless someone actually reads it! I'm ambivalent about deleting this article; however, the fact remains that there is essentially no information about it available. We cannot even state its actual location! Mangoe (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Offline sources - "This page in a nutshell: Offline sources are just as valid as online sources." Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost - "Verifiable sources may have location restrictions (only available at one archive, museum, repository, or only available within a certain country or geographical area).... The costs or difficulties of verifying a source do not impact on its reliability, as long as it can be verified in a reasonable time frame by someone." http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/research/ - "Visit our archives. Open Monday through Friday 9:00am to noon." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is likely that the documentation does exist, but it's evident from the article that nobody who wrote any part of it actually read the documentation. It's not a source until someone has actually read it and gathered information from it which appears in the article, no matter how accessible it may be. Mangoe (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That flies in the face of many established notability standards. For example, we keep high-level politicians if a single source can be established to show that they held political office, because it is presumed that print sources exist — even though we can't be 100% sure that they exist, while US law requires the sources to exist in order for a place to be listed on the NR. NRIS is a database, so it doesn't have extensive documentation for anything; it's based on the documentation held by the National Park Service (which operates it), and the documentation is available from them or from Arkansas' State Historic Preservation Office. Some SHPOs charge for access to documents, but I don't know of any that would absolutely refuse access, and even if they did you'd be able to get it for free from NPS. Finally, being unable to state its actual location is irrelevant, or we'd start a deletion discussion for Amelia Earhart. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:Notability is not temporary. It used to be on the NRHS. A412 (Talk * C) 01:38, 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 Speedy delete by User:Star Mississippi under criteria G12 as an "Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.phirhoepsilon.org/?page_id=62". (non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Rho Epsilon[edit]

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

Unreferenceable -- I can't find any proof that this exists at all, and even if it does, there's nothing verifiable to say about it. The article has two external links -- one is a purported website for Phi Rho Epsilon, which is a template with 'lorem ipsum' and no real data. The other external link has no mention of Phi Rho Epsilon at all. ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks to be a one-college fraternity/sorority. Moreover, the article is basically a copy-paste of the fraternity website. I'm actually going to raise a copyvio as well, just to cover all bases.Tyrenon (talk) 19:58, 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 merge to Stagecoach South. Other than the nominator, everyone seems to think there is some useful information here that should be moved over to Stagecoach South, so a merge is appropriate. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stagecoach in Hants & Surrey[edit]

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

Fails WP:CHAIN, Redirect to Stagecoach South or delete Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question I don't live in the UK so I wouldn't know, but what makes this article different from the articles for various tube stops or other transit lines? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer We're not talking about physical structure such as a tube stop or transit line - the article is about a minor regional subdivision of a transit company. This doesn't appear to be uniquely notable subdivision and it would be better redirecting the article to the larger regional division or simply to the Transit company its self. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite agree with that. Just becuase a tube stop has a physical structure doesn't make it more notable. Stagecoach Hants & Surrey run a lot of bus routes and carry millions of passengers a year - certainally more than the passenger throughput at an average tube station. Nevertheless, I still think at the moment we should merge to Stagecoach South. Arriva436/talk/contribs 18:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The merge rationale isn't that it isn't noteable nor that is less noteable than physical structures. The rationale that specifically applies to corporations is that subsections of a company which aren't unique enough to have their own article should be covered in the parent article as part of general coverage As for why I didn't do this boldly, there has been over the past year little consensus for changes to Bus articles so rather than redirect, be reverted, then bring here I thought I'd just bring it here first and get community consensus. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stagecoach South. A few independent reliable sources talk about this subdivision, but there's not very much material to write about so it's easy enough to cover it as part of the larger division. Stagecoach South East already uses the format. In fact this could probably have been done boldly without needing an AfD, but never mind. Alzarian16 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stagecoach South, as per Alzarian. Not sure why the AfD either to be honest. Arriva436/talk/contribs 18:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any relevant information to Statecoach South where there is plenty of room for inclusion. The same for Stagecoach in the South Downs. SaveATreeEatAVegan 04:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no deletion necessary. See WP:ATD and WP:Merge and delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:13, 15 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 Stagecoach South. Since some editors feel there may be information worth keeping, merging is the better option; page editors can figure out what is independently sourced and worth saving. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stagecoach in the South Downs[edit]

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

Fails WP:CHAIN, Redirect to Stagecoach South or delete Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stagecoach South. Independent reliable sources do talk about this subdivision and it probably passes the letter of WP:CORP, but there's not very much material to write about so it's easy enough to cover it as part of the larger division. Stagecoach South East already uses the format for all but the most notable subdivision. In fact this could probably have been done boldly without needing an AfD, but never mind. Alzarian16 (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Stagecoach South article has plenty of room for any information to be merged, assuming we get a better citation and the "route" section is deleted entirely. SaveATreeEatAVegan 04:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no deletion necessary. See WP:ATD and WP:Merge and delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stagecoach South. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:30, 15 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. henrik•talk 21:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nassau County Comptroller's Office[edit]

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

Previously deleted as an expired prod [4]. Had been created by now blocked group account, apparently advertising itself (See User:Nccomptroller). The article has been recreated with the same content and contains only primary sources. There's no credible assertion of notability, and it's a lather/rinse/repeat advertising effort. Hammersoft (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is the policy on county-level administrative offices? I think that's one level too low for inherent notability (it triggers something of a clutter problem: So many things get in here that searching out meaningful information becomes hard due to sheer mass); state-level offices and major city offices are one thing, but once you hit the generic county level you're too low. At best, I'd think that a redirect to the relevant county article might make sense...but even that risks a problem if the other office becomes notable for some reason (good or bad).Tyrenon (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question relies on Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. An article should never rely entirely on primary sources. If that's all it can do, it is highly unlikely to pass notability/verifiability standards. It's not so much a question of at what level of government we indicate a cut off; a local underfunded, government run dog pound in a small community could be the subject of an article if it was the subject of articles from multiple secondary sources. That's not the case here though. In effect, this article is asserting notability by saying it's notable and therefore it is. If you stripped it to only that which is from secondary sources, there would be no material in it at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A better, more supportive place for this is at Nassau County, New York. It's already there so a merge isn't even necessary. §everal⇒|Times 23:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable per WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN, etc. There is no policy on county offices, but past precedent has not been kind to inclusionists at WP:AfD. It depends on how unique the office is in comparison to neighboring counties. We have deleted most sheriff's offices, as well as most District attorney's offices, but kept a few. I don't recall any debate in the past five years specifically on the office of county comptroller, but Bruce Blakeman, a former county official from Long Island, was redirected. I don't see what's especially notable about this office, except perhaps as a stepping-stone to Congress. Bearian (talk) 01:36, 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 closed as nominator is not suggesting deletion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid Fantasy Manager[edit]

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

This is one of a number of similar titles produced by From The Bench Digital Entertainment. Each title is identical other than the name of the football club e.g. Real Madrid, Liverpool, AC Milan etc. It would be better if this article were merged into From The Bench Digital Entertainment and then left as a redirect. That way the content could be relevant to all the titles not just this one. Biker Biker (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 6. Snotbot t • c » 16:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest close per nom not being about deletion - AfD is likely not the appropriate venue for a suggested merge/redirect. Salvidrim! 19:36, 6 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) 00:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 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 merge to 2011–2012 Syrian uprising. henrik•talk 14:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syria civil war[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)

The page is an unnecessary fork of 2011–2012 Syrian uprising containing mostly redundant information. It is also unclear whether the title is verifiably supported by reliable sources or may be a case of original research. The creator and primary editor of the page did not seek consensus for the fork on Talk:2011–2012 Syrian uprising before creating it. As this article is largely redundant and any attempt to separate fighting in Syria from protests in Syria or security actions in Syria cannot be definitively supported by the body of sources at this time, I believe the article must be deleted and any information not found on the page from which the fork derives should be merged. Kudzu1 (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Oppose and absolute Keep First: we need this page because there is an absolute lack of central page about military operations in Syria. Second, this is different from the Uprising page, who don't cover the events covered by this page. Third: we have a military infobox, we need a military page. Fourth: The main objection to the move of the Uprising page to Civil War was that the protests were part of the uprising and the armed events of the civil war. Fifth : All is sources and used in sub articles. If the user Kuzdu1, known for his pro syrian opposition roots wants, he can open a move or merge discussion, but delete is compltely out of reality --ChronicalUsual (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really care to get into any personal mudslinging, but my personal feelings about this issue aren't material here. You've been dinged for WP:POV editing on the Syria topic far more than I have, so please don't go there. I've got nothing personal against you, just don't see how this page is necessary when the uprising page covers violence and clashes even in its introductory section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the conflict is rapidly descending into a full out war. The uprising != civil war, and each article would reflect that. I think a fork is in order. Yazan (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources made a distinction between the "civil war" many claim and the uprising, I would agree with you. But they don't. Do you ever see separate casualty tolls listed for the "civil war" than from the uprising? Or separate players said to be involved with each, even? It's an arbitrary distinction at this point, and I think the very use of the "civil war" name on this website without at least a working consensus of sources, which we had when we moved 2011 Libyan uprising to 2011 Libyan civil war last year, is POV and OR. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kudzu, I've suggested that much in the move discussion on the Syrian uprising page. Many sources are speaking now of a civil war, and it doesn't make sense to rename the uprising page into civil war. 1) because it covers a long period where the conflict was certainly not a civil war. 2) the article is already too long. 3) an forked article on the civil war would have a background section on the uprising, and I think that's more than enough.Yazan (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My primary concerns are that I don't see anywhere near a consensus among reliable sources that this is a full-blown civil war yet (and personal opinions aren't material without verifiability on this website), and I don't see anywhere that marks a division between the uprising and the "war". There has been fighting since the start of the uprising, according to the Syrian government's claims. According to the claims of the opposition and independent media, fighting has been verifiably ongoing since at least last summer. Escalation has been gradual. Any start date we use for the "war" is going to be completely arbitrary, and right now there's nothing really but the personal opinions of some editors saying it is a civil war, while in the meantime, our reliable sources aren't convinced. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The proposed page seems fine to me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia without paper limits. This phase deserves its own page in notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.219.245.248 (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— 200.219.245.248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Not convinced by reasons given : verifiable and reliable are met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeyBilout (talk • contribs) 16:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— HeyBilout (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep The Syrian Opposition is no longer fighting for democratic concessions or compromises, but the removal of Al-Assad and his Ba'athist regime and is using the FSA as a military arm to acheive that goal. In turn the Syrian government has used military forces in an attempt to remain in power. I believe this is a civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.165.20 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh...who knew a deletion discussion could be so engrossing as to get an IP user who had never contributed before to comment on it and a new user to sign up just to comment on it? Glad to see our community expanding in such unexpected ways... -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is remarkable. It shouldn't matter though: AfD should be more akin to a trial in which opposing views are heard and a decision rendered based on evidence and policy rather than an ill-monitored vote. If only closing administrators would remember that... Carrite (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2011–2012 Syrian uprising. I don't care what the end article is called, one of these titles can redirect to the other, but this is an obvious fork and it needs to be fixed. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The number of deaths and the renewed fighting in several sections of the country justify the page. --Aginsijib (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~Delete with 2011–2012 Syrian uprising. This is the same article as the Syrian uprising page. Once the media starts calling the Syrian Uprising a civil war the article will be renamed. This article is being used to bypass the discussion that is going on that page. The Syrian uprising and the Syrian civil war are obviously the same thing. --Guest2625 (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2011–2012 Syrian uprising per Syrian civil war, merging anything useful (if there's something). We don't have separate articles for 2011 Libyan uprising and 2011 Libyan civil war. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Merge into one article and rename Syrian civil war. This conflict has been described as "on the verge of becoming a civil war," or similar expressions, by many reliable news sources in the last month : National Public Radio (US) Jan 12, The Hindu, India. Feb 6, ABC Newcastle (Australia) Feb 1. The "Free Syrian Army" claims 1,000 to 25,000 soldiers per Al Jazeera ,Jan 10. Other news sources in recent days(CNN newsblog, US, Feb 6) go ahead and state "It is already a civil war." Arab News (Saudi Arabia) Feb 1) said "Now it's a civil war in which the regime has the heavy weapons but the Sunni Arabs have the numbers." National Turk (Turkey)Feb 6, 2012 said "As Turkish government states that Turkey won’t turn back Syrian refugees, who flees the civil war in the country, many Turks believe that a flood of Arab refugees is tha last thing Turkey needs right now." The Moscow Times, Feb 2 called it "Syria's year-old civil war". Jerusalem Post Feb 6 said "Israel’s leaders probably believe that Syria is out of the game now with the escalation of the internal civil war there..." Today's Zaman , Feb 1, quoted a Lebanese political leader as "believing that Syria is already in a state of civil war.." "Market Watch (British commentators) from The Wall Street Journal Feb 6 said "I've seen a lot of commentators overnight starting to use the words 'civil war' in Syria.." The American Prospect, Jan 15 said "..by most standards, the conflict in Syria has been a civil war for quite awhile.." News sources are not unanimous in calling it a extant civil war, as opposed to mass hit and run attacks by defectors, or an incipient civil war, or that the country is "pretty close" to a civil war. Edison (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, what, we're going to have two separate articles just because there's a split opinion on whether the uprising has reached the point of being a civil war or not? I'm fine with debating the name of the original article, but that's not a due basis for a fork. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Libyan civil war starts "The Libyan civil war (also referred to as the Libyan Revolution[42] and the Libyan Uprising[43]), was an armed conflict in the North African state of Libya..." That seems a good example, so I'm changing (above) from "Keep" separate articles to "Merge and rename," since it is difficult to pinpoint a day when the fighting changed from an "uprising and incipient civil war" to an actual "civil war." Edison (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The creation of this article is a childish action by ChronicalUsual. He failed to get consensus for a renaming of 2011–2012 Syrian uprising to Syrian civil war, so now he has come up with this fork to get his way regardless. I do not need to explain that this type of content fork is contrary to Wikipedia policy as per WP:POVFORK. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment POVfork is creating different pages with different points of views instead of one neutral page. This isn't POV fork. Both pages cover mainly different domains. With your speech, creating any sub page would be POV fork. This is not what is happening, your reasons are ,in conclusion, empty. This page is a welcomed specialization and has already a lot of new contents which are not in the firt page, and it is going to be expanded. By the way,the personnal problem between you and the creator of the page does not belong here.--Aginsijib (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll need to re-read WP:POVFORK because according to it a POV fork can, apart from a different page with a different point of view, also be another article on the same subject. The guideline even mentions specifically: The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article. The article currently under discussion fits that definition perfectly: it was created to dodge consensus and is under a title that clearly should redirect to the existing article about the exact same subject: 2011–2012 Syrian uprising. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is flawed. This page is not the other page under another name. The content is different. It is a specialization, a sub page.--Aginsijib (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. It includes a few more recent clashes, but it's not really new content, it doesn't describe a separate event, and it's almost completely redundant. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the main page, and nearly all the battles described in this new page are not even discussed in the main page. False road. It is a sub page.--Aginsijib (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then add them. That page is for the internal conflict in Syria; if it's not comprehensive, then make the changes there. But any distinction between the uprising, which has been increasingly violent since at least last summer, and the "civil war" is entirely artificial. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Are RS calling this a civil war? I've seen headlines today like ' fears of civil war after peace plan is vetoed ' - by , usual suspects, reprehensible Russia/ChinaSayerslle (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious fork from 2011–2012 Syrian uprising Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want to say Delete as a kind of fork (we often use "fork" to denote "POV" but that does not seem proven to me). At any rate, the content is mostly redundant to the uprising article, which, if needs be in the next weeks or months, can always be renamed--I'm going to go with Merge content and redirect, saving the name, so to speak. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Merge) - the article was forked without any discussion, which is obligatory as currently editors argue whether it is a civil war, an uprising or something else.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that we still need to wait a little while before such a page is created, also there is still no consenus for the article. Even though it is rapidly descending into a civil war, it still hasn't "crossed the border".Goltak (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge don't care realy. EkoGraf (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge. This is part of the larger period of uprising. I can imagine that once the dust settles, spinouts could be desired, and this may in the future be an acceptable spinout. I could also imagine that the phase in the conflict becomes the leading part of the uprising, and the article on the subject would be moved to this title. At any rate, it is much better to keep everything at the same place, and let at least some months pass before deciding on a definitive title for this subject, and the editorial choice on how to spin out. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Merge: Not sure if we should call it civil war since not even the media is using such term. I think it should be renamed something else. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Oppose and absolute Keep:Going on and instead needs cleanup --SpyroSpeedruns (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the above editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the article creator. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? That's the funniest thing I have read on Wikipedia in a while. Poor guy probably just copied the formula I used to vote and now he is blocked for that. Thanks for the good laugh though.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up and Keep Article itself needs to be cleanup, however there is notability and we have substantian amount of sources which calls current situation in Syria as such. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name dispute doesn't justify a fork. The current situation in Syria is already covered by an article, of which this article is an obvious POV fork. We can continue to debate the name for the main article as events dictate, but this article is just superfluous and adds to the confusion rather than enhancing Wikipedia's body of knowledge. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a neologism, its just speculative. such an affirmation cant be made so quickly while the conflict is turning into a "civil war" (as per media calls). not quite a war yet and not near where libya was. WP should be an ENCYCLOPAEDIA not a social media outlet to make editorial calls.

Or at the very least keep it as a redirect to the uprising which is more npov and credible. dont want it to be [[WP:RECENTISM]Lihaas (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You gave some arguments for a rename debate, not for a delete. No reason to delete the page like this talk suggests.--Aginsijib (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ChronicalUsual's refusal to accept the outcome of a renaming discussion is the whole reason this article exists in the first place. Renaming is not the solution, it is the cause. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content is different and can't be added with visibility into the other page. --Aginsijib (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can furbish us with a list of exactly what content on this page isn't on the other page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore "with visibility" indicates his clear pov (As are others especially for this event) and pushing an agenda. WP is NOT SOCIAL MEDIA!Lihaas (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is user friendly. When a page becomes too heavy to read well or become too confused, it is split in sub-pages. --Aginsijib (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's fine. I know what a subpage is because I've created more subpages myself for Arab Spring content than any other editor on English-language Wikipedia except for maybe User:Bahraini Activist. This isn't a subpage. This is a second page for the same event that an editor created because he was mad that he didn't get his way in a renaming discussion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Merge(or Redirect)) per Greyshark09. Consensus was not reached before this page was created.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since it is a content fork. It is part of the larger uprising. I think another renaming discussion should occur in the next few days. Time magazine boldy declared "Syria is at war". While that isn't international or media consensus, it is a major publishing entity that says war is already occurring. Given that, and since it is a continuation/esclation of the uprising, I think it should be deleted (or merged, depending on the content). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:30, 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 redirect to Ghostbusters II. henrik•talk 21:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slime Blower[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. Article is about a prop from a movie that makes trivial appearances in later video games. Article is essentially unsourced, except for one link to ghostbusters.com. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Almost totally original research, and does not meet notability guideline. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely without reliable sources for verifiability and notability; what plot is here can be incorporated into Ghostbusters II and Ghostbusters: The Video Game if needed there. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can be summarized in the main article with "The ghosts can be caught/destroyed with a so-called Slime Blower", which does not require a separate article. Nothing sourced to merge. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:50, 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. henrik•talk 14:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plaza Kota Tinggi[edit]

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

Shopping mall of unknown but apparently small size in a small town in Malaysia [5] No major anchors. No refs in G news except for some bans permorming there, and shopper comment: "A very old shopping mall with a small supermarket and some shops selling health product and muslim wear " [6]. Apologies for using such sources even here, but the WParticle on the town doesn't give even the population, and nothing from the mall even indicates the size. (apparently recently on sale for $6 M, but that site is on our blacklist. I Prodded it, but contributor removed the prod. I'll advise him to work on the town article instead. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Non-notable mall.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:08, 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. henrik•talk 21:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ramone Close[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator because he Inserted direct link to professional club website which indicates he is a listed player with appearances and statisitics. Given that all the clubs Mr. Close has played for are not notable, it's safe to say that he isn't either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one club he has played for is notable (R.R.F.C. Montegnée) but that doesn't mean he is - he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This footballer is not professional as far as we can tell. His club MKS Drawa Drawsko Pomorskie is not professional. According to Polish wikipedia they play in the third division. Just to clarify, the third division is actually the fourth level of football. Cloudz 679 17:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - MassUTD (talk · contribs), the article's creator, posted the following to the article's talk page. It is pertinent to the afd. However, it does not change the fact that Mr. Ramone fails both relevant notability guidelines, WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ramone does not deserve to be subject to the snide remarks of Sir Sputnik who fails to realise a number of key points. The player was taken in and provided a full scholarship by the Australian Sports Commission as he was identified as an elite player. Ramone served out his full 18 month development term at the Australian Institute of Sport. The difficulty faced by a young aboriginal player to make a career in Europe without EU citizenship is enormous. The same type of player with similar athletic capabilities if born in the UK or Germany would be signed and developed within a professional club youth system (equivalent to the standards provided by the Australian Institute of Sport) but pro club youth systems apart form that replicated by the AIS do not exist in Australia. Like many Aussie players before him Ramone is forced to travel Europe and work his way up through the lower leagues and currently he is being paid to apply his skills with Drawa Drawsko and he is poised to move up to 2nd or even first division Polish of Belgian football this summer. This young Indigenous Australian is rissing against the odds and is a notable player and a notable person --MassUTD (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while I wish him all the best in pursuing a career in football seemingly against the odds, unfortunately non-notable players don't become notable just because they are having to overcome a lot of adversity in their chosen profession..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--MassUTD (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Attached are links to articles indicating the Ramone Close was selected for Australia U23 Squad and was contracted to Professional A League Club Gold Coast United. His case is building. http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/79887,jan-checks-out-young-socceroos.aspx http://www.goldcoastsoccer.com.au/newsview/nyl-gold-coast-united-youth-beat-perth-glory-youth--824 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Institute_of_Sport_Football_Program http://www.worldfootball.net/transfers/aus-queensland-state-league-2009/ --MassUTD (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth footballers, and unless he played for Gold Coast's senior team in an A-League match, the fact that he was contracted to them does affect notability either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet our N guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:44, 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 redirect to William Frels, without prejudice against future restoration of the article with reliable sources. Der yck C. 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Frels[edit]

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

The Texas State Historical Association, in its entry on William Frels, makes no mention of a brother John co-founding the community, nor was I able to find any evidence online that he existed. Have I missed something? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~(see below)- Yes. here; searched frels at TSHA and that came up, ~~discusses~~ mentionsJohn. Dru of Id (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- As co-founder of unincorporated community Frelsburg, Texas, but sufficient sources are most likely offline. Community's website unsupportive. Dru of Id (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Rather than withdrawing this, I think I'll let it stand, to see if there's any support for merging John's article into William's? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect- Until better sourced; only other online data is Skip's double-entry bookkeeping at Findagrave & redux (side by side?); Further reading section at Frelsburg looks promising, but deadtree stuff. Dru of Id (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with dead tree stuff? Information existing on paper rather than digitalised can hardly be a reason not to keep? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 15:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So there is evidence that he existed in digital format, but the only support of his notability is on paper? Is there a chance that a request could be made to TSHA to scan this 'deadtree stuff'? Otherwise, a delete may be in order. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- There's nothing wrong with deadtree stuff, my superpowers just don't include seeing it from here. Without that, I cannot tell how in depth they cover this subject, since it is not their primary topic. 3 books about him would be Keep!; 3 books with chapters would be Keep.; 3 books that say 'he had a brother', without mentioning the name would be Delete! Sight unseen, I'm waffling, which I don't like. Dru of Id (talk) 21:39, 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 no consensus to delete. Marginal case. henrik•talk 20:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linkcycle[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another technology company that evaluates the environmental performance of products and services using life-cycle assessment advertising on Wikipedia. Deliberately vague gibberish: The mission of LinkCycle is to tackle the global challenge of environmental degradation and climate change by providing a collaborative software that brings down the costs of LCA. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, as the author I would dispute your claim that the statement is "so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it." The company has achieved recognition for its vision of using linked data collaboration to reduce the costs of environmental assessment and bring the LCA industry to scale. - King delta blues (talk) - 11:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability criteria: Organization has received independent coverage of significant depth:

Buttell, Amy (December 21, 2011). "Business plan competition winner offers insights". BizPlanCompetitions.com (US). Retrieved January 22, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

-- Selfless101 (talk) - 11:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)— Selfless101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Anonymous (January 23, 2012). "Thomson Reuters has noted them as well". [7]. Retrieved January 23, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Anonymous (January 23, 2012). "Interesting they have obtained US DOE recognition as well, which to me is strong industry notice". [8]. Retrieved January 23, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

Winning "business plan competitions" or "entrepreneurship competitions" is not the sort of tangible, lasting achievement that gets a business into an encyclopedia. Nor is having one of your press releases quoted in a Dept. of Energy press release. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Arguments based on poilicy and/or guidelines as to whether the company is notable will help to achieve a suitable outcome here.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The indication of a 'tangible, lasting achievement' is not a Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. The notability criteria that are required by Wikipedia, however, are met by the independent coverage of significant depth in the US DoE blog. The fact that the blog cites their source for the description of the company to be "drawn from the teams' own promotional materials" does not obstruct the satisfaction of the depth of coverage or independence criteria that Wikipedia uses to establish notability. Depth of coverage would be precluded by consisting only of trivial coverage such as, for example, "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization," but this is not the case. Independence cannot be established by "press releases, press kits, or similar works", but this blog is not such as it was written from the government agency office of two of the prize competition judges, Henry Kelly and Steve Isakowitz. As judges they must be independent of the prize candidates, as is the larger government agency on whose behalf the blog is written. - Selfless101 (talk) - 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Company meets additional notability criteria of (1) audience and (2) independence of sources. - King delta blues (talk) - 11:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)— King delta blues (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 15:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Almost certain that the article meets notability criteria, and there are several reliable sources cited, though some of them would be more appropriate as external links. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:50, 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 delete. Wifione ^Message 18:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electroshock (song)[edit]

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

I can't find much coverage of this song. It does not appear to pass WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per reasoning. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 07:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 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, Wifione ^Message 15:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.. 3OH!3 Google results are not very promising. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:53, 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basement Rock[edit]

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

This seems to be a non-notable music genre. The only reliable source I could find was this brief article: [9] The article lists a few mentions in the music press, but 'basement rock' doesn't seem to have caught on as a term. As such, the article is essentially entirely original research. Robofish (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mostly original research, and is not notable, as it's mentioned only in passing by reliable sources. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a very few references to 'basement rock' ( [10] and [11] for example ), but the articles also use other terms (such as 'psychedelic-grunge rock') or are specifically talking about a basement in which rock is performed. Article needs better references to continue to stick around.--Stvfetterly (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search turns up many more references to geology and some passing references, but I have found nothing that suggests a notable or clear genre. Appears to fail notability criteria.--SabreBD (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - On same grounds as above; the lack of third party sources, and the abundance of original research. Another unnecessary sub-genre. Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In my view garage band would be an encyclopedic topic. I'm gonna assume that link shows blue without linking to the ubiquitous video game. But the sum of garage bands does not create a new mysterious genre called "basement rock." Instead, one would think of these as a diverse array of practitioners of "underground YOURGENREHERE" — "underground Pop-Punk," "underground Ska," "underground Death Metal," etc. And none of THOSE should be encyclopedia entries either, rather subsections of main articles on genres. My opinion, of course. Carrite (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that link redirects to what should be 1960s Garage but what is listed as Garage rock. Interesting. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 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. Wifione ^Message 18:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Heyer[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Another in a series of pages created as part of a campaign to promote a particular South Africa art gallery. References are either directly from that gallery or press releases created by them. Vrenator ^talk 14:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky PROD Doesn't have any reliable sources. Can an admin delete this AfD? Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't have any non-self-published sources now, but it may be possible to find some that may be usable to satisfy verifiability if not notability. For instance, I'd consider a university library record to be a reliable source for the fact that she earned a masters degree, but it says nothing about notability. AfD seems a clearer and more permanent way to test whether we should really have an article on her, rather than focusing our attention on the narrower and less interesting question of whether the article we do have meets our sourcing standard. So I'd prefer to keep the AfD open. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:ARTIST, WP:PROF, WP:GNG, or any other notability standard. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is clearly part of a coordinated WP:PROMOTION of an art gallery called Brundyn & Gonsalves by the WP:SPA account Tigerhewson, who has also created a number of other similar articles. The article on this particular individual makes no real claim for notability and is sourced only with personal web-pages. Informal searching turns up nothing on her outside of the usual web flotsam (LinkedIn, etc.). Uncontroversial delete. Most of the other pages created by this SPA seem to be in AfD too. Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

PS. This account seems to be under a current block for the above activities. Agricola44 (talk) 15:40, 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. henrik•talk 14:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Armstrong[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Page created as part of a campaign to promote a particular South Africa art gallery. References are either directly from that gallery or press releases created by them. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately (though I'd love to improve the coverage of South African artists) the only significant coverage is in the Art South Africa magazine and seems to have been written by her tutor, Ashraf Jamal. Armstrong graduated in 2010 so maybe this is just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Sionk (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in view of the marginal notability and the apparent promotional intent of the article creation. One local magazine story is not enough for WP:GNG nor for WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 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 Article speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G4. Number 5 7 15:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Edelman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indications of notability. A Google news search reveals that Edelman is an oft-quoted "authority" in sports articles, but indicates no coverage ABOUT him. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:00, 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to Be Indie: The Movie[edit]

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

An IP editor posted the AFD tag on this article. When I went to remove it, I checked for references and supporting sources that would show that the subject was notable - and could find no sources of any kind to support the existance of this film. I can find the facebook page, and this article, but there are no news hits at all. The cast does not appear to have a film of this title listed in their credits at imdb (which, I know, isn't a RS as such, but they're usually on the ball about such things). There's no coverage of the premiere, which according to the article already took place. If the film were scheduled for a May 2012 release (and was complete enough to have had a premiere), surely something would be available somewhere? It's possible this is a case of WP:CRYSTAL and the article is just premature, but I'm skeptical at best. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a WP:CRYSTAL case at best, and possibly a hoax. Either way, if there aren't any sources, we shouldn't have an article on it yet. Robofish (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL applies here, particularly given the "rumors" at the bottom. Not that such rumors don't occasionally pan out. A reference on the show's main page to a possible movie would be more than sufficient until such time as a release/airing is formally announced.Tyrenon (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Likely hoax. SL93 (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nominator. The article asserts coverage at the YTV website, but I could not find any. It asserts having a premier in Toronto, but I could not verify this. Even if not a hoax, the lack of coverage for this film makes this article WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NF and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a crystal ball exercise, at best. Carrite (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and snow close. There's nothing out there about this movie. Considering that it's supposedly rumored to have some pretty well known stars in them, you'd think that it'd have at least a few news articles discussing said rumors. Not only that, but for it to be releasing soon, it'd have press releases out there as well. Even if it isn't a hoax or a rumor, it's just too soon to have this posted.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete Likely a Hoax, even if its not there lack of coverage to verify it or write an article. Toasted (talk) 20:48, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. -DJSasso (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Howells[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE. No indications of play at top professional level. College career does not rise to level of notability required. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you look at the external link to his stats he passes WP:NHOCKEY by playing over 100 games in a professional league. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn -- 100 games seems like an arbitary line in the sand, but if that is the line that people are willing to set, far be it from me to stand in the way of that. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:29, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube movie maker[edit]

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

Possibly too soon, in any way, there are no independent reliable sources yet, that give significant coverage. The article as it stands is a bit spammy, and from the primary sources supplied, I wouldn't really know how to fix that either. Without better sourcing, I can't see how we can in any way fix this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes, this is TOO SOON and essentially completely unsourced / unsourceable. Try again when it's been going long enough to gather favourable reviews. It also looks much like advertising. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it seems more of advertising then of "too soon". No indications of notability (neither WP:NSOFT, nor WP:N). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Appears to be spam. SL93 (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I search this program on google and yahoo, then have a try, I would like to say it's an valuable information, provides users with a free option, why not retain it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davikolin (talk • contribs) 02:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But IT'S USEFUL and I LIKE IT are not allowable arguments here at AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

maybe you are right, but I just want to say it's not a spam, we could keep it to get more knowledge about that, we need them to write something new and build encycolpedia for that, not just old, famous..... Davikolin (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but are you somehow connected with RealZeal Soft? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

?i used their program before, what are you mean? Davikolin (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that you have no edits to articles unrelated to RealZeal Soft. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING either. Please see WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, useful info, I will read carefully. Davikolin (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why delete? I read WP:Editing policy carefully, now this page is working in progress, but it isn't spam, not ad, not dictionary, not mirror, not blog, not manual, not news. Kobetyler (talk

The key reason is very simple: the article's subject is not "notable" (see WP:Notability). It's a core element of Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Obvious advertisement that also fails WP:N. oyasumi (talk) 18:15, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Taculod[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable. Because of frequent re-creations it might be a good idea to let a full AfD run its course, and possibly salt (which I would support). As it stands it could be up for A7, apart from the (dubious) claim he is signed on Sony Music in the infobox.

Apart from that it is a copy-paste move from userspace, but there is not much use fixing that if we're going to delete this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe sometime, but not today. No usable sources listed in the article, and searching produces no news or anything other than the pages upon pages of lyrics, YouTube, and social network pages that seem to accompany any musician these days, no matter how insignificant. Mangoe (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is not demonstated by reliable sources that the subject meets any of the critera of WP:MUSICBIO. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this person; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 00:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources found. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Concur with salting proposal by nominator. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: A album article from this artist was created at Chasing Life. Should the result of this AfD be delete, the album article needs to be deleted, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I afd'd the album, but I agree that if this gets deleted, that article should be speedied at that point. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, promotional, not-notable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've not found anything resembling reliable coverage - a Google search on "Neil Taculod" "Sony Music" shows only six results, all from either Wikipedia or primary sources, so that's likely a false claim. It appears that he may have covered a Sony song, but that's hardly the same as being signed by them. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet our N requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not ready for prime time. -- WikHead (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find reliable sources. Pls can someone close this! (and see Chasing Life above) Widefox (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Snow Delete and salt~~ Chasing life? Well this article's life is about to end. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any reliable sources that prove's this singer's notability. All I found were YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and lyric links, which do not satisfy WP:RS. Also fails WP:N for not being signed to a major record label. Please delete this, the temperature in the Philippines has become unusually low already. 11:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)~~

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Considering the fact that Magister Scienta also has mentioned this barely qualifies on notability guidelines, I'm currently deleting the article with no prejudice for an early recreation provided the required sources giving evidence of notability are cited. Wifione ^Message 18:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Troster[edit]

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

not notable, no references in googleland news at all Soosim (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little surprised. I see an article with two serious footnotes and a long list of publications. How did this article get to Afd? Debresser (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
really surprised? the two'serious' footnotes are: a) a bio sheet from an organization he is employed at; and b) a press release from his alma mater stating that he and 47 others received an honorary doctorate for the mere fact that they have been in the business for 25 years. i am not dissing 25 years as a pulpit rabbi - dealing with synagogue boards and members, etc., but c'mon on.....it wasn't like he was chosen for something he did. Soosim (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be a prolific publisher of his thoughts and a prolific blogger, but there seems to be very little coverage about Troster online. Re 'long list of publications', authors aren't automatically notable. Sionk (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - True, no hits in Google News, but a "past month" web search yields his HuffPost articles and a post from J Street about hiring him as Rabbinic Director. I'm inclined to let the article stand. The Wikipedia article for J Street shows that many of the staff and advisors there have their own pages, so unless we want to start hunting down every single other blogger who may not be notable enough, I'm in no rush to delete. Queerwiki (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:16, 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?} 17:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not going to pretend that it's a quality article, but I do thinks it meet the bare minimum for notability. Surly such a prolific writer must attain notability. Magister Scienta ^talk 23:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two keeps here don't carry much weight: one says, basically, that we should trust in Google hits, and the other that someone who has published a bunch of articles is automatically notable. That is of course not the case. A complete absence of GNews hits is indication enough that this is not a notable person by our standards. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I relisted the discussion once more, which is not generally done. As it stands, there is no consensus to delete the article, and keep voters are arguing it should be kept regardless of the notability guideline. That's fine in itself (and really, it is, guidelines reflect practice, not the other way around, and practice can change), but would warrant more discussion, as the GNG has stood to much discussion and usually come out on top. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - On the one hand, Mr. Troster seems to be a moderately published author, but I don't think he clearly clears the bar. His work seems to fall into a sort of nether-world where the articles are neither academic enough nor widely read enough to quite merit notability. If anything, he seems to be on par with an occasional non-syndicated columnist in a local newspaper, and my read of the guidelines is that such alone does not qualify one as being notable.Tyrenon (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not seeing "…significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."[12] Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Using Larry to search on seems o produce more in Gnews than Lawrence (Msrasnw (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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

Comment: Thank you Msrasnw for this, but 'more' is certainly a relative term, since only 4 items show up, of which, maybe 2 or 3 would be valid (and those are more than 12 years old). anyway, i think we are still not seeing "significant coverage" in RS. Soosim (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True - but above it was suggested there were no links which seems missleading. Also from these links we find a link to the Iranian Conference http://www.iisd.ca/sd/sdter/ where he seems to be presented as notable and in notable company and the claim in the PCN&R "featuring Rabbi Larry Troster, internationally known authority on Jewish and interfaith perspectives on ecological and environmental issues." Anyway best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:25, 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. Deleted by Fastily under WP:CSD#G11, "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Non-admin closure. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amcom Software[edit]

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

I don't think this company passes WP:CORP. It doesn't get any hits on Google News, and on Google Books there are about 300 hits for "Amcom Software", but they appear to all be either passing mentions or directory listings. The references in the article are all primary sources or press releases, with the exception of this piece in Healthcare Informatics, which I think proves some limited notability in the field of healthcare. However, I don't think this amounts to the level of coverage that WP:CORP requires. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another communications software company advertising on Wikipedia. Current text qualifies for speedy delete as unambiguous advertising and patent nonsense: Amcom Software connects people to each other and to data. Amcom products are used in call center communications, emergency management, wireless messaging middleware, smartphone pager replacement, and paging infrastructure for leading organizations in hospitality, healthcare, education, business, and government. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:13, 23 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, Stifle (talk) 17:05, 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) 09:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with User:Ihcoyc. It reads just like an advertisement. SaveATreeEatAVegan 10:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as unambiguous advertising.Tyrenon (talk) 20:06, 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 merge to Opel Insignia. Wifione ^Message 18:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opel Insignia concept[edit]

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

This is a stub and is likely to remain as such because there is not enough information to sustain a full article. It should be deleted and any usable content integrated into Opel Insignia Biker Biker (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be delated, because this is a study and it has nothing to do with the actual Opel Insignia, even if the contents of the article are not enough.Miniotx (talk) 19:50, 30 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) 09:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into the Opel Insignia article. There's room there for a brief discussion of the development process and incorporation of this into that part of the article. No need for a standalone article.Tyrenon (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as Tyrenon suggests. Show cars do not need separate articles unless they are notable in their own right. Greglocock (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with current Insignia article to properly deal with the history of the model.--Bud (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Opel Insignia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:14, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rucka Rucka Ali[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Sole citation asserting notability, from Current TV website, appears to be user-submitted content, and is marked as being sourced from subject's own YouTube channel. Note also the name of the Current TV user that submitted the Current TV article. -- The Anome (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, this article is linked from quite a few others with out any supporting citation. If this article goes, so should all the unreferenced mentions to it in other articles.) -- The Anome (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly the redirects at DJ Not Nice, Justin's Beaver and Toby Queef. -- The Anome (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm Black, You're White & These Are Clearly Parodies -- The Anome (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I found nothing to suggest that the subjects meets any of our inclusion criteria.--Michig (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Actually I just found this, which kind of makes him notable, so I'm now inclined to keep.--Michig (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Keep. ~~Fails to meet our N guidelines~~. Per charting. One need not meet GNG, if they meet our music notability guideline.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Michig points out, his albums charted, making him notable. --Muhandes (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And although allmusic is usually reliable, here is billboard itself showing an album charting at 8 (peak at 6). --Muhandes (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSICBIO indicates where a subject may be notable if they have been in the chart, however, I am not seeing how this subject meets WP:GNG as he lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Mt king ^(edits) 23:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Frankly, I didn't know why we even had an article on an internet pseudonym in the first place.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:MUSICBIO#2. - Cavarrone (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That only indicates that the subject may meet WP:GNG, however there is no indication that the subject of this article actually does have any significant coverage in which case it fails WP:GNG and just saying passes WP:MUSICBIO#2 does not actually help the discussion, see WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Mt king ^(edits) 09:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never said that charting (and having verifiable evidence of this) is a "proof" of notability, but it is an adequate sign to "presume" notability. If you want deprecate MUSICBIO, or at least remove criterium#2 from it, you're free to propose it, but this is not the proper place to restart the eternal dispute GNG Vs. SNGs. I just note that the last attempt to watering down SnGs related to people was rejected by community (here the discussion). Cavarrone (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added to the article a source with a short biography from Rhapsody, which seems independent and reliable. I also added a BBC News online article about a minor controversy regarding his work, again, very clearly independent and reliable. I'm not claiming these on their own amount to WP:GNG, but they are just two mentions I found in the first two pages of the Google search, and I'm pretty convinced a thorough search will find more. I tend to treat WP:MUSICBIO #2 as supporting evidence in case of multiple chartings, when WP:GNG cannot be directly shown, on the assumption that when an artist is charting multiple times they are bound to be covered, even if I cannot personally find it. Of course, everyone can evaluate for themselves. --Muhandes (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has charted with his albums. WP:MUSICBIO is meant to show notability in cases where WP:GNG is disputed. If an artist must meet both, there is no point in any other notability guidelines. A412 (Talk * C) 02:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. is an established artist and internet personality. Ice Hockey Hero 18:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BAND Criteria states "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Reaching single digit rank of the Billboard charts definitely makes one notable. In addition, his songs are known to pop up on Pandora radio from time to time. Jerwong (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 redirect to Shehzad_Roy#Albums. JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rab Jaanay[edit]

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

Zero gnews hits. Zero gbooks hits other than a wp mirror. Zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 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) 09:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is quite clear that Shehzad Roy made this album, and I think he is a notable artist in his country. However, I can't find any independent reviews or other reliable information confirming that 'Rab Janey' (which seems to be the correct title) is a notable album. Redirect to Shehzad_Roy#Albums is the best option at the moment, IMO. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a redirect would be sensible, as you suggest.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:30, 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 Speedy deleted, blanked by only author, and AfD was heading for delete anyway. Other related articles speedy deleted as well. Fram (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon Motor Park[edit]

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

This is a proposed race track. As it's only proposed, it is just a little bit too soon for this article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Even the sourced reference states that motor park is a "vision for a multi-purpose motor sport destination that could be constructed at Avalon". SaveATreeEatAVegan 07:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Article is used to explain possible alternatives due to the high cost of the Australian Grand Prix in Albert Park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeblake (talk • contribs) 11:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC) There is currently a link to Australian Grand Prix which explains a future switch to the Avalon track.[reply]

Delete: Almost entirely speculative. --Falcadore (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have redirected to Proposed Avalon Motor Park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeblake (talk • contribs) 13:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've undone the redirection because it will disrupt this running discussion and you have to move the page history as well. I have restored the content of the original article, and have tagged the new one for deletion under A10. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPECULATION, WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:01, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bone Jam[edit]

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

Article defines a neologism. Apparently the idea was brought up today. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added the afd template to the top of the article's main page.[13] SaveATreeEatAVegan 07:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Ironclad offense against Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 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 Nomination withdrawn per sources found. Non-admin closure. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unit 13[edit]

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

Contested prod. Upcoming game, no assertion of any pre-release hype in the gaming community. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added two external references to the article and included its appropriate stub-type as well. SaveATreeEatAVegan 06:56, 6 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) Gongshow ^Talk 09:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 09:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of coverage in reliable, third party sources. Many were found in a matter of seconds. Please, read WP:BEFORE. Source List:
- Game Informer, x2
- IGN, x2
- GameZone
- Kotaku
No offense, but I'm not sure what "Gaming Community" you're consulting, this game is getting plenty of coverage, especially considering it's not out yet. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 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. Wifione ^Message 18:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ines Rosales[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:BIO, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Apart from her bio page at her company site, the only in-depth coverage on her I could find was an article from the NY Daily News; all else were passing mentions. It's pretty unlikely that any traffic reporter at a local TV station could be notable per WP:BIO on that basis alone, and I can't find any evidence online that she's done anything else that would justify an encylopedia article about her. Some of the content could usefully be merged to WNYW. Instawisdom (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Instawisdom (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Instawisdom (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 23 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?} 17:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable person, clearly. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this appears as an attempt to include Rosales with her own article, as her five co-anchors already have one themselves. SaveATreeEatAVegan 08:07, 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. In view of the low participation, even after two relists, this is a "soft delete"; as with an expired PROD, it will be restored on request, to me or at WP:REFUND, without prejudice to immediate renomination. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Allen (media)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:N & WP:GNG Fumitol|talk|cont 20:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 23 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?} 17:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability in this puff piece. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:55, 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. henrik•talk 14:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker Time[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, as I cannot find any independent reliable sources about this TV show. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets WP:TVSHOW. It's a nationally-televised show as evidenced by the source provided (BBC may not be independent in this case but they are considered reliable). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia's notability guideline requires that reliable sources independent of the article subject notice the subject. In this case the only sources that have been provided or that I have been able to find are from BBC and not independent. I can not find anything that shows any reliable sources have provided any coverage of this TV show. WP:TVSHOW only says that a nationally televised show is likely (emphasis mine) to be notable, not that it is notable. GB fan 01:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, no third party sources stating notability. Calabe 1992 01:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent sources that I can find. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 15:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because although there is not "enough reliable sources" as you may put it, it has recieved significant blog and fan coverage which does show it is very, very popular and worth writing an article about. Just type 'Hacker Time CBBC' into Google or whatever search engine you use and you will see what I mean. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Androzaniamy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and "fan coverage" does not matter in determining the notability of a subject. If this television show were truly as popular as you say, it would have significant coverage in the media. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that the people who watch it and appreciate its great entertainment are not even old enough to make a new article about it on newspapers. Journalists like to write about stuff that appeals to them and their readers and as far as I know, not many children read newspapers regularly. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is incorrect. There are many articles on Wikipedia about children's shows that meet our guidelines and policies. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how many of them, may I ask have newspaper reports because of controversial issues or have their own merchandise? Androzaniamy (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The majority, I'd assume. It's not relevant to this discussion, however, per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't swear, my point is that as this is a farly new TV series if you give it time and not come to hasty conclusions you will see things from my point of view. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make articles about things that in time will be notable. They need to be notable first then we have articles about them. GB fan 19:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable. Please don't delete it took me ages to make and has plenty of sources. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it is not worthy enough for an article. Don't be a deletionist, it isn't helping Wikipedia. Androzaniamy (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between notable according to you and notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. Generally topics are notable only if someone can show that independent reliable sources have provided significant coverage of the topic. There are some exceptions to that but TV shows is not among the exceptions. Multiple people have looked for this coverage but have failed to find it. You have even said that you haven't found anything. In what way does this show meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. GB fan 17:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference between what I think is notable and what the Wikipedia policy suggests so please stop lying and typing in swear words that I have removed for obvious reasons as there is no need to swear here, especially in front of children. Androzaniamy (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it meets Wikipedia notability guidelines please explain how it does that. GB fan 17:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TVSHOW says it all. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. As I explained above WP:TVSHOW says that nationally aired TV shows are likely to be notable it does not say that they are notable. It also goes on to say "In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone." The guideline Notability says "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." So based on these and that fact that everyone involved in this discussion agree that no independent reliable source exist this TV show does not meet the notability guidelines. GB fan 18:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares Wikipedia:Be bold! We're supposed to expand Wikipedia not make it far too exclusive for its own good. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have policies here on Wikipedia, and if you are not willing to abide by them, you may leave at any time. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes. I get you don't want me here but look at the fifth pillar of Wikipedia and you will see what I mean. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So do you now agree that it doesn't meet the notability guidelines and that you feel we should ignore the rules? GB fan 06:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all just one which is restrictive ->CLICKWikipedia:Ignore all rules<-CLICK. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Androzaniamy, would you be able to provide citations in the article or at least links to said newspaper reports? I believe the show is notable as a nationally-televised programme but I take the point that more independent references are needed. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no newspaper reports that I know of or even mentioned. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources and also it fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG is a real issue here, as well as no Independant sources. If those two are established, there is no reason why to not keep, but I have my doubts.. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules if nothing else. If a nationally aired television program, viewed by millions, isn't notable per some notability policy, then there is something wrong with that policy. --GRuban (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: leaning towards keep per GRuban's observation. But, are there no rating services for BBC? Certainly somewhere there's a breakdown of the number of viewers of a program. I found ratings on tvguide.uk (not the correct url) which gave it a 'rating' but no explanation about their rating system. If there are 'millions of viewers', shouldn't there be some site that reports that info? Wikipelli ^Talk 22:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment.' From WP:COMMONSENSE. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GRuban. I tried to find independent sourcing for the show and didn't find anything beyond a bevy of blog-type coverage and one brief mention in a UK newspaper. That said, I can't shake the notion that this should be kept per WP:IAR. I wish I could offer a better policy-based argument. I'm going to keep looking. I will say that WP:TVSHOW does suggest that the article's topic is likely to be notable, and while it (as usual) suggests that standard notability definitions are the more salient basis for any decision, the examples given are very dissimilar from this show (e.g. a national television program being "cancelled too quickly to garner any media attention"). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any show that has millions of viewers is automatically notable by way of common sense. The suggested guidelines are there to help decide what should be here, but they aren't absolute laws. Wikipedia is not a moot court. WP:BURO If a rule gets in the way of improving the Wikipedia, then ignore it. WP:IAR. Dream Focus 22:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply put this fails WP:GNG, the claims made that it has millions of viewers are not verifiable and if made in the article would be removed. Mt king ^(edits) 23:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a spot-check jaunt through this and found a few Hacker Time hits in the Top 10 Weekly Programme lists on CBBC, generally averaging (by my count) ~380,000 viewers. So, sure, the "millions of viewers" bit is as difficult to back up as any unverified claim is, but in the context of UK children's television the show appears to have a fairly strong audience. I also note that the show's "star," Hacker T. Dog, is something of a UK children's television celebrity (apparently). Again, I'm not sure if anything that I've just written points us towards some glowing beacon of pure policy-based inclusion, but it's food for WP:IAR thought...in my opinion, anyway. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ's source above was the ratings report I was looking for. I only found the show in the top 10 for the week of Oct. 3, 2011, but it's enough for me. Wikipelli ^Talk 12:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The views argument is not a solid one. If it were, we'd have many, many articles on YouTube videos which attained a certain number of views. It's also the reason Shaycarl, who has many subscribers on YouTube, has had his article deleted eight times. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not about views. It's about your initial suggestion that the article should be deleted for lack of independent, reliable sources. Well, BARB is an independent reliable resource. I'm not arguing keep because of the # of views, I'm addressing your concern about sources. Wikipelli ^Talk 18:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's still not "significant coverage" by independent sources, as required by GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Its a guideline not a policy, a suggestion not an absolute law. And these are confirmed viewers. YouTube is a totally different situation since someone can make a bot to hit reload a few million times, no way to tell its the same guy or just a lot of people that have the same IP address as some major companies sometimes give out to their millions of customers. Dream Focus 18:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense tells me that a television show that only generates 300,000 views in a week and does not have any independent sources written for it is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source satisfies my reading of WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Subject is mentioned directly and in detail. Wikipelli ^Talk 18:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we still referring to this? This listing of programmes and the number of views they received in a week? Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what I'm referring to. I've included it in the article as well. Wikipelli ^Talk 19:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying the subject is "mentioned [...] in detail" in that source? You must be mistaken. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could be, not sure that I must be... :) The subject is mentioned and the detail is that during the week of October 3-October 9 the show had the 10th highest viewership on CBBC and that the number of viewers was approximately 328,000. Unfortunately, the page that actually presents that figure is not linked. I'm not sure how a page such as that should be linked in WP, but it's there... with what I consider to be sufficient detail. Wikipelli ^Talk 19:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth (nothing?), I'm voting Keep and I definitely don't think my ratings find helps this pass WP:GNG. It's not substantial coverage; it barely passes as "coverage." It does, however, speak to a decent-sized audience (certainly nowhere near massive), given the nature of its market and audience type. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As we saw in Eagles' nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacked (TV film), tracking down sources for British TV shows can take a little legwork. If you rule out BBC as a source showing notability since its a BBC show (via CBBC), you run into an inherent problem of the British media - the BBC is something like 30-40% of the TV market. Google news archives are not great on British papers either, I will see what I can find.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per GRuban. Basically, one of the statements at WP:N, Popularity ≠ Notability , only partially represents common sense, and I think no longer has consensus in all areas. In general, I would say that Popularity does prove Notability. We have very strong consensus to recognize this in one case, popular music, where we accept charting position as proof of notability, and I can see no intrinsic reason why it should not apply to all forms of artistic endeavor aimed at a wide audience. However, even in those fields, Popularity is not required for Notability --unpopular things can be notable also if they're important enough in in other ways and there are sources to show it. Whether this extends to such things as commercial products might not yet have consensus, though I would advocate for it in every field where it's applicable. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This show is notable and can be found has received significant coverage to meet the General Notability Guide. All this article needs is more reliable sources which can be easily found. Xpion ( talk ) 08:52, 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. A slight majority of commentors prefers deletion, and the others say a legitimate article may be developed with proper sources. As this list currently lacks any sources or topic material of substance, I close as delete but encourage the re-creation with properly developed information that does not merely list the characters. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of fictional characters[edit]

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

Nothing but unreferenced original research and synthesis. No indications of the notability of the subject, just indiscriminate lists of ideas/concepts/characters already covered in their respective articles. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing but original research unbacked by any citations to reliable sources. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If trimmed sufficiently, it becomes simply a list of lists. I agree that it's incomplete, but I don't see how its "indiscriminate" in any meaningful sense. Again, citations are in the target articles, their lack here is not evidence of an absence of notability. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Despite being entirely unsourced, there is the basis of an article here, and we don't seem to have any other on this precise topic. But the creator of this one needs to decide whether it's an article or a list. If it's an article, it should have some prose content and references to sources describing the concept. If it's a list, it should have 'List' in the title and clear inclusion criteria. At the moment, it's somewhere in between. Robofish (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Content discussions are not viable arguments for deletion. Is the article subject notable? Yes. Is there academic literature on it? yes. on sailor moon? possibly not. But probably. Greglocock (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an article, the subject matter is far too broad; deal with alternative versions of characters from a given book/series/universe in an article on that universe or in articles on the relevant stories/characters (i.e. Superman: Red Son and Superman: True Brit have their own pages, as do a lot of Elseworlds stories). Realistically, this is likely to become a list of lists with some passing discussion, and that would be better handled within other pages than as a separate page. (As an addendum, I'd also note that this reeks of being a very, very bad cruft target). Edit: Wasn't logged in when I first posted this.Tyrenon (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be a category not a list? I still think it is a viable subject for an article, but as it is is it would be better as a cat. Greglocock (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not a bad idea, and I'd definitely support this move (either in lieu of or alongside deletion of the article). If nothing else, you'd have a nice hub to look up various (published) AU stories on Superman, etc. As an article, it is doomed to be a list of lists; as a category, it actually seems to function effectively.Tyrenon (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its pretty much nothing but original research Toasted (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary list of unsourced citations and if sourced would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Not notable and subjective.Curb Chain (talk) 18:39, 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 merge to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons)#History. Although several people say this plot element is significant for the fiction, other commentators have pointed out the lack of significant real-world coverage. There seems to be consensus though that some material could or should be retained in e.g. Devil (Dungeons & Dragons)#History. I therefore close this discussion as merge (i.e. not keep this as a stand-alone article). THe ultimate merge target may be discussed elsewhere. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reckoning of Hell[edit]

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion in a mass group nomination here, but the discussion was muddled with so many varying articles. The closing administrator suggested that the articles should be nominated individually, which is what I am doing now. A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for elements of fiction. Neelix (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a significant plot point in the in-game history of D&D. However, as all of Neelix's renominations of the articles from the original AFD have thus far resulted in a merge, I will propose that, as an alternative to deletion, the article can be merged into Devil (Dungeons & Dragons)#History instead. BOZ (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - Significance within a fictional universe is not an indicator of notability according to Wikipedia's standards. On Wikipedia, notability is based on real-world significance as demonstrated by reliable, secondary sources, and there are no such sources for the Reckoning of Hell. Neelix (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - There is no evidence that this ficitonal element of D&D has received significant independent coverage to establish notability. simply stating something is a significant plot point without sources is not sufficient for keeping an article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons)#History. A hight significance in D&D, but not enough RS to justify a separate article from it. Cavarrone (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is a lot of stuff out there within the D&D universe, and most of it isn't encyclopedic. There are other fictional universes that have vaguely similar ideas, and all of that seems to be just fodder for confusion with actual theology rather than adding things here.Tyrenon (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, per Boz.--Robbstrd (talk) 19:56, 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. Wifione ^Message 04:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William McCaffrey[edit]

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

Completely unnoteable pitcher who only played a single season in the 1800s. He made no amazing records, won no awards, and a search shows nothing but listings of his stats on various baseball related websites. Jtrainor (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only corresponding third-party sources I can seem to find involve a man who was originally sentenced to prison for a rape offense he did not commit.[14][15][16] SaveATreeEatAVegan 05:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 09:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 09:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major League Baseball player. Though he played in only one game, he passes WP:BASE/N. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santiago Ramírez and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Shaver for two examples. Adam Penale (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep This guy pitched in an MLB predecessor and, as such, passes WP:BASE/N. — NY-13021 (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A minor correction - The 1885 Cincinnati Red Stockings were a full fledged Major League team, not just an MLB predecessor. Rlendog (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I know the American Association is considered "major league" for historical purposes, but I didn't believe it was formally part of "Major League Baseball." — NY-13021 (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there was an organization called "Major League Baseball" in the 19th century. But the AA was certainly considered a major league (as opposed to the many minor leagues that operated at the time), even to the point of playing the NL in an early version of the World Series for a number of years. Indeed, the AA team this player played for is the same team as today's NL Cincinnati Reds. Rlendog (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Participation in the 1800s American Association is considered notable by WP:BASE/N. Alex (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Per WP:BASE/N. Alex (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, first off, snow keeps only apply when there is overwhelming consensus that an article is noteable. Second, that is a ridiculous definition of noteability and WP:IAR should be applied here with a large spiked bat. This guy has never done anything of interest and this article will never be more than a stub. Jtrainor (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a former MLB player, he's included in the encyclopedia of MLB, which is our primary method of establishing notability. This is entirely appropriate given Wikipedia's mission. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per long-standing precedent, all MLB players are notable. Even one-gamers from the 19th century. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:ATHLETE by playing Major League Baseball. Notability is not temporary, so the fact that he played in the 19th century doesn't inhibit his notability a bit. Rlendog (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It meets various sport related notability requirements. (Does it need improving? Yes, but that's not a reason to delete it.) --LauraHale (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/snow keep per playing in MLB – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per longstanding consensus that Major League Baseball players are notable per se. Carrite (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:01, 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. -- Lear's Fool 03:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Warm Mirror Neuron On A Memory[edit]

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

I previously deleted this as A7; it was re-posted, and PROD was contested. It is still awfully close to A7 this time around, and makes no indication of notability. Appears to fail both WP:BK and WP:GNG. Submitter has apparent COI. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

message from user programmabilities: hello. i created this article. what is wrong with it? i did everything correctly. everything is right. if there is a problem with this article, i will fix it. --once i understand what the problem is and how to fix it. so please do not delete. it is a work in progress. thankyou, user: programmabilities - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Programmabilities (talk • contribs) 02:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for books is explained at WP:BK and WP:GNG. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has inclusion standards; for the broader explanation see WP:Notability. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

message from user programmabilities: my address to the issue regarding notability: the book is in libraries. it is in the google book project. and copies of the book are selling here:

>  Amazon.com/dp/B0065KBQR0
>  BarnesAndNoble.com/w/a-warm-mirror-neuron-on-a-memory-e-e/1108078359
>  Smashwords.com/books/view/116236
>  books.Google.com/books?id=cUldeL1jf2wC

thankyou, user: programmabilities --programmabilities (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not about who sells the book, it is about who noted the book, as in substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources; in the case of books, acceptable references to show notability are generally reviews (by professionals) in the news media or specialized publications. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

message from user programmabilities: being owned and read by people AND being read in libraries creates "interest". --these people google the title of the book and want to see it's article on wikipedia. ...i understand your concerns now. i understand the issue you have now. thanks for explaining. i hope you will decide to keep the article. the book is selling and more libraries are stocking it. thanks. --programmabilities (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure promotional placement (advertising, spamming), should qualify as a Speedy Delete; the above discussion makes it obvious that author of article is author of book seeking product sales. No independent sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete - of course i am the author. --and that is what the handbook says is best.

...you can argue any BOOK article is "advertising spam / promotional placement". your case is a poor excuse. ....the facts of the article remain. as should the article remain in wikipedia. you have changed your argument. first you said it did not have enough notoriety. now you say it is because of advertising. that is inconsistent. now as to your latest additional criticism of "no independent sources". --the wiki documentation concerning book articles mentions that Google Books counts on that score. ....your user page says you are an "inclusionist". --so your agruements are very strange indeed. --programmabilities (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make remarks about other users. As it happens I do whatever I can to keep articles that need work, often adding citations and developing the text. I'd point out that I am not the person who nominated this article for deletion. You may cite a Google Book if there is one that discusses the book in the article, but obviously an electronic version of the book itself is not an independent source for itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If you are contributing to Wikipedia on behalf of your own clients, you owe it to both them and the other editor's here to make sure you understand the standards for content here and how creating an article for your own book could cause a severe conflict of interest. SaveATreeEatAVegan 10:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent reviews or independent coverage. Creator is posting "Where to buy" details in this discussion. Suggest speedy delete as advertising. Tigerboy1966 00:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

i looked at another book's article on wikipedia. that article listed a "Creator is posting "Where to buy" details" link on its list of refernces. so i thought that maybe this was wanted. so i added a "Creator is posting "Where to buy" details" link on my articles page. i will now delete this link to amazon.com. but it does show me that my article is being target for deletion by overzealous detraction. because i copied the idea of adding a link to amazon from another wikipidia book article. ...i think it was the article for johnathan livingston seagul or else it was Graveties rainbow.

--programmabilities (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't an argument either. Feel free to name the other article and people can see if it needs attention also. It happens to dozens of articles every day. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is getting embarrassing for the creator and the author, assuming that they are two different people. I think it would be kindest (seriously) to close this one early. Tigerboy1966 10:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment --another insult. nothing to do with the fact of the article. ...the only reason why this article should be deleted is the reason of "notoriety". well a new publication takes time to get references (reviews) and citations. so i say leave the article. i will add a review and a citation when this new book receives one.

--programmabilities (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (reply to programmabilities): I've got a couple of points here.

Notoriety is distinct from notability on Wikipedia. Being famous does not necessarily mean that something has received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Conversely, there have been topics which have achieved notability but not notoriety (I'm not sure how many people there are who go about their days regularly discussing prehistoric plants).
Yes, a new publication does take time to be reviewed, but the fact of the matter is that there is no coverage right now. The time to create the article is when coverage of the book exists, not when you think that it might exist some time in the future.
As for your comment in response to Tigerboy1966, people do make mistakes, so it would have been best for you to familiarize yourself with the appropriate guideline (Wikipedia:External links) before going by another book's example. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:26, 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 delete. Wifione ^Message 04:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Meow Meow![edit]

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

I found no notability for this adult video game. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:33, 30 January 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) 00:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 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) 02:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Delete because the article doesn't have any coverage in third party, reliable sources. It doesn't establish notability. Weak because I read the article, and I'm not willing to do much searching for sources for this game, for fear of what dark reaches of the internet that search would lead me to... Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Mostly per above; I know that Wikipedia isn't censored, but with something like this it would be nice if the author(s) of the article would save us the displeasure of having to look up thing that might be a bit more...er..."interesting" than we particularly care to view when verifying an article.Tyrenon (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did some moderately thorough searching for information, could only find user provided data on sites where almost anyone can put something up. No credible profiles or reviews by major gaming sites. SilentVendetta (talk) 04:30, 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 speedy delete. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon Global[edit]

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

The claim is that this is an article about an online newspaper. But it's clear that http://lemonglobalnews.blogspot.com/ is a blog written entirely by one man. It's also not a particularly active blog and there's no evidence that it has the slightest influence. Pichpich (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does have influence when Adam Kokesh [17] uses it, and it endorses Ron Paul [18]. I say it should stay. Benchmark7 (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Benchmark, stop screwing around in the nominator's comments. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, new at this. Benchmark7 (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The greatest claim to fame is that a talk radio host linked to one of their articles on Facebook. That's not enough. In fact, I'm going to see if any admin is interested in considering speedy deletion. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Total failure of the general notability guidelines: no evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources. I'm borderline on a speedy delete. —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think.it should stay, it is one of the only news outlets that broke the news on HEK-293 and then led to Oklahoma State Senator Ralph Shortey to make a law banning HEK-293 from Oklahoma. Benchmark7 (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it should employ a proofreader (two b's in "lobbyist", and check for comma splices). Drmies (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's be clear: this is not a news outlet, it's a personal blog. This is not journalism, it's run-of-the-mill Internet conspiracy theorizing. Moreover, I don't see any evidence that your blog was a factor in Ralph Shortley's decision to draft his (widely ridiculed) bill. [19] Pichpich (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete absence of independent, reliable sources in the article to establish notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as it may have made Senator Shortey make a law that killed his career.Benchmark7 (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you delete this for not having independent sources than you are all crazy, since when does news organizations talk about other news organizations, this is as good as it gets. Benchmark7 (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a news organization--it's a blog, and a poorly written one at that. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is completely routine for news organizations to talk about other news organizations. For example here are thousands of instances of the Washington Post mentioning the New York Times Pichpich (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks to be a one-man blog per above; moreover, I hate to risk an ad hominem argument, but it strikes me that there's some self-promotion going on with the vigorous defense which the author has engaged in. Let's just say that it reminds me of more than one deletion debate over the years involving stuff high schoolers have made up to put on Wikipedia.Tyrenon (talk) 15:50, 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. Wifione ^Message 04:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Godfrey Poku[edit]

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

Semi-pro football player who has never played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:NFOOTBALL Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL by never having played in a fully-professional league or at senior international level, and no evidence of enough non-trivial media coverage to show general notability. Struway2 (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - what part of WP:GNG am I missing? There are several examples of significant in-depth news coverage cited in the article, for example this one, this one and this one in particular, not to mention the smaller articles on the BBC website. Sionk (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are missing the part that some wiseguys decided that only players who play or played in a fully professional league are eligable for an article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not WP:GNG, but WP:NSPORTS. Anyone that meets the criteria of WP:GNG is entitled to their own article, are they not? Sionk (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - True. But if people start nominating players who acts on the highest level in their country with the excuse that they don't play in a fully professional league, I have no problem/mercy applying that rule at other players not acting on the highest level in their country and not playing/having played in a fully professional league. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please stop talking about WP:NFOOTBALL. We're all agreed Poku doesn't meet those criteria. However, he patently does meet WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage. News items are routine coverage and fail WP:NTEMP. --Jimbo^[online] 19:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is one of the most ridiculous AfD's I've ever come across. In what way are the 3 articles I highlighted 'routine' or 'trivial'? Sionk (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Articles in local rags about players at non-League clubs appear all the time. There's nothing note-worthy in those articles whatsoever. --Jimbo^[online] 23:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You need to take a long hard look at those sources. The information is not trivial, nor is the coverage a mere passing mention. Calling them "local rags" doesn't change anything. For example, there is an entire news article on this player that was written by the The Guardian. The Guardian news article is not just a simple local newspaper reporting on some local player. The article is quite in depth. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Epping Forest Guardian is not the same as The Guardian, but I totally agree with your sentiment, of course. These are major articles with Poku as the main subject in respectable newspapers with a keen readership. Sionk (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Just to clarify, that article did not appear in The Guardian, but rather in a local paper with a partially similar name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the GNG, and that's all the matters. I don't see that the sources cited are all as crappy as Jimbo suggests, and there's no requirement for every biography to neatly fit one of the notability sub-criteria. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a load of local newspapers who publish everything about their local club, a load of webpages belonging to his employer, and seven independent sources (6x BBC, 1x Enquirer) of which 1 has trivial mentions, 1 don't mention him at all and 4 are transfer related. Summurized: crappy sources. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sionk. mabdul 11:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ditto per Sionk on keep and other points. Pseudofusulina (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, In a response to an above comment. Articles should always be clearly assessed before nomination to make sure they don't meet WP:GNG not just because they don't meet WP:NFOOTY. If WP:NFOOTY is failed they can still have their own article if they meet GNG. However i agree with the nominator the sources are mostly routine i.e match reports and comments and are not enough to meet WP:GNG. Im open to changing my mind if better sources can be found.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After looking things over, I'm going to come down on the side of him meeting GNG based on the sources provided. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep largely per Sionk. I fully agree, the subject does not meet WP:NFOOTY. With that said, the subject has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources and meets the general notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for biographies. He is the primary topic of many of the sources already used in the article. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, but he still haven't played in a fully professional league... And most sources are not independent (club websites) or local newspapers with routine coverage. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, the general notability guidelines do not require specific achievements. It merely requires significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Out of the 27 sources used in the article, 8 of the sources are first party sources. The other 19 sources are high quality third party news articles with a substantial amount of information. It is not "local newspapers with routine coverage", unless you consider every newspaper in a given country to be "local coverage" and entire news articles on the person to be "routine coverage". Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep local nature of sources has nothing to do with GNG. Folks seem to otherwise agree sourcing is fine (in depth etc.). Hobit (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Compelling argument subject passes WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 05:16, 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, G3 User:Jimfbleak. Lenticel ^(talk) 08:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greavesville[edit]

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

I cannot find any references on this. One website I did find referring to Greavesville seemed to be some sort of RPG site. Simply south...... having large explosions for 5 years 00:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can not find any reference to "Greavesville" anywhere...The only matches I could find was a ebay user with the same name (who also lives in UK [where Greavesville is said to exists]) and a stat page for a virtual city called Greavesville. This article contains everything from gypsies and tree houses to lost notes in the forest and dead pigs Cimorcus talk 03:16, 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.