Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 1 January 3 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Setareh Diba[edit]

Setareh Diba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP fails WP:N and WP:V .The article lacks references (is a Unsouced BLP]]and explanation of the significance of the subject (Setareh Diba herself) rather than her parents Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. in fact in my opinion this should have been Speedy-deleted. Remembering that we want evidence of importance of Setareh Diba, not of her parents, all we are told is that she has a degree, that she has had a few poems published in magazines, and that she has written a book which is yet to be published. There is no claim of importance or significance in that. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete Like JamesBWatson, I'm inclined to argue that it's a candidate for WP:A7 (the claim that she was Miss World in 1979 would make her notable, except for the fact that she wasn't), but we're here now. Fails GNG and WP:AUTHOR, which are the only relevent guidelines. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't even claim she was Miss World: it merely claims that her mother was, which would not make the daughter notable. However, her mother wasn't Miss World either. In fact the only statement in the article for which I have been able to find a reliable source is that Mahmoud Hossein Diba (presumably the same person called Mahmoudhossein Diba in the article) wrote a book about gas. (The article says "many books": I can find only one.) That person may or may not be notable, and he may or may not be the father of the subject of the article (no sources that I can find), but it's of little or no relevance anyway, as we still have absolutely no claim of significance for the subject of the article herself. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, you're right. Can we A7 it now, please? Yunshui 雲‍水 18:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - There isn't even a real assertion of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I wouldn't have CSD'd this (IMO, there is a very slight assertion of importance), but there's no claim to notability for sure. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 19:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of 3ABN programs[edit]

List of 3ABN programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of WP:NN programs failing WP:NLIST

See related AFD's: (all closed as delete)

Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List has more redlinks than a barrel of Twizzlers, and none of them will ever get an article. Complete schedule-cruft that nobody asked for. Nate • (chatter) 07:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nomination states that the list fails WP:NLIST, which is impossible, because WP:NLIST is a notability guideline regarding lists of people. This article is comprised of a list of programs, not people. Also, the list is focused and discriminate. I've removed the red links from the article for now. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no improvement at all except for removing the redlinks and columnizing the entire article. This is still a long TV Guide for a channel which airs mainly syndicated religious content with a few originals here and there. Nate • (chatter) 16:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some sources were also added to the article prior to the above comment, one primary source to verify the show "It Is Written" and one tertiary source to verify "Generation of Youth for Christ". This may have been overlooked by the user who commented above. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge very selectively to the parent article Three Angels Broadcasting Network. Only 3 of these are notable enough to warrent their own article which is a good clue that the larger list isn't notable enough to warrant a dedicated article. This can be adequately covered in the parent article. RadioFan (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and Nate. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, entries are almost entirely nonnotable, and the titles are an informational dead end rather than encyclopedic information. As it stands now, there are only two listed programs with article links; one is actually about a conference (unclear what relationship, if any, this has to the 3ABN show), and the other is an internationally syndicated program and so not original to 3ABN. So while Three Angels Broadcasting Network#Programming could possibly be expanded, I'm not really seeing anything here worthy of merger. postdlf (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NOT explicitly debars electronic program guides. (This is also - more's the pity - not the first AfD I've commented on this week in which a Keep proponent has based his opposition on deletion grounds he doesn't like, while making no attempt to rebut the others.) Ravenswing 08:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE policy is explicit on the mater of electronic program guides .Mtking (edits) 04:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and especially WP:NOTTVGUIDE per Mtking. --Ifnord (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UDigits[edit]

UDigits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable electronic sudoku-like game. Deleted as a prod, but then the original creator put an objection on the (previously deleted) talk page. I treated that as a challenge to the prod and restored the article, so now I'm bring it here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:09, 2 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) 23:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources under either of the names listed in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia admins, I am one of the original creators of this game. I was very disappointed when I learned that our game's page was deleted for non-notability reasons. If I understood correctly after reading through what notability means, the game is not important enough to be listed among Wikipedia articles. I disagree. uDigits is a commercial game listed on several app stores (Ovi, App World, GetJar, etc), and it is currently being developed for other platforms as well. Consider a use-case: a user browses an app store and sees the game, and decides to find out more about the game. Wikipedia is known to be an objective source of info. So it is likely the user would want to read about the game on Wikipedia, rather than on game's web site or elsewhere. I personally will try to improve the article wherever possible, but I am asking you to please keep the article and not remove it anymore. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexus forever (talk • contribs) 12:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC) -- moved from Talk:UDigits[reply]

    • Comment - It isn't necessarily an issue of importance although that is related. The concept of notability is really a guideline for the criteria that a topic must meet in order to be included in Wikipedia. The primary way to meet this inclusion criteria is to be the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources such as gaming magazines. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article about non-notable product which was clearly created for promotional purposes. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence that this passes the GNG has been proffered, however much the creators have succeeded in marketing the program in app stores. For Lexus forever's benefit, the determining factor in "notability" for Wikipedia is not whether a program is commercially available, but - in the words of WP:GNG - whether it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If the article creator can provide links to reviews in the print media, for instance, that would be helpful. Ravenswing 08:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elana Amsterdam[edit]

Elana Amsterdam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks reliable independent sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. It's unlikely but possible the subjects books may be notable but notability is not WP:INHERITED. Subject certainly doesn't meet the hurdle for presumed notability under WP:AUTHOR. Msnicki (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd like to note that the links provided in the article cannot be considered to be reliable sources. The first original link (which I removed) only listed one of Amsterdam's recipes, so it's not considered to show notability. The second link is a list of cookbooks and Amsterdam is only briefly mentioned. The third link was a link to an almond website and I'm a little concerned that the article over-stated the implications of the link. It states that she was selected as an "almond expert", but the phrasing of the link was pretty vague. Not sure if that would constitute as a reliable source. A search brought up a lot of links to sale sites and blog entries, but nothing that would be considered a reliable source.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
YouTube videos of the subject are not useful in establishing notability. As explained at WP:Notability, sources offered in support of notability must be reliable and from third parties. The videos are what we call primary sources because the subject was involved in producing them. Primary sources can be use, with care, to fill in detail once notability has been established but not to establish notability, which is the only issue we consider at an AfD. Msnicki (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ϫ 22:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interview, which makes it a WP:PRIMARY source and unhelpful in establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a newspaper article.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC) as is this from the Washington Post [2]. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter where an interview is published, it's still an interview and still WP:PRIMARY. That Washington Post article is also unhelpful in establishing notability as it's not even about her; there's just one spare sentence about her. It's possibly a review of her book but mostly it's just a reprint and discussion of one of the recipes. You'd have a better case arguing that the article makes her olive-rosemary bread notable. No way does this clear the hurdle for significant coverage of the subject herself. Msnicki (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a reliable source does an interview with you, it counts towards your notability. Had this discussion a few times before. Whether they write about you, or decide to interview you themselves, its the same thing. Dream Focus 23:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who discussed this with, but it wasn't me; I'd have told you you're wrong. From WP:INDEPENDENT, "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter." Also, from WP:SPIP, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Msnicki (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused. Surely one way in which a newspaper shows that they consider a person notable is to conduct an interview with them. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The subject does not seem to have sufficient notability. I agree that the interview is a primary source, and would make a good back-up reference for the article, but is not enough to establish notability. The WaPo article is, indeed, better at establishing notability of the cookbook or the recipe than the author, as the article's coverage of the author is trivial at best. Finally, the editor who started the article (and to date is the main contributor) is the owner of a Public Relations company, who has the article subject as a client (see [3], articles listed under "Sheknows"), so I am (perhaps unfairly) putting this under an even higher-power WP:N microscope than usual. The end result is that it doesn't measure up. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 03:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The 2 Vail Daily and Camera articles found by Northamerica1000 are enough to change my mind. These are the first articles I've seen that really feature the subject of this article instead of one of her books or recipes. I still have a bad feeling about this, due to COI concerns, but I have to agree that policy supports the assertion she is notable. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 02:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per significant coverage in reliable sources.
  • A book review reference already in the article: Shaw, Tucker (December 2, 2009). "Causing a STIR: Best cookbooks of 2009". The Denver Post. Retrieved 19 December 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  • References I added to the article:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 09:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because of the significant coverage of her The Gluten-Free Almond Flour Cookbook (see links provided by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)), Amsterdam meets WP:AUTHOR (4c). Goodvac (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable person, covered in reliable sources found. Dream Focus 23:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable author, covered in reliable sources added, and important to those who need a gluten-free diet. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes WP:BIO but this article is a mess. The references section is for listing where the information used to create the article came from, it's not a bullet list on what make the subject notable or a place to save it from deletion. This article's scant 2 sentences are "referenced" with 6 sources. RadioFan (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage is sufficient, per our notability standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Okay, apparently the consensus is going heavily toward keep, but I'm appalled and I have to say something. These are truly meager mentions being accepted as significant coverage in reliable sources. The subject has written a couple cookbooks and she apparently has a publicist, so of course she's gotten a few mentions. But if the bar is merely a few mentions of her cookbook, then we'd need an article on pretty nearly anyone who ever wrote any book that got reviewed anywhere. It's supposed to take more than that.
    The only thing the Denver Post has to say about the subject is that "Local hero Elana Amseterdam (straight out of Boulder) offers dozens of wheatless recipes." No one here has ever actually seen the Philadelphia Inquirer article so we have to depend on Google's snippet to tell us that she's an "ingenious celiac" (that's someone who can't digest gluten) who's done something (we don't know what) with sandwich bread. No one has seen the Pioneer Press article either, so all we have to go on there is that it also mentions that she's from Boulder and her book has lots of recipes (hardly surprising given it's a cookbook). The Daily Camera article says she's a "Boulder cookbook author" and that "Her neighbor and her neighbor's children [tasted] the recipes"; the rest of the article isn't about her, it's about her recipes.
    Of the bunch, the Vail Daily articles are probably the best, but one is an interview, which makes it primary and unusable for establishing notability. The other reports that she and her 3-yo son are both celiac; the rest of the article is about her book and about almond flour. More to the point, it would be hard to find a publication that more succinctly fits the definition of small town newspaper than the Vail Daily with a circulation of only 15,000. They aren't covering her because she's notable cookbook author or because they would even know. They're covering her because she's local interest.
    Personally, I'll believe the subject is a notable cookbook author when someone who actually writes about cooking full-time says she is, someone at one of these. Msnicki (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete, A7 by User:DarkFalls. Lenticel (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YOU=LOVE children's book[edit]

Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article, google search shows nothing. Article clearly fails WP:NB. Original author is clearly subject to a conflict of interest. Prod removed without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the original prodder, I wholly endorse this AfD under the reasons of my PROD, "Unsourced article, google search shows nothing. also fails WP:NB" Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 22:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Why is this article here? It is non notable, not sourced, and a blatant advertisement by a COI editor. Seems to me a G11 would have been more appropriate instead of coming here. -- Alexf(talk) 00:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - as spam per G11, so tagged ukexpat (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted per G11 and Copyvio of www.waterhouseconsulting.co.uk/os_executive.asp. Speedily Deleted  7  03:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waterhouse Consulting Group[edit]

Waterhouse Consulting Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks impressive at first but this management consulting firm is not notable in its own right, even if some of the people it works with are. This is advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - as spam per G11, so tagged (and creator has an obvious COI). ukexpat (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Chambers[edit]

The Chambers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Management consultancy that is not notable. Article is advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sources include their official website, a dead link (which from the prose/title of URL wouldn't help anyway) and another source not relevant to the company. Couldn't find any other sources, so fails WP:ORG. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 19:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, totally fails WP:CORP. It claims some minor notability by working for notable clients, but notability is not inherited. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three Strikes, YER OUT: First link self-referential. Second link broken. Third link does not, in fact, mention the subject. Fails, therefore, the GNG. Ravenswing 08:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed as moot, article was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Industrial Consultants[edit]

Newton Industrial Consultants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Management consultancy that is not notable. Article is advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The bare word "Nominations" is not a meaningful (or understandable) argument for retention.  Sandstein  17:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Tanaka[edit]

Tia Tanaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, and the GNG. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. No reliably sourced biographical content. Adam Film World Award lacks significance and does not contributes to notability under WP:PORNBIO. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails PORNBIO and GNG. - Cavarrone (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nominations. --Lexusuns (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails PORNBIO and ANYBIO. Adam Film World Award is not a well-known award. - Cavarrone (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KorteQ[edit]

KorteQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Management consultancy firm that is not notable. Article is advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Few comments, but sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Innecto Reward Consulting[edit]

Innecto Reward Consulting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another management consultancy-type firm that is not notable. Article is advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Chorley Art & Antiques[edit]

Simon Chorley Art & Antiques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company has been associated with some notable matters but is not notable in its own right. This article is self-promotion. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I've cleaned up the article and added citations - there were already a good number and more can easily be added. Also removed some unsupported claims. What remains is verifiably true; the firm is shown to be a notable auctioneer of old repute in a most conservative and cautious part of the world. The firm has handled some very large and notable sales; Simon Chorley the boss is himself also notable, not an irrelevant fact given that it's his firm and he's part of it (and yes, I know notability is not inherited, but no inheritance is needed as he's physically there). Frankly it's hard to imagine how an auctioneer in a provincial city could be more notable than Chorley's - demonstrably old, respected, and successful. And charitable with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you have done but if you take out the notability of clients and people they are associated with, all you have left is a small firm of provincial auctioneers with no clear notability. They seem like a fine firm but so are my dentists, accountants and solicitors and none of them have an article. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By all means add back anything you think I've been too harsh on - I'm just trying to show what is notable about the firm, with evidence for that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note this article-halving, reference-stripping hatchet job by a WP:SPA back in June.
  • Keep This is an auction house that's notable within that small field of high-end auction houses. There's nothing unduly over-promotional in here. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Sharp[edit]

Wesley Sharp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable singer, has yet to produce a record, my speedy delete tag was removed. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having done more research on this subject, it looks more and more to me like this entry is a hoax. There are no hits for "wesley sharp" + sony, and there are no hits for his supposed records. There's an entry in Urban Dictionary for "wez" which says "the invisible member of a band". The cover art for the supposed album looks like it's amateurishly generated. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom; this appears to be a hoax. Even if not, I'm finding zero coverage for the subject.  Gongshow Talk 05:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if not a hoax, they haven't done anything to merit an article as they haven't formally released anything. Don't know why the speedy delete was rejected. Bgwhite (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious hoax/in-joke. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note: i blanked the article. version before blanking is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wesley_Sharp&oldid=469277372 86.44.31.213 (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I have unblanked, since that's not the way we handle AfDs. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was silly of you. This doesn't need to be picked up by scraper sites for all time. Per WP:BLP i suggest you self-revert on this obvious hoax article. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can always put a db-hoax tag on the article. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn as per below. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anónimo Consejo[edit]

Anónimo Consejo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable band, all of the sources are to facts about the genre, not the artists. Would also take a total rewrite to make it neutral and encyclopedicly toned. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i clicked yonder · books · link in yonder template. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Keep or Delete, the existing article is almost totally unsuitable - the tone is very much non-neutral. But that's an editorial issue, not one of deletion. As for the sources - I'm not sure there's enough to justify keeping. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have completely rewritten the article (the edit tab was open for over 3 hours) and will notify the editors who have already commented here. With many significant mentions all over the web (click "books" above), I believe this passes GNG pretty easily in its current form. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 00:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, BTW. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 00:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep everything look like it is in order since it was fixed --Guerillero | My Talk 00:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn I didn't think what you just did was possible. Well done Nolelover. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Financisto[edit]

Financisto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of WP:notability. No independent WP:reliable sources. Google does not bring up anything but blogs, forums and download sites. noq (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as a G5 (created by banned or blocked user).—Kww(talk) 01:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland's Greatest Album[edit]

Scotland's Greatest Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article claims to be about an album, but it is only a "Best of ..." playlist from a TV show, nominated from Internet voters. Fails WP:NALBUMS a bit. A speedy was declined. A PROD was deleted by an IP-Editor without giving a source for the claim. Ben Ben (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources provided in article include a non-WP:RS non-profit news service, two Twitter tweets, and four links to the broadcasters involved--all of it useless to show notability. Ghits seem to be divided between primary sources and outraged bloggers disputing the results of the TV show. Considering the promotional tone of the article and the fact that the follow-up show is just about to be (or just was?) shown on Scottish TV, it should probably be speedily deleted on unambiguous advertising grounds. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already speedily deleted by User:WilliamH. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ef EL[edit]

Ef EL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From the PROD, "Article does not appear to be notable according to WP:BIO. Couldn't find any reliable sources". The prod was removed without any reason by a SPA whose name is suspiciously similar to the creator. →Στc. 20:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are a wiki, a blog, twitter, and a mysterious title - basically it has none. Can't find evidence of notability elsewhere. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great Swamp Watershed Association[edit]

Great Swamp Watershed Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The association is not notable and the article reads more like an indirect advertisement than an article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  The first page of 10 Google hits returns these references:
Unscintillating (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GSWA is notable[edit]

  • Keep The Great Swamp is a very significant geological feature in North Jersey. People visit from all over because it is in a unique location near a former moraine and has a unique history. I think that community efforts to protect the watershed should be described because of its importance to so many people in a densely-populated state. In addition, the GSWA is not the only Great Swamp-area community organization that exists; The Raptor Trust is also headquartered nearby and is quite notable for its work in the area. These groups all deserve mention and description, so my vote is to keep the Great Swamp Watershed Association on Wikipedia.

Rcnj (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Clicking on the Google news link for this AfD yields many news search results. Here are some that I've added to the article. This article could use copy editing, expansion and more inline citations.
  • Demasters, Karen (June 28, 1998). "IN BRIEF; Great Swamp Group Honored For Book on Preservation". The New York Times. Retrieved January 04, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Daigle, Michael (February 5, 2008). "Environmentalists push for Highlands changes". Daily Record (Morristown, N.J.). Retrieved January 04, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required)
  • Retz, Christine (June 4, 1999). "Solicitor seeks to save Great Swamp's beauty". The Courier (Bridgewater, N.J.). Retrieved January 04, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required) Quote (from Google search summary): " Janet Malay takes her new job as a trustee of the Great Swamp Watershed Association very seriously..."
  • Wright, Peggy (March 16, 2004). "Great Swamp group's spending targeted". Daily Record (Morristown, N.J.). Retrieved January 04, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required) Quote (from Google search summary): "Morris Township has alerted the state that the nonprofit Great Swamp Watershed Association might be wrongfully spending donations on issues beyond its scope..."
—This topic is notable, per WP:GNG. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Always check Google news archive BEFORE you nominate something for deletion. The very first result is from the New York Times, showing the honor they got. [4] Dream Focus 22:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable organization preserving an important watershed. Inline citations should be added to the article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die[edit]

1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article about a book, that does not demonstrate how the book is notable. Specifically, there is no evidence this book meets Wikipedia's standards for notability of books. Searching for reliable sources to demonstrate notability reveals little or nothing of note. Previous Prod was contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – One wonders what percentage of people would die trying to play all 1,0001 games to completion? It's difficult to take a list of games this long seriously. That being said, I suspect the nom. is correct and so I can't support a keep at this time. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:31, 2 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) œ™ 22:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've found coverage from a number of third party sources:
  • Keep - My terms for the benefit of the doubt on my end is that the references listed by Sergecross73 will be implemented. If not, I will endorse the deletion of this article. DarthBotto talk•cont 11:37, 03 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable book. andy (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sergecross73's source discoveries. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Reviews of a book are considered sufficient sourcing per WP:NBOOK. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have now pretty much completely rewritten the article, this time with sources. Started a reception section as well. It's not perfect, but I definitely feel it should save it from deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I can't see how notability has been established. This is just fan stuff from nn sources. andy (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I take it you're not familiar with these websites in particular? Gamertell, Kotaku and 1UP.com are considered reliable sources by Wikiproject Video Games - See WP:VG/S. Pretty certain PopMatters qualifies as a reliable source as well, it's pretty well used in music articles. Not especially familiar with The Austin Chronicle or that Digitally Downloaded website, but the both have established staff and dedicated editors for editorial oversight on the information. These sources are far cries from mere "fan stuff". Have you checked the article since it's been rewritten? Every sentence is verified with one of these reliable sources, nothing unsourced or WP:OR. Sure, its not exactly a GA nom or anything like that, but it clearly passes WP:GNG and point #1 of WP:NBOOKS now. Sergecross73 msg me 01:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Play the Guitar[edit]

Play the Guitar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

newly released, non notable song, no references other than itunes. tried redirecting, it was reverted. fails song inclusion criteria. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, (re: User:Gaijin42's comment above): Consider trying refined searches using the find sources template, which can be added to discussion pages of articles, or used in a sandbox. This helps to prevent having to sort through unrelated sources:
Example: {{Find sources|add a search term here|add another search term here|etc.}} yields:
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Here's an example for this topic:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 10:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The reasons for deletion invoked in the discussion are that the topic is not notable and/or can be called a topic at all only by engaging in (allegedly biased) synthesis, i.e., original research. Those who disagree say that the topic exists as such and is notable as shown by the sources that have been provided, and that any content deficiencies can be addressed through editing. After discounting the opinions of Yossiea (keep) and 85.64.234.248 as well as Northamerica1000 (delete), which do not address (most of) these issues, we have 11 opinions against and 7 for the retention of the article. Because these opinions all make arguments that are broadly defensible at first glance, I cannot find that one side clearly has the stronger argument, and therefore there is no consensus to delete the article at this point.  Sandstein  17:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haredi-secular conflict in Israel in winter of 2011-2012[edit]

Haredi-secular conflict in Israel in winter of 2011-2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge and redirect to Religion in Israel because this is a gross example of a WP:POVFORK and violation of WP:CONTENTFORKING, while the word "conflict" is clearly judgmental -- no killings have taken place so this is not a conflict but a mere heated cultural gap -- as well as being provocative and an obvious attempt at POV-pushing and hence a violation of WP:NPOV and of WP:NOTSOAPBOX. There are so many flaws here: This is NOT just about spats between Haredim and secular Jews because there have been spats between Haredim and Modern Orthodox Jews meaning it's very much an "Orthodox versus Orthodox" subject as well so that all this belongs in the Religion in Israel article where it's all covered and this can be a another addition there; The focus on the winter "season" (while it's "Winter" in the Northern Hemisphere -- it's "Summer" in the Southern Hemisphere making this confusing to a global encyclopedia) since this is a perennial ongoing phenomenon unique to Israel; The focus is entirely negative in the spirit of sensationalist journalism not befitting an encyclopedia. IZAK (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Religion in Israel per above. Minor incidents, and absolutely no violence/bloodshed, makes this seem like a huge over-exaggeration. IZAK (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've struck your comment - please don't vote more than once. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Rosc, please do not vandalize my comments in any way, feel free to comment instead. This was my one and only vote, the above is the nomination and it's usually not classed as a "vote" as such and is quite often overlooked and not counted as a "vote" by the closing admin, although one in a thousand editors comes along and mistakenly decides like you that it's "voting more than once" when obviously it is not. Feel free to point me to the right policy or procedure in how to post nominations and votes on AfD pages and the differences, if any, between them. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Reverted back to "Keep" - I decided not to give up after all.) Obviously. If articles can exist about issues such as the Cottage cheese boycott, Nahal Zin fuel leak, or Welcome to Palestine, I do not see why this article cannot. If you have any comments about the naming or content, then try to improve it. Merging it into other articles is precisely the opposite of what is needed: this issue is much too big and complicated to be dealt with inside another article. It started as a subsection of Haredi Judaism, but since that page is already very large and confusing, I judged it would be better to create a separate article. As someone wrote in Haaretz: "it is not unreasonable to believe that their actions will bring about a change in the Israeli society."[10] Aside from this, I urge everyone to read my other arguments on the article's talk page. And the "winter" argument is ridiculous. It is winter in Israel, that's why. If you have a better name, please, do bring it - I specifically requested that on the article's talk page, since the name is most certainly not ideal. But arguing the name "winter" is wrong because it's summer in South Africa is ridiculous. Then maybe we shouldn't call the Winter Olympics the Winter Olympics any more, because whenever they are held anywhere in winter, it is summer elsewhere on earth?! And here is a proposal for a better name: let's name is "Social-religious tensions in Israel in 2011-2012". Let me know what you think. And let's bring some other sources: The Guardian, The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 separate items @ BBC, CNN, New York Times, Frankfurter Allgemeine, 4 separate articles in Le Monde: 1, 2, 3, 4, The Huffington Post, The Irish Times, Fox News, China TV, The Telegraph, Al Jazeera 1 and 2, Daily Mail, El Mundo, Corriere Della Sera, The Voice of Russia, Hurriyet, Milliyet, ... A debate in the Knesset with comments from PM Netanyahu [11], and much more. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Piz: you miss the point because it's all still a WP:POVFORK that can and should be part of the Religion in Israel article. Note that WP:NOTLINKFARM and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. All what's happening now is part of a long-chain of ongoing events in Israel. IZAK (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. That's all I can say. This conflict started with the bus incident of Tanya Rosenblit on bus 451, then followed by the Naama Margolis spitting incident, then the separation sign. All three minor issues, really, but together they were turned into a huge wave of public debate and sizable demonstrations with a large degree of public interest. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:N via significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, and not just from news sources of one ethnicity or political point of view. More than just an event or news story, since it is an ongoing controversy of some duration. "Conflict" is appropriate for the level of physical altercation which has occurred. Edison (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, I really do not understand IZAK's conclusion of "no violence". We have numerous injured police officers, media crews attacked with their equipment destroyed, riots for which hundreds of riot police had to be brougt in, people being beaten up and threatened with death... and IZAK concludes "absolutely no violence"? I find that extremely awkward. IZAK - what is your definition of violence? --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • To Edison: Regardless, it is a violation of WP:POVFORK. It is no less or more important than anything discussed in Religion in Israel. IZAK (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • To Piz: The so-called "violence" here is no worse than regular Football hooliganism while your article would make it appear this is akin to an "Intifada" -- in Israel Haredim throw stones, smash windows, and hurl diapers with feces in them at people they don't like not just now, in "the winter of 2011-12," but all the time since that is just "normal" behavior for them in that part of the world. There has been no bloodshed, while "threats" are made by everyone all the time that would not merit an encyclopedic article of its own. IZAK (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, that is true - the level of violence is no different, and in fact much less, than during the demonstrations against the gay pride parade in January 2006. The difference is that this time it has grabbed everyone's attention and is turning into a much larger debate with a lot more media coverage from different angles, and still ongoing issues. Never before did the incitement between seculars and Haredim go this far. Can you name any comparable occasions? I can't. This time, a number of separate events all came together, leading a large portion of the Israeli public (well, its politicians and journalists, at least) to say "STOP". That is what makes this different, and that is why it warrants extensive coverage in Wikipedia.
However, there is one misunderstanding. I didn't create an article because it warrants an article - but because the entire issue kept growing and exploding and the amount of things going on that would need to be covered in order to keep the coverage full, relevant and NPOV would simply be too large to include it in an existing article (such as Haredi Judaism or Religion in Israel). If the public consensus would be to take the article and dump it right in the middle of either of those articles, fine. I just think it would be a huge mess and really wouldn't look right. It should simply be referred to on thos articles in a short subsection with a "main" pointer to this article, as I did on Haredim. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Piz, here's how I would have summed up this whole storm in a tea pot: "As 2011 drew to a close a number of incidents in Israel, mainly in the greater Jerusalem area, involving disputes between various Jewish religious and secular factions arose that created controversy and caught the attention of the media, politicians and public opinion in various sectors. These incidents included and were triggered when some women refused to step to the back of some public buses with Haredi male passengers on them, spitting on Modern Orthodox children by Haredim in their neighborhoods, and protests by Haredim against what they perceived as state biases against them. At times the police were summoned and various rabbis and politicians have called for calm." Add all your citations and newslinks to that and it about sums it up. But to create a full-blown article presupposes something of far greater magnitude not warranted at this time. IZAK (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Clear content fork.Also there are WP:SYNTH and WP:POV problem that I tried to fix but were introduced back to the article.--Shrike (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Name your issues and let's discuss them one by one. I, on the other hand, consider your edits to be POV issues: it seems that you wanted to minimize the issue of Haredim being ostracized and demonized by secular Israeli politicians and journalists in recent days, which led to the Saturday night demonstration of people including children wearing yellow stars. Why? So that readers would think, "why do these crazy Haredim do that without any real cause?"? That's what it felt like to me. That is what the initial edit about this issue on Haredi Judaism was like: see here. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is more than a one time event. This is comparable to the Arab Spring. This is THE event that is going to change the way things run in Israel. Yossiea (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, that is what it feels like to me as well. This episode might (will, I think) lead to the Supreme Court abolishing the Mehadrin buses after the current 1 year trial period, for example, which will have serious consequences (giant demonstrations and much more violence). --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—significant event in Israel and like the Immanuel Beit Yaakov controversy, is shaping Haredi – everyone else relations in the country, especially secular–Haredi relations. Ample sources have been provided and the event is ongoing so it's too early to judge the long-term effect. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoa, that article needs cleaning up. I'll put it on my watchlist. I'm quite sure that controversy is going to surface again as well. In fact it's still going on - it was recently in the news again. The article should perhaps be turned into a general article covering Ashkenazi vs Mizrachi Haredi conflict, which is a regularly recurring major topic, and which that event was simply one small part of. The same could be said of the article under discussion - in which case it could warrant creating (ie, turning this into) an article on secular vs Haredi tensions in Israel altogether, throughout the years, with the current events being one section with numerous subsections. For the record, this could be a solution. Let me know, everyone, if you agree. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the title tries to do too much. The WP:SYNTH / WP:POVFORK issues raised above are best demonstrated by the description in the article as to how a number of unconnected "incidents merged into a single major debate with Haredim on one side and the secular world on the other side". There has been ongoing conflict between religious and secular Jews in Israel for decades and the collection of events piled into here as a single article is the synthesis of the article's author. Alansohn (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete explicit WP:SYNTH, WP:RECENTISM The massive hype around this issue in Israel started with an article in the Washington Post, through a peculiar mention by Hillary Clinton, issues concerning the New Israel Fund funding recent anti-religion protests, to a massive and misproportionate campaign by the tabloid Israeli media which is about to dissipate. The mehadrin buses have been around for over twenty years, the signs about some separate sidewalks have rust on them showing their age, and a few instances of violence do not warrant a WP article at this time, especially seeing this same information in 6-7 other articles. --Shuki (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N#TEMP. While I understand the desire of the page creator to keep tabs on these separate incidents in order to build a story when it really explodes, it has not really exploded, and all these incidents do not add up to a news item of lasting significance. I also question the total reliance for references on The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz, neither of which are partial to Haredim. For example, the alleged harrassment on the 451 bus was reported by the media solely from the point of view of the female provocateur; in fact, no Haredi man held up the bus and it was the driver who called the police because she was trying to aggravate everyone's religious sensibilities and then film their responses. Let's have some neutrality, please. Yoninah (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Haredi, Edah HaChareidis-adherent, shtreimel-wearing chassidishe person. I davka (intentionally) used those sources to prevent anyone from being able to say the article was POV (as in pro-Haredi). --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am also Haredi, but I am also a Wikipedian, and I believe you need to show both sides of every story. Have you been reading the Yated Ne'eman or Hamodia lately? Yoninah (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I follow several sources. (I don't live in Israel any more, by the way.) Let me just repeat what I wrote to Shrike (this doesn't apply to you - I'm just not sure whether you saw it): it seems that you wanted to minimize the issue of Haredim being ostracized and demonized by secular Israeli politicians and journalists in recent days, which led to the Saturday night demonstration of people including children wearing yellow stars. Why? So that readers would think, "why do these crazy Haredim do that without any real cause?"? That's what it felt like to me. That is what the initial edit about this issue on Haredi Judaism was like: see here. This was my objective: to make sure the other side would be heard as well. I tried to portray the entire chain of events in a neutral light - at the end, most importantly, explaining why that Saturday night demonstration with the yellow stars was held. That was what angered me about that initial edit to Haredi Judaism, and that is why I started expanding the section, when it quickly grew into a much too large section to be maintained inside an existing article, thus leading me to decide to put it in a separate article. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Piz, please note WP:NOTFACEBOOK because by stating your alleged personal details "I am a Haredi, Edah HaChareidis-adherent, shtreimel-wearing chassidishe person" you do not do yourself any credit or favors, on the contrary, it only increases concerns that you have an agenda here, in violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and you are engaging in Wikipedia:Wikilawyering to somehow achieve your POV ends, with a flurry of controversial edits in various connected articles on this theme of "Haredi Jews/Judaism" as either "the victors or the victims or the vindicated" (my phrase, I just coined it!) that have aroused lots of opposition and counter-editing from editors who do not share your POV, such as at Mishpacha (magazine); Haredi Judaism; Zionism; Neturei Karta and many more like this that prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that you have a Haredist anti-Zionist POV that promotes a rejection of anything to do with "secular or religious Zionism" that you seek to convey only in a negative light. Your editorial stance and venturing into obviously controversial terrain furthermore borders on violation of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and more seriously Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. How you can hope to claim to be "objective" here, in spite of all your one-sided "citations" is beyond any reasonable credibility given your own descriptions about yourself and the way you go about editing and creating articles to promote your own narrow POV. You would be well-advised to consider WP:SPIDERMAN my friend. IZAK (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is each and every editor's right to choose which edits he makes. Pro-Palestinian editors make particularly edits to issues related to Palestine, generally focusing on those areas where they feel the Palestinian narrative is not sufficiently heard. Pro-Israeli editors generally edit issues related to Israel, and focus on areas where they feel needed material is lacking or incorrect. Christian editors edit articles about Christianity, and Swedish editors edit articles about Sweden. So what's the big deal about a Haredi anti-Zionist Jew editing articles about Haredim, anti-Zionism and Judaism? You are assuming bad faith by assuming I have an agenda. I don't. I merely edit primarily relating to topics that interest me. None of my edits include anything that would cause an article to become one-sided. 1) The Mishpacha edit was completely justified by all means, since all leading Haredi rabbis in Israel have denounced this Haredi newspaper/magazine. 2) What is wrong with that edit? All I did was restore the Edah HaChareidis to its proper position. You consider "Toldos Yeshurun" (which I have never heard of) to be notable enough, but the Edah HaChareidis, which has tens of thousands of adherents, not notable? 3) That edit remained in, it was sourced and justified. 4) That addition actually clarified that NK are less extreme than most people think. Most people think the guys who go to Iran and Gaza are NK - and that's it. Few people know that NK is not one group with one unified opinion, but actually a group consisting of two known (and I believe more, less known) factions. I am disappointed at your assumption of bad faith. You are showing that you yourself have an agenda here. My agenda only consists of making sure the truth is found on Wikipedia about areas about which I have extensive knowledge, and all of my edits are completely unbiased and neutral. I feel insulted by your remarks. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After looking at this article and making some edits in an attempt to salvage it, I no longer think such a thing is possible. It's mostly unsourced/sourced to op-eds/sourced to poor sources/sourced to individual incidents that don't discuss a larger conflict, and it's clearly written with the intent of promoting a poor-persecuted-Haredim point of view rather than accurately representing a conflict. It's also synth in that it attempts to create a narrative where sources don't indicate one, and in that it engages in original analysis of sources (some with the potential to violate BLP - seriously, you can't just describe a writer's piece as incitement to violence because you personally don't like it). I think it would be possible to write about conflicts between the Haredim and Israeli society at large (if, y'know, you treated it as a longstanding issue and wrote about what Haredim did as well, instead of as a recent event that was all about how persecuted Haredim are, and also used reliable sources), but there's not really anything worth saving here. Blow it up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Roscelese. Article is poorly sourced, obviously violates NPOV, and presents no reliable sources actually verifying the existence of a "Haredi-secular conflict". Individual examples are not sufficient to establish the existence of a notable topic, there must be reliable sources defining the topic. Marokwitz (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have removed from the article material dealing entirely with internal violence between Haredi groups in Bet Shemesh, since it is off topic. The title of the article is "Haredi secular conflict". Furthermore I removed some material which was sourced to op-eds. Marokwitz (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK people, I give up. I'm out of here. I've had enough of this. There are plenty of sources. Marokwitz' claim that this is "Haredi against Haredi" conflict (now the "Orot Banot" school is HAREDI?!) and Roscelese apparently has big trouble reading if he fails to read all links provided documenting this. Against people like you I haven't got a chance. I quit. Delete it. I'm not going to allow my blood pressure to be raised any further over this. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant "internal violence between religious groups in Bet Shemesh" conflict. Orot Banot is a religious school, not a "secular" school, therefore off topic in an article alleging there is a "winter 2011-2012 secular Haredi" conflict. Marokwitz (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Getting the article in shape and turning it into an article of general interest would be a major effort, indeed (e.g. see my edits here). The lemma itself makes it imo impossible to cover the issue: What's “Haredi”? Presumably those ultra religious Jews who are known as ultra-Orthodox Jews outside Israel, but who exactly is a secular Jew in Israel? And of course, under the present lemma, the event which caused all the fuss, the Beit Shemesh spitting incident, is not included, as the school in question and the pupils and their parents are Orthodox Jews. If anything it's ultra-Orthodox against non-ultra Orthodox Jews, but what kind of conflict is that? Ajnem (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is blatantly untrue. The initial Beit Shemesh incident was between "Modern Orthodox" and Haredi *"Ultra Orthodox) Jews - however the ensuing social, political, media debate is almost entirely a secular vs Haredi one. Besides, in the eyes of the Haredim, these people are like seculars - and as a fact, they stand much closer to the secular world than to the Haredi world in most ways (Zionism, working, IDF, living mostly in mixed secular-MO neighborhoods). And the ensuing attacks on Haredim in the media, and the physical attacks on Haredim on the streets, were all perpetrated by secular people - not a single incident has occurred of MO people attacking Haredim in the streets, but numerous have occurred of seculars attacking Haredim. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should have been “That is blatantly true” not “That is blatantly untrue”, dear Piz d'Es-Cha, you are proving my point, thank you. And since I have seen that the article is currently under the heading Socio-religious tensions in Israel, I should like to repeat my vote for deletion. No good will imo come out of mixing issues in this manner, even though personally I'm not excluding the possibility that it actually is a socioeconomic conflict between poor ultra-Orthodox vs. middle class Orthodox and secular Jews, and has nothing to do with religious issues, and it could just as well be a conflict between uneducated and educated and so on, but that's just my personal view, and I don't see any reliable sources for it. On the other hand, there is a reliable source in favor of deletion of the article: “The scandal of the week will quickly die down. The trendy word ‘exclusion’ will return to its obscurity, Beit Shemesh will go back to being remote and anonymous, and the moment in the spotlight of the temporary heroes will end - the girl who was spat at and the woman who sat in the front of the bus. The signs next to the Toldot Aharon Synagogue will return to their place on Chazon Ish Street, the ultra-Orthodox woman will return to her usual lifestyle, which seems dark and dismal to most people, and we'll all be preoccupied with the next scandal.” [12] Ajnem (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And someone else in the exact same newspaper said: "it is not unreasonable to believe that their actions will bring about a change in the Israeli society."[13] By the way, I find your suggestion that maybe it is a dispute between "educated and uneducated" highly offensive and it proves your lack of NPOV. The fact that some people have a different worldview and a different education from you and the mainstream doesn't mean that they are "uneducated" while you are "educated". Are you now the ultimate judge in determining who is "educated" and who is "uneducated"? --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for proving my point. Here is the fuller quote: "Both the price tag fanatics and the Haredi fanatics are minorities, but nevertheless it is not unreasonable to believe that their actions will bring about a change in the Israeli society. And that is because the actions of these groups demand an actual solution that will deconstruct The Denial. Containing the denial means moving forward with negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, and separating religion from state, in the spirit of properly run countries in the West. So long as these two issues, both of which exact quite a heavy price, are not dealt with and continue to be repressed, matters will merely grow worse".[14]. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to "religious tensions in Israel in 2011-2012". These tensions are real, notable and widely covered. The article has many issues (choice of title included), but NPOV and sourcing issues are arguments for improvement, not deletion. Rami R 14:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source showing that the religious tensions in 2011-2012 are a distinct and notable topic for its own article? 2011-2012 is simply an arbitrary date range. Why this arbitrary time period rather than not religious tensions in, say, 2006-2012? Or 1999-2002? Arbitrarily choosing the scope to be last couple of years sounds like a case of wp:recentism. Religious tensions in Israel are nothing new. The controversy and violence related to segregated bus lines are an ongoing topic, at least since 2006. A serious encyclopedia should not be misguided by systemic bias and media-blown controversies. We have the redirect page Religious tensions in Israel, and possibly we can branch this out to an independent, widely scoped article. Marokwitz (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Article is renamed. Now can we get on with it and cooperate on building a useful, neutral and factual article here? --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop acting silly and using "tricks" to avoid this fair and square AfD. DO NOT MOVE while in the middle of AfD! Please do not change the title or move the original article while it is in the middle of an AfD as it creates mass confusion. Feel free to edit, but no moving and no changing of name until AfD is resolved and closed. Thank you! IZAK (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Note – This article has been renamed to Socio-religious tensions in Israel, and User:Piz d'Es-Cha has added an under construction tag to the article and has performed some significant expansions to the article (Example: Difference between revisions, 4 January 2012). It would be appropriate for this AfD to be delayed/relisted while improvements are being made to the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: DO NOT MOVE while in the middle of AfD! Please do not change the title or move the original article while it is in the middle of an AfD as it creates mass confusion. Feel free to edit, but no moving and no changing of name until AfD is resolved and closed. Thank you! IZAK (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I haven't changed the titles, some other user(s) did. (Just for clarification). Northamerica1000(talk) 08:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete that one too. Do not relist or delay. Save it to sandbox and come back in a few weeks to see if anyone even remembers this was a 'major event'. --Shuki (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is ludicrously focussed on a brief period of time. There is insufficient justification in sources for the special focus given to the period of time covered in the article. Socially different points of view are normal. A series of vignettes of the manifestations of differing points of view over several months in Israeli society would only warrant a free-standing article if sources to a fair degree recognized the span of time and the incidents depicted as constituting something noteworthy. Note has been taken by sources of the series of social confrontations, but not to the degree that would warrant a free-standing article. Moving what would be reasonable material for inclusion in articles on a more general scope to its own standalone article is advocacy and would be in violation of for instance WP:Soapbox. Is social unrest depicted by reliable sources running as high as an article such as this would suggest? I think there is a degree of synthesis and interpretation here that takes us outside of the realm of what an encyclopedia should be and into the realm of advocacy, which is something an encyclopedia should obviously not be involved in. Objectivity requires the context of material to be appropriate. This material properly belongs in articles covering a wider and more general scope. Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for Delete. I don't like what it says, and it shouldn't be publicized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.234.248 (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE: The article has been renamed again, to: Haredi-secular conflict in Israel in winter of 2011-2012. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it was not "renamed again" it was moved back to its original title where it should have remained until this AfD about it was over. It is highly improper and utterly confusing to radically alter the name of an article and then move that article while it's being discussed in an AfD to an entirely different sort of name during an AfD about it without any WP:CONSENSUS. IZAK (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I haven't changed the titles, some other user(s) did. (Just for clarification). Northamerica1000(talk) 13:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV fork, WP:NOTNEWS. This is still unfolding and each individual incident is only of marginal notability. In a little while there might be secondary sources placing the whole thing into context. JFW | T@lk 11:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing in this article specific to winter 2011-2012 that is different than what has happened at any other time in the past 15 to 20 years. The only thing that has changed recently is the increased media coverage. --PiMaster3 talk 05:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: an encyclopedia is not the forum for this issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by An American jew (talk • contribs) [15]
  • Keep: And rename to something with a better POV.Although the article itself may be NPOV, the recent rash of Sikrikim violence and the resulting anti-Haredi incitement, and the Haredi demonstrations resulting from that, should have an article of its own, even though individual reports don't always tie them together. Yserbius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep A significant topic , as shown by the sources. The claim that only the two major English language newspapers from Israel (which , as it happens, are both non-Haredi) has been used should be dealt with by adding other sources. The argument that the individual incidents are not separately notable, while correct for most of them, is no reason for not having a article covering them all. I do not see this article as violating NPOV--it is simple straightforward reporting. Perhaps the time span covered will need adjustment, but that's another matter. I see nothing wrong with "winter" as the events described are in the Northern hemisphere. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While on strict count of heads this is a borderline consensus at best, Wikipedia has an absolute requirement in sensitive cases such as this to err on the side of WP:BLP conservatism — which means that given (a) he had one single, barely credited bit part in one TV show and thus doesn't even meet WP:NACTOR to start with, (b) he's been accused, but not yet convicted, of a crime and thus doesn't meet WP:PERP, and (c) one of the keep votes is the article's creator and the other one just asserts that notability is met without actually explaining how or why, as currently constituted there's simply no question that WP:BLP trumps any remaining doubts. Bearcat (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brea[edit]

Michael Brea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject meets no guidelines for notability, and it isn't even a BLP1E. The CSD last month was contested because "he appeared in a notable TV show", but he does not meet WP:NACTOR to verify that. The news sources reporting the murder said the subject was a "bit-part actor" in 'Ugly Betty", but he has no IMDB page, and no credits for "Ugly Betty" or any other acting roles on IMDB. He also does not qualify under WP:PERP where it clearly states, "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured."' Given the first edit, this is exactly the type of article to which the policy applies, and at the present time, there has been no trial, and likely will not be, as the otherwise-nn EVENT was over a year old when it was turned into a BIO article. MSJapan (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. He doesn't make it on his acting ("Onetime Ugly Betty bit-part actor") leaving only the murder, which falls afoul of WP:BLP1E. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He attracted a large amount of press coverage which goes beyond the WP:BLP1E criteria. Also was an actor in mainstream films. JASpencer (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. The only coverage found on this felow is in relationship to the beheading of his mother... a heinous act certainly... but just one event. In looking for his being an "actor in mainstream films", IMDB does not list this actor at all.. and the only sources that speak toward his acting all refer to Ugly Betty within their reports of his crime. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems otherwise non-notable, and would be reduction in citogenesis. AndroidCat (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Press coverage beyond WP:BLP1E has been achieved. Its a keeper.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's always helpful to back up an AFD statement with proof. What's yours? MSJapan (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MIT Crime Club[edit]

MIT Crime Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about an obscure crime club which before its demise had a membership of seven Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ϫ 22:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGIN

“Smaller organizations can be notable.  Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.”

WP:CORPDEPTH

MIT Crime Club has been the subject of 797 words + 1 full-color illustration in a regional monthly magazine; 385 words in a regional newspaper (at p. 2, top); and 160 words in a Factiva-archived “Major News Publication,” the Boston Globe.

Dervorguilla (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 7 members is 7 members... seem to satisfy the criterias.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Newsworthy: numerous mentions in media, including Boston Globe and PI Magazine (see article refs.) --Cantabridgian (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Network Talent[edit]

The Network Talent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organisation is non-notable and the article is completely unreferenced. Speedy declined on the grounds that "significance asserted" although I can't see how unless appearing on some obscure US reality TV show is enough. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In fact I think speedy delete: I agree with Daemonic Kangaroo, and disagree with Cindamuse, who contested the speedy deletion. I would myself have speedily deleted it, but I will leave it for now, to see if anyone else has any opinions for or against. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article clearly made a claim of significance and/or importance as the premise for a network television reality show. That said, after making an exhaustive search for references, I added "some" to the article, but question the reliability and independence to establish notability. I would venture to guess that once the show premieres in a couple of weeks, there will be quite a bit more information available. But at this time, it's certainly lacking. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 00:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article clearly written with a editor who has a WP:COI (The network1 (talk · contribs)), and the reality show connected to the organization already looks like a cellar-dweller in the Nielsen year-end list sight unseen. Unless somehow America catches ReModeled fever (and reading the article I get the feeling nobody will get the complicated premise, which is Tabatha's Salon Takeover but with...modeling agencies? I didn't know this was a need in the world.) or TNT somehow buys out Ford or Wilhelmina, this company needs to prove itself beyond being featured on this one show. Nate • (chatter) 07:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israellycool[edit]

Israellycool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria for notability for web content. The article does claim the blog meets such criteria (such as by saying that its liveblogging of the Israeli-Lebanon war resulted in "Aussie Dave", its owner, being interviewed by the BBC and Clear Channel Radio), but searches for things like clear channel "israellycool" -site:israellycool.com -site:blogspot.com -site:facebook.com -site:twitter.com, "aussie dave" bbc -site:israellycool.com -site:wikipedia.org -site:facebook.com, bbc "israellycool" -site:israellycool.com -site:blogspot.com -site:facebook.com -site:twitter.com -site:apple.com, etc. don't show up much else than passing mentions, misspellings of "isreallycool", Wikipedia mirrors, twitter mirrors, israellycool podcasts, and what appears to be an israellycool mirror — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps it will become more notable following this, but I agree, right now, it doesn't meet the criteria. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nominator, and I only find passing mentions in Google News and Google Books. Not really enough to convince me that this blog is notable. If the mainstream media pick up the story that Sean.hoyland linked to, then I agree that it might become notable, but we shouldn't let hypotheticals bother us too much here - someone can always write a new article based on new sources if they become available. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 19:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing coming from the blog mentioned by Sean is notable. --Shuki (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tikun Olam is highly notable (obviously) and it's conceivable that Richard Silverstein's pieces about Israellycool+JIDF activities will make it into the mainstream media in Israel and elsewhere as his stories often do, but it's not relevant to this decision as others have said. I should add that I posted Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Israellycool almost 6 months ago. So, editors have had ample opportunity to try to improve the article i.e. it's not likely to get better. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThere might be more notability to this than even I thought. Israellycool exposed Silverstein to be unreliable and a poor 'journalist' Silverstein thought he exposed 'Aussie Dave' when in fact, Aussie Dave set him up and Silverstein fell for the very poor bait. --Shuki (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

At the top of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  17:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of sovereign states in 0[edit]

List of sovereign states in 0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is common knowledge that the year 0 does not exist, and the article itself it basically a copy of List of sovereign states in 1. Jpech1995-2012 18:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Year 0 does not exist in the Gregorian calendar, which is what Wikipedia uses. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Cymru. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Guildford#Education. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article for this school isn't warranted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 00:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guildford Grove School[edit]

Guildford Grove School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable primary school with minimal refs outside of generic and statutory Ofsted reports. Suggest Delete although willing to accept Merge and Redirect to Guildford#Education. Fmph (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note:  This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fmph (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note:  This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Fmph (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be a notable school as it is documented in detail in independent, reliable sources and so satisfies our notability guideline. Warden (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- the consensus is that Primary schools do not normally need their articles. However, I beleive the best solution is to merge them to the place where they are, in this case Park Barn Estate. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article. Per convention. Open to redirect or merge of any RS-supported text.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:GNG as no non routine sources or current school guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reason for notability stated or found. Little coverage beyond usual routine sources. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) to Guildford#Education per convention and per nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
School governing body? A bunch of 12 or so local concerned citizens that meet twice per term and discuss child protection policies? Are you sure that's what you meant? Even more non-notable than the school.Fmph (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge or redirect as we usually do. On the one hand, there is no justification for a separate article--I do not accept my friend the Col.'s insistence that these sources are discriminating and substantial; on the other there is no justification for not having it included somewhere. No argument against merging has been given, and the nom. is willing to do it that way. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only encyclopaedic matter that is reffed in the article is the fact that there is a unit in the school which supports deaf children. That info has already been merged. There is nothing else encyclopaedic in the current article.. Fmph (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why the wise and extremely experienced DGG is recommending merge/redirect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not what i picked up from his post. I understood him to be saying that ALL referenced material from the article needed to be merged into the target, which would be a nonsense. Fmph (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources that I have cited are more substantial and discriminating than the sources we use for many other topics such as academic journals. These inspections are quite a big deal and there is currently a significant scandal being reported - some cases of schools trying to manipulate the outcome. These inspections are high-stakes testing for these institutions and are matter of significant public concern and interest. As sources they are far better than the PR fluff which passes for journalism in much of the media. The featured article today is Brad Pitt. Are we here to just report on celebrity gossip about Brangelina's children? Warden (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, why don't you indent like everyone else? It really does make a mess of the talk page. Anyhow, you seem to be in a very small minority who consider that Ofsted reports generally confer some form of notability. They are run of the mill stuff. And if everyone is cheating at them, surely their reliability is suspect? Fmph (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment is indented one level from the comment to which it is responding - the !vote of DGG. Please see Hierarchical threads. As for the cheating, this is to be expected in any form of testing or inspection. In a rigorous system, it is exposed and remediated and that is what's happening now. Warden (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The content of your reply does not suggest you were replying to DGG. I have to say that it may be exposed in the incident you are referring to, but its happening in many more (most?) schools by default, in one form or another. They only detect the smallest number. They dont want to detect any more, because doing so would discredit the system even more. Fmph (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG queried whether the "sources are discriminating and substantial" and I responded using the same words. I was addressing his concern specifically because of the high regard given to his opinions here. Warden (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-read it now and accept entirely that you werre. My sincerest apologies. Fmph (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Isle Ate Her[edit]

An Isle Ate Her (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC. No releases on notable labels, no international tours or major festival appearances, no significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Just another Myspace band. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was the nomination was withdrawn and the article will be kept. Kubigula (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jelenin svet[edit]

Jelenin svet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable movie. No independent reliable sources to support GNG. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Charles "Bill" Jeanmard[edit]

William Charles "Bill" Jeanmard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined this as a CSD because some significance has been asserted. There may be scope to delete the article, so I have nominated it for deletion. My stance is neutral. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Racine Raiders[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Racine Raiders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Second nomination. Very little sourcing, fails WP:N and WP:GNG. Potential violation of WP:ADV and WP:NPOV. Paul McDonald (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You see this search article for them in their local paper? 2,405 mentions (I don't think they archive). Most minor league football teams on this level don't get significant local coverage, but the Raiders do. Tom Danson (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it looks like most of those articles have the words "Racine" and "raiders" in the article but clearly are not about the "Racine Raiders." --Paul McDonald (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This organization does appear to get a fair amount of coverage, more than enough to meet WP:GNG,[17][18][19][20][21][22]- I could cite many many more if I kept looking. Let this one rest, Paul.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 17:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk aboutabout my edits? 17:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
—Northamerica1000(talk) 12:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Dem Records[edit]

Rock Dem Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In looking for indicia of notability, I turned up zero gnews hits and zero gbooks hits in RSs for this record label/music publishing company. Tagged for notability and as an orphan for close to 3 years. Created by an SPA.Epeefleche (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable label. There isn't even any notable artists signed to it. Star Girls goes to a magazine. SL93 (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 18:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No detectable products. Seems to be aspirational. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shaykh Jamaliya Syed Khaleel Awn Moulana[edit]

Shaykh Jamaliya Syed Khaleel Awn Moulana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm having trouble finding non-trivial RS coverage of this person, even working off of shortened versions of his name. The article is no help; despite its length, and some ELs, it has zero refs. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 18:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Open and shut case. MSJapan (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Communicative assent[edit]

Communicative assent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research. I like strawberry icecream. (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this concept is not just mentioned, it's documented enormously in a Standard! I've added a few references but really, nom should have looked at the web first. There are also some very heavy books that mention CA and I expect they could go in a Bibliography section too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep – The nomination doesn't contain a valid rationale for deletion, per WP:DEL#REASON. Original research can be corrected by editing. Also keep per references added to the article by User:Chiswick Chap. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reversing my earlier position of "delete", per addition of reliable sources to article and establisment of notability.--JayJasper (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne de Rozario[edit]

Joanne de Rozario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this person exists, I can't find sufficient non-trivial RS coverage to reflect notability. Tagged for lack of notability for well over 2 years. Perhaps the SPA author believed the subject to be notable due to the similarity in their names. Epeefleche (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not entirely sure about this one. There are plenty of hits but all seem trivial. Notability not established. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Wikipedia isn't facebook. Stubbleboy 20:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, two years is enough time to scrape up some non-trivial sources. --Ifnord (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella Media[edit]

Umbrella Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article appears to fail WP:ORG due to a lack of substantial sources. The "projects delivered" do not, to me, appear to demonstrate significant impact and a review of the sources included show that all of the ones on the surface appearing to be non-primary do not actually mention "Umbrella Media". I find no reliable sources on a GBooks or GNews archives search. Upgraded from an (A7) speedy deletion just in case I am missing something that might be a geographic bias problem. Fæ (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor, Umbrella Media is the informal name given by the daily commuters to the LED screens fitted on the cities busiest traffic junctions. Because of its hull type umbrella shape design on top of the structure with red and white colors, people have started calling it Umbrella TV. It is gaining widespread popularity because of its placement, right beside a traffic signal, making it a hard to miss thing. It belongs to Umbrella Media Worke, which is the O&M wing of International Techno Media. Due to legal risks involved, ownership of installment sites have been taken up by International Techno Media, while O&M activities are taken care by Umbrella Media Worke. I hope i've correctly depicted the arrangement.
If possible, it will be very kind of you to show me the direction which will make this article clear, informative & impactful. Thanks & Regards Dexter.enemy (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My response to this same question at my user talk page. --Fæ (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Editor, Both organisations in the article are equally responsible for the functioning of this Umbrella Media/Umbrella TV/LED Screen Network. After your suggestion, i edited the article so that it shows the work breakdown between these two forms. Please note that both firms are independent and are working in collaboration. One firm is doing the front room job, whereas the other doing the backroom. Umbrella Media is a dis-joint, which both said organisations share. Please share opinion on the future course of action/modification. Thanks & Regards Dexter.enemy (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article illustrates a new emerging trend in the field of digital out of home advertising by setting up screens in a place never imagined. Links attached shows the notability, as it is the first time ever somebody has shown this kind of approach. Please share your opinion. Also, please suggest how to make it more impact oriented. Collective insight is always better than single persons thought process! Thanks and regards, Dexter.enemy (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)— Dexter.enemy (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, Kurykh (talk) 09:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's very spammy, there's not much on it at all so bias be damned, no sourcing means no sourcing regardless of where in the world it is. tutterMouse (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's a new trend in digital out of home advertising. Industry dynamics is changing and this media is paving the way for next generation out of home entertainment medium. People in delhi used this as a medium to watch Commonwealth games 2011, held in New Delhi. It was the first time, people on road could actually see it while commuting. 182.68.249.124 (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)— 182.68.249.124 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After four weeks of discussion, this doesn't appear to be approaching a consensus. Arguments are split between keeping and redirecting. Further discussion on the article's talk page would be appropriate to determine whether this subject is sufficiently distinct from dystheism, which rightly or wrongly is currently redirected to Misotheism, or whether it could be merged there, which even taking into account the 'keep' arguments that this a real thing and a widely used term, may still be appropriate. Michig (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maltheism[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Maltheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Based on blogs, without any good sources. Previous discussion resulted in redirection to Dystheism. Bulwersator (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This term is widely used by reliable sources (contingent upon any copyright concerns being properly addressed.) Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect again to dystheism. I could not find significant discussion of this term in Google Books, News, or Scholar. That's why book sources haven't been entered. The book Shadowjams points to is self-published on Lulu.com, and thus not a reliable source. Before anyone makes an argument again to keep based on hits, please critically assess the sources and the coverage they give to this term. Bernard Schweizer talks in passing about Wikipedia's own battles over this terminology, noting that maltheism has lost out as a term.[23] Fences&Windows 03:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an important and highly relevant idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.207.124.49 (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 08:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the previous target. The term is not notable, at least not yet. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move to XiangYu Education Group and make the redirect from the school name. The article talks about more than just this school, & can be expanded with the other schools in the group. The group itself is clearly notable. I'm;ll do the page merge right after this closing.. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huaian Foreign Language School[edit]

Huaian Foreign Language School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Thought the article claims that this school is famous, I can't see RS support for the fact that it is even notable. Created by an SPA. Tagged for notability since September. Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Logan Talk Contributions 12:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Logan Talk Contributions 12:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable primary school. Not sure if there's a valid redirect target. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Looks like there are ten schools including a college and a high school.  In looking at the five references in the article I have found two dead links, and three articles in Chinese, and the only English is one picture with a middle-aged woman with a sign that says "I can speak English".  Since we routinely keep high schools, this article can be kept.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Un -- are you relying on the text in the article that is not sourced to RS coverage, or on independent RS coverage for that? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this school at secondary level education. if so then it should be kept however I'm struggling to verify if so then I'm leaning towards delete.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't seen RS support that verifies the notion that it is a high school, either at the article or in this discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The article is not about a primary school. It is about an educational region, including a senior high school. This is mentioned in the opening paragraph!!! It does need some heavy rewriting and probably a move though. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not at all clear to me. The article is entitled "Huaian Foreign Language School". It is listed in the category "Language schools". And its content is overwhelmingly about related schools (sometimes, we have school articles that bear the name of one school but discuss related schools). What makes you think it is about a region? You could write an article about a region, but it would not bear this name, be in this cat, and have this content. In any event, this afd is only about this article (as it stands), not about any new-named article with a new cat containing new content.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article, the opening paragraph is:

XiangYu Education Group is founded in 1999. Actually there was just one school that time. It's called Huaian Foreign Language Middle School. Not long after, the Education Group expanded. Till now, there are 10 schools in total, covering elementrary school, junior high school, senior high school and school of higher vocational Technology.

Huaian Foreign Language School actually seems to be a section about halfway down the page.
Yes, the article is misnamed and probably needs a move. It probably needs about half a dozen maintenance tags applied as well. Not delete. This is, in fact, an article into which other articles (if someone were to create an article on any of those schools listed, for example).
I'm a little bit concerned by what you're demonstrating here. You're essentially showing that you're not giving due thought to WP:Guide_to_deletion#Considerations, and how can you, if you're nominating so many articles? In particular these two points:
  • investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it.
  • first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.
I would suggest that you reconsider your approach to AfD's in light of the above. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it quite curious that you would make such an assertion. Aren't you the same editor who just led us in an extended conversation because you misread a comment at the AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Martin of Tours Catholic School? And the same editor, who in that discussion kept on asserting against-policy considerations that lack consensus support, along the lines of "well, if it is possible there could be a ref, we should keep the article"? Of course its possible for any of us to make a mistake. But for you to do so in a conversation with me, and then the same hour accuse me of doing so -- and suggesting that, therefore, you are "a little bit concerned", is ... well, unusual.
As to the article itself, I've already addressed that above.
We have disagreed at more than one article today. But as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Peter's Middle School, Old Windsor and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SJKC Damansara, I think that I've shown a care for what our consensus is and for the facts and for RS support, while you have been more given to making assumptions.
Curiously, as you are militating for fewer articles being redirected, others are saying that I should not even worry about editors who have your view, but simply BOLDly redirect such articles.
As to the rest of your post -- perhaps you are mistaking me for someone else? Where, pray tell, have I ever said that an article should be deleted "because I never heard of it? Where have I ever said that an article should be deleted "because I do not consider it worthy?" This is truly bizarre. Those aren't reasons for deletion, and I don't believe I've posed them as reasons here. Why are you making things up? This is more than a little odd.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I make mistakes and misread things every now and then, mea culpa. Those two points are directly quoted from that WP:Guide to deletion. Let me be clear that I am not directing those two accusations (from which you seemed to be taking offense) at you, they're from the Considerations section.
I've just looked through your contributions, and I really can't see that you've done a lot to satisfy either of those two points from WP:Guide_to_deletion#Considerations. That being said, I don't see a lot of activity on your part to satisfy those guidelines. I don't see a lot of your "rewriting" any school articles (or many other articles). I also don't see you raising issues of notability on any article's talk page. Nor have you inserted any references into any article. It seems to me that the majority of your activity seems to be here, at AfD, without properly taking into account those considerations. To be fair, I only looked at the last 5000 odd of your contributions, and I didn't look all that hard, but I should have been able to see some sign somewhere that you've engaged with those two points.
And here (i.e., in this discussion) is where it becomes a problem. This article indicates, in its opening paragraph, that it is refering to a collective of schools. Yet you ask on that issue, twice. It is content poor, badly titled and badly needs a rewrite. Why don't you withdraw this nomination and have a go at doing that? I'll help as much as I can if you'd like. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete if the sources are multiple/reliable and show there are 10 schools then keep, if not speedy delete.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hunters Hill Rugby Union Football Club[edit]

Hunters Hill Rugby Union Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Low-level amateur rugby union club. No suitable references (only ones given are another Wikipedia article), cannot verify. Article largely created by a club member. Repeated warnings on talk page have brought about no significant improvement. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Claims to have been founded in the 19th century but I cannot find anything to show notability. noq (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damn Skippy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Damn Skippy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage for this band. SL93 (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article was deleted twice in AfD in 2005. SL93 (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are bits and pieces of coverage around, e.g. this and this, but nowhere near enough to establish notability. There is no credible claim of notability in the article, and the band appears to fail all criteria of WP:BAND.--Michig (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I looked at the previous nominations and agree with every reason I have seen to delete it. It does not appear to be notable enough. ReelAngelGirl (Talk) 16:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:SALT, seems to be the target of repeat fanboy recreations. Tarc (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not finding enough significant coverage in reliable sources for this group to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BAND.  Gongshow Talk 06:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete and salt. Per above. Fails GNG and music criteria.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Airways Flight 268[edit]

British Airways Flight 268 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable incident. Aviation Safety Network doesn't list it and news coverage is routine. William 16:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Unless more sourcing is forthcoming it looks like a fail under GNG. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a reliable source in the form of Flight International - still not seeing it as a stand-alone incident. Plane flew on 3 engines across, landed before than ran out of fuel, FAA issued fine but caved in before reaching court. Possibly an example of how ICAO rules and National Aviation Authorities interact.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are several sources including one on ABC. This is quite a unique incident and deserves to be documented. Oddbodz (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found an ABC.com [source from 2006 it says "The case was not isolated. The Wall Street Journal reported that a total of 15 British Airways 747s in the last five years have lost one engine and kept going to their destination" GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. However, I still think we should keep the article because unlike the other instances, this on did not continue to its destinaton - it re-routed to Manchester. Oddbodz (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In this incident the engine failed seconds after take off, not whilst cruising (where it is most likely that the other 15 engines failed). The loss of two engines on a 747 during take off can cause a crash (as happened in Schipol). In this case there was an engine fire and the flight crew would not have been sure of the condition of the wing or other engine. To then climb to cruising altitude and cross the Atlantic was an interesting decision and the fuel must have been at its limit to have diverted to Manchester. The same engine (no 2) on the same plane failed a few weeks previously.[1] Please keep this interesting article and add more info if needed rather than delete it. BritAirman (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Whether the article is well written or not or memorable isn't the point.(Since banned editor Ryan Kirkpatrick wrote horrifically but accidents he wrote about still merited the article. It just had to be fixed up.) Is this incident encyclopedic? Does it meet WP:Aircrash criteria? Non fatal accident, BA has a history of jets flying without engine working, planes divert every week of the year if not every day. The aircraft was designed with sufficient backup to continue flying, and it did. What is notable about this?- William 22:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This might merit a mention on the British Airways page, but an article? No, not really, it (1) didn't suffer a hull loss, (2) didn't have anybody killed (or even injured), and (3) no procedures were changed as a result of the incident - stated straight from the horse's mouth. Fails WP:AIRCRASH on all three legs of the triad, and fails WP:GNG/WP:PERSISTENCE as well. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:AIRCRASH -- no fatalities, there wasn't a hull-loss, and no procedural changes. However, this incident is unusual (to me that is) regarding the crew's decision. Neverthelss, WP:AIRCRASH is the important guideline to follow -- if it's not met, I don't think the subject is worth writing an article about. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Remeber WP:IAR. If this article could improve Wikipedia we should ignore WP:AIRCRASH. Remember WP:AIRCRASH isn't official policy, Oddbodz (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You can say that about 50% other articles that go through this process. What it comes down to is whether it meets WP:AIRCRASH, which it doesn't and, to assess the subject's notability, the subject isn't that unique, as per ABC above, "The case was not isolated." Unless the article meets WP:AIRCRASH, or that it is substantially unusual in anyway, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Typical speedbird behaviour. One rule for us colonials, another for the masters of the air. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into British Airways article. Notable enough to mention there due to the fallout. Not quite enough notability to justify a stand-alone article. Title should be a redirect. Mjroots (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep but needs to be rewritten encyclopedically, or Transwikied to Wikinews.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. fails WP:AIRCRASH. Moreover, it's another example of WP:RECENTISM. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable to me.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The coverage was in-depth and extend for years. "Routine coverage" as WP:ROUTINE defines it is "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs" which the coverage of this topic is way beyond the scope of.--Oakshade (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Williams sisters. And/or other mentioned articles, in condensed form.  Sandstein  17:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott of BNP Paribas Open by Venus and Serena Williams[edit]

Boycott of BNP Paribas Open by Venus and Serena Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. Can get mentioned in these players' biography articles, but doesn't warrant a standalone article. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep I think there are enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk aboutabout my edits? 18:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to either Indian Wells Masters or Williams sisters. Currently, this boycott isn't even mentioned in either article, which causes me to question whether it warrants a stand-alone article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While there are sources for this incident, there are no reasons to give it a standalone article. We could make 1000s of sourced articles about player or team getting booed, racist incidents in matches, and other sports controversies. For example there was the 'Dubai controversy' with tennis player Shahar Pe'er. There would be enough sources to create a standalone article, but it is simply kept in the player's article , see Dubai controversy. Being booed is not inherently notable apart from the notability of the player being booed. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Metropolitan90--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - this info is pertinent enough to be condensed and entered on Serena's and Venus's wiki page...perhaps the Williams sisters article also. Stand alone... no. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This is not a separate encyclopedi entry as per common sense. Should we write entries such as 'Arnold Schwarznanegger's filminmg of Terminator'? Gimme a break. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jujutacular talk 16:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Congress of Art History Students in Zagreb[edit]

International Congress of Art History Students in Zagreb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously Prodded with rationale "Newly created student conference with no evidence of meeting the notability criteria for events." Contested by article creator on grounds that [24] is sufficient for notability. However Google Translate indicates that to be merely an event preview, which is insufficient to establish Notability, so I'm bringing the article to AfD on the original Prod grounds. AllyD (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is needed to establish notability of this event?Ja12345 (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There seems from the very face of the article to be no notability, at least not at this time. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and DGG. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. User:Goodvac's analysis is persuasive and carries the consensus.--Kubigula (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chhatra Lok Janshakti[edit]

Chhatra Lok Janshakti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

youth department of a political party fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind talk 14:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why should there be an article about the youth division of a political party when Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about the party itself? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per Google news link for this AfD, topic is covered in The Hindu, The Times Of India, India Today and others. Article needs sourcing, cleanup, better organization. Adding rescue tag. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's the issue of how deep this coverage is. While you're certainly right that the topic is mentioned, I'm struggling to find in those sources any real info on the group. All of the articles seem to mention it once, in a sentence like "A, B, C, and the Chhatra Lok Janshakti oppose this" or "another student candidate for XYZ was a member of the Chhatra Lok Janshakti". Do you know of any sources that have less trivial coverage? Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The closest to significant coverage I can find is "Chhatra Lok Janshakti joins hands with NSUI" from The Hindu, which provides no substantial information about the party. It merely covers the routine event of Chhatra Lok Janshakti shifting its support from United Students' Front to National Students' Union of India. Goodvac (talk)
  • Delete fails WP:GNG, all sources uncovered so far make trivial mention of this subject. Effort should be focused on creating a good article on the party itself where a breif mention of this subject would be appropriate. RadioFan (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete good vac makes an excellent point, there is insufficient in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SM Marketmall Dasmariñas[edit]

SM Marketmall Dasmariñas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. Insufficient sources. Has been redirected to SM Department Store article but some IPs and users removes the redirect. Also, it appears questionable that every SM mall or supermarket proposed or built get its own article. GrayFullbuster (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well individual malls are normally not notable; plus, I couldn't find any reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. No independent sources at all. (Although it is not in itself a reason to delete, it is worth noting that all the substantial editing of the article has been done by a number of single purpose or largely single purpose IPs from two ISPs, both of them in the same city as the company that owns the mall, together with a largely single purpose account editing almost exclusively articles relating to that company. Early versions of the article were unambiguous spam, and although the current version is more neutral, all appearances suggest that it exists as part of the business's publicity campaign.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there actually is a claim to notability for this perticular property. It is the first to use a "public market partnership", wherein the bottom floor is not actually SM Prime's. see [25] (although from sm's website, it is extracted from a newspaper). Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calaym[edit]

Calaym (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage for both calaym and its original name Quickplayer. SL93 (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete No assertion why product is notable. Little coverage beyond download sites. Pit-yacker (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced, no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jujutacular talk 14:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sedar Emirates[edit]

Sedar Emirates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find sufficient non-trivial RS coverage of this company. Created by SPA. Tagged for zero refs for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Institute of Media Arts[edit]

San Institute of Media Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Recommend deletion due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Zero independent sources have been found to support that this institution actually exists. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 05:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ADVERT. The stub article reads like a promotional blurb and the facility has absolutely no coverage in reliable sources. I do not really doubt that this small private media arts training facility exists, but in its lacking coverage it fails WP:COMPANY. We are not here to promote them when RS does not even take notice. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: too recent to have accrued any claim ofrreferences that can assert notability. May even be just a backroom school. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of minor characters in the Matrix series.  Sandstein  17:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Operator (The Matrix)[edit]

Operator (The Matrix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced in-universe bio/job description from The Matrix series. Looks like OR/synthesis using the films as source, so not reliably sourced. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is already an article on minor Matrix characters, and one on Matrix ships. The info could go there. Borock (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Percunatel[edit]

Percunatel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probable hoax. No sources have been given since the article was created by an IP years ago, nor was the content modified since then. Substantial Google search results are limited to the original page and a couple of its mirrors. Microcell (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Perun's mother" is an existing concept in Slavic mythology. Seems more likely that "Percunatel" is a peculiar or malformed translation, as opposed to a raw hoax.   — C M B J   01:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • During a parallel discussion in the Ukrainian Wikipedia it was pointed out that the Lithuanian mythology has a concept of Perkūnaitėlė, purported wife of Perkūnas (Perun). Based on this, I'm inclined to think the IP user simply got it wrong when creating the article in question. It remains only to decide what should be done to it. Percunatele seems to have reliable, however scarce, coverage on the web, which gives it some theoretical chances of survival; but unless any additional information is added I believe it must be redirected as having no standalone value. --Microcell (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, following renaming to Percunatele, slight expansion and references added by Uncle G. Still a stub that requires more work, but there's now sufficient there to indicate notability. PWilkinson (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radar Recordings[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Radar Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Once again we're at AfD for this article. Self published sources (Own website). Main grasp for notability is that the label is self financed and that they've had some groups that are somewhat notable in their artist list. Not seeing a substantial reason for keeping this article. Article was re-created in August after the AfD, was redirected to Will Benoit at the end of August, and de-redirected on the 16th of December. Still feel that this article doesn't establish notability so doing annother check to see if the community agrees. Hasteur (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Recently added some reliable references from outside sources. Main grasp for notability is Radar Recordings success in finding and elevating relatively unknown bands to the greater public attention from the art rock and experimental rock genres through community support (artists on the label self finance and run the label). In that respect, creating a page for Radar Recording is appropriate as it marks the interconnected relationship that these separate groups share to give readers who view the page a better sense of why these artists frequently tour and collaborate with each other, which includes the involvement of the more notable bands on the label. Redirecting this page to Will Benoit, one of the co-founders of Radar Recordings, is insufficient for showing this. Phiberoptiksblack (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the content is paraphrased directly from Radar Recordings' site. The only extrernal citations are a LastFM page (which according to the Reliable sources Noticeboard is not reliable), a Ticket selling site, a local music magazine that appears to be fan driven and not subject to editiorial review, and a user submitted blog/review of an event at SXSW. The local muscic magazine does lend some notability, but not enough to justify having an article for the label when most of the content is copyright suspect. Your reasoning for the keep suggests a promotional interest in having this article remain. Hasteur (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Gujrat[edit]

Shane Gujrat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find substantial RS coverage of this online community portal. Tagged for zero refs since June. Epeefleche (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Foust[edit]

Graham Foust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Not notable per WP:PROF or WP:AUTH. All references are dead links, and there's enough not enough out there to demonstrate notability. Lhakthong (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC) To be more specific, there are a couple of mentions in newspapers for poetry readings, but this is not uncommon for academics with published poetry, and its not uncommon for academic poets to have published works. Same goes for publications in themselves. Just about every tenured professor has publications, and those with books have had it reviewed somewhere.--Lhakthong (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable poet, enough sources for basic vita. [26] Recent bio sketch in The Nation. Quite a lot of other sources in Google Books. [27], including discussions of his ideas and poetry. --JN466 00:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can find plenty of academic poets/artists that would fit the above, though, and that doesn't make then notable academics. It makes them accomplished academics. Two different things, no? Notable academics are usually accomplished, but being an accomplished academic alone hardly makes one notable for an encyclopedia. I might be persuaded if you could tell me how you think what you presented satisfies any of the specific criteria listed in WP:PROF or WP:AUTH.--Lhakthong (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are clutching at straw men - just because you claim you have "found plenty of academics" who meet a certain set of criteria that you've chosen has no bearing on whether this particular article has merit for notability. These other people whom you have supposedly found have no relevance to this article; unless you are prepared to provide evidence of these people, including citations as provided above, then we'll have to assume they don't exist. 109.153.150.104 (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From a starred review in Publishers Weekly: "Foust has achieved a wide reputation in and beyond experimental poetry circles for his clipped, breathless poems, often no longer than one or two haiku, but packing an intimate punch that belies their length." That satisfies WP:AUTH in my opinion. There are also more than 100 Google Books references; I think he would pass under GNG. --JN466 13:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just dropping in from "recent IP changes". I'm a deletionist by nature (public service announcement), but this author has multiple publications, has several books for sale on Amazon.com an has been reviewed in Publisher's Weekly [28]. Whether it's an independent review or not, I don't know, but my initial take is that this article has at least some merit. TreacherousWays (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(general response) I just am trying to find the boundary between putting onto Wikipedia every academic who has published a few books and received good reviews from those who meet the spirit of the criteria in WP:PROF or WP:AUTH. Again, most tenured professors have books and have had them reviewed. Is everyone who gets a starred review in Publishers Weekly thusly notable? That makes them an accomplished academic, not a notable one. Let's get down to the point: which of these criteria do you think he meets (and take particular notice of the language in 11):
  1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
  2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
  3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE).
  4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
  5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
  6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
  7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
  8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.
  9. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  10. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  11. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  12. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

--Lhakthong (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, he's more notable as a poet than as an academic. He might not have been notable enough for a biography purely based on his publications as an academic. But if Publishers Weekly says, "Foust has achieved a wide reputation in and beyond experimental poetry circles", and we have in-depth coverage like this 3,000-word feature in The Nation, he clears WP:AUTH #1, as well as WP:GNG, by a good margin. His participation in academic discourse only enhances that.--JN466 17:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree he's probably more notable as a poet than academic, so I'd be happy just to stick to the criteria listed for WP:AUTH, which are 9-12 above. I see where you're coming from regarding his poetry, and I guess I'm more convinced now than when I first tagged the article (especially the feature in The Nation), but I'm not sure that takes him over the bar, because a feature article in a magazine is not the same as having his work "the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," or anything that would satisfy the spirit of that criteria. The Nation feature might satisfy the criteria of being considered important, but I'm hesitant there because I'm not sure such an article indicates that he is important enough that he is widely cited by peers and successors. Does he have any successors? Is he widely cited by his peers? I'm clearly outnumbered here, but I really stand on the cautionary side notable academics and artists, because I've seen too many BLPs that were for clearly accomplished people but nonetheless ones that barely, if at all, eek over the notability line.--Lhakthong (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Lhakthong, I sympathize with your position vis-a-vis inclusion, and find your argument rational. I sometimes find myself asking, "Would I find this person in Britannica?" and usually answering, "nope". Foust seems to me to fall into a gray area. We've all seen the articles that get the speedy: "John Smith, famous for being temporary co-captain of the West Middle School Junior Varsity Badminton Club during the catgut-versus-nylon strings scandal of 1972." as well as the stubs that desperately need expansion and good cites: "A. Einstein worked as postal clerk and wrote papers on physics." Foust probably wouldn't make the cut in Britannica, but I'm not sure whether that would be because he's not worth mentioning or because they can't fit *everything* into the paper edition. If, say, ten students per year look up Foust to find out more about where he's coming from, has Wikipedia served as a resource for those people? Would we be serving the spirit if not the letter of the law? TreacherousWays (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, if I thought for one instant that this was some sort of sales gimmick or that he was being touted as the-next-great-thing? I'd revert to my rabid deletionist mode in an instant. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, and I completely agree, except for the last part. I would think students look up their professors all the time. The question is whether students are doing academic research on Foust or whether his poetry is considered canonical for certain courses or he's making whatever the poetry equivalent is of the NYT Best Seller's list. I'm not convinced that's the case. So, I still strongly side on delete until he or his work is subject of more than reviews (which is what The Nation piece is), however stellar. But again, if I'm the only one ardently arguing for delete, I'm willing to give in.--Lhakthong (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times does not feature poetry best-seller lists often, but when it did, on this occasion, Foust was there, at no. 3. --JN466 02:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable author; WP:PROF does not really apply. Reviews are what show notability of authors, and PW reviews are highly selective. The request for more than reviews is unnecessarily stringent,and asking that a write be "canonical" amounts to limiting coverage to the famous. Lhakthong does have a point & I do not reject his view entirely: this is just over the line for notability , but it is over it. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cherumony Damodaran Nair[edit]

Cherumony Damodaran Nair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article and I can find nothing to suggest that this person meets WP:N using Google, GBooks or GScholar. His Presidential and Secretarial roles appear to be in relation mostly to minor/obscure organisations & although the Thrampatra (Tamra Patra) is a genuine award there is no verification that he received it. Sitush (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect - AfD not required to redirect an article, and article has already been redirected. (non-admin closure) —SW— chatter 22:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nissin Cup Noodles[edit]

Nissin Cup Noodles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant article with only one line of information; the wiki article Cup Noodles is already specifically about the Nissin branded product. Wrathkind (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, that's a good idea. Redirecting would be better than just flat out deletion. It will avert recreating this page in the future, and help clarify that the Cup Noodles article isn't referring to a generic noodle-in-a-cup product. Wrathkind (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've WP:BOLDly redirected to Cup Noodles, there's nothing to retain as stated and being a usable redirect it's a better choice over deletion. tutterMouse (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jujutacular talk 14:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Williams- Actress[edit]

Jessie Williams- Actress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Child actor fails WP:NACTOR. Only source is to imdb which has very little other the one tv series she has appeared in. noq (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm leaning heavily towards WP:TOOSOON, one series doesn't confer notability but she's young so if she gets more roles and more coverage then we can come back to an article for her. tutterMouse (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questa volta parliamo di uomini[edit]

Questa volta parliamo di uomini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think that this film is notable enough. The only refrence is to the IMDB. Oddbodz (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Bonetti[edit]

Benjamin Bonetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual with no reliable sources to establish notability. Previously PRODDed but declined by author. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cannot find any third-party published reliable sources at all to establish notability under the WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above. I can't find adequate sourcing to justify an article. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. consensus is delete. That another plane of the same model crashed in a notabler incident does not make this incident notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comair Flight 5054[edit]

Comair Flight 5054 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:Aircrash criteria. Not sure it is even worthy of a mention in airport or aircraft article. William 12:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 12:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -William 12:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 12:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - per nom. The suggested connection to the incident with N265CA is too weak to support a merge to the aircraft article. There is also no explicit indication that the airline stopped using this aircraft because of the incident (a sequence of events does not establish causation). -- Donald Albury 13:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' doesnt appear to be notable for a stand alone article or any mention in airport or aircraft articles. MilborneOne (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - utterly fails all of the relevant notability guidelines. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet notability as per WP:AIRLINE guidelines, i.e. no hull-loss, no changes in procedures, and no dead.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Possibly delete as a stand alone incident, but in the context of a fatal crash occurring to another aircraft in similar circumstances, might it be better to see if more information can be added? This article has been in Wikpedia for over 5 years and the statistics show an average of 300-400 views per month since 2007, so clearly some people find it interesting! BritAirman (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as a G5. Pioneersbrog (our sockmaster throughout this AFD) was himself a sock of Nimbley6—Kww(talk) 01:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beat the Bully[edit]

Beat the Bully (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Showy article about an amateur short film (17 min.). Seems to be a school project, primary sources only. Fails WP:MOVIE. A speedy was declined. Ben Ben (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Primary sources? Nonsense. This film is on the IMDB website, a producer from one of the UK's biggest TV channel's (Channel 4) worked on this project, and there is a standard of reliable sources. IMDB being one, not to mention other websites commenting about the premier of the film in June 2011 and a mention on various Twitter accounts. 90.218.149.131 (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Sockpuppet of creator—Kww(talk) 12:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • While Twitter and IMBD can sometimes lead to actually suitable sources, they are not considered reliable. For those read WP:RS. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Totally agree with the above comments. Internet Movie Database is a very reliable website, and they don't create pages for any silly film. MaybeU1242 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Sockpuppet of article creator—Kww(talk) 05:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actualy, all "any silly film" need so to qualify for IMDB is screen at some festival. As above, IMDB is a site that can often lead to more suitable sources, but it is not considered reliable. And to meet inclusion criteria for films, we need films to be covered in reliable sources. For those read WP:RS. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there's enough sources here, all seem pretty secondary enough. IMDB is a worthy enough website, and give it time, the movie has still be given a release in Scotland sometime this month, I'm sure once released, it will be on a few more website. As for the time, again, we don't know if it will last for 17 mins, it maybe more. Again, it's not even been released yet so we don't know this for sure. TheGloryyDayss (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Yet another sock of article creator—Kww(talk) 12:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not yet released is the key. With respects, the sources curently in the article are not reliable. We do not use IMDB, Twitter, or blogs to source notability. The article needs sourcing from newspapers... and not from a school paper or the East Ayrshire Council city page. And as AFD is not a vote, but rather a discussion of how an article may or may not meet inclusion criteria, simply saying keep does not mean it will be. Arguments need to be through application of policy and guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found nothing for significant coverage. IMDB does not prove notability because anyone can add films. The staff just needs to prove that it exists. SL93 (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The film might become notable in the future, but currently all we have is that it exists. Lacking coverage and currently failing film notability guidelines tells us that this one is premature... simply Too Soon. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Computer-assisted translation. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enhanced translation[edit]

Enhanced translation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A neologism. The article has no references, so there is no evidence that this term is notable. Prod was contested without explanation, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Computer-assisted translation. The author of the article says themselves that the term was introduced in 2010 by a translation company. In addition to this, I don't find anything obvious when searching Google Books, which makes me agree with the nominator in saying that it is a neologism. The subject itself sounds very similar indeed to computer-assisted translation, and I don't see any content in the article that isn't in computer-assisted translation already. However, I think it is possible that people may search for "enhanced translation", so I think a redirect would be most appropriate. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 01:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kolia Litscher[edit]

Kolia Litscher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person, at present, lacks notability in his native country and has no article in the French wikipedia (nor should he have one for now, may I add). His mother is vaguely notable in France (though the opportunity of her article on the english wikipedia is debatable) and his two half-sisters Maïwenn and Isild Le Besco are definitely notable. However, having notable relatives, and playing minor parts in movies directed by them, does not make one notable per se. Should he become a notable performer one day, this article would be justified, but so far that is not the case IMHO.

Similar case as his sister Léonor Graser. This might be a case of family-oriented self-promotion.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Projet: Cinéma has been notified on the French Wikipedia. Comte0 (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We really do not worry here whether or not the fr.Wikipedia has article on subjects or not, as they are far smaller than en.Wikipedia and do not use the same inclusion criteria as do we. As the article HERE asserts this person as a French actor, we instead look to available sources to see if our WP:NACTOR can be met through having significant roles in notable projects and coverage of those works, or our WP:ANYBIO through awards and nominations. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you should worry about is whether or not these people meets any criteria. So far Kolia Litscher doesn't. He did appear in several productions as a child, or as a young adolescent, but does not seem to have done anything notable since then, and he hasn't attracted any particular attention when he did. In France (or anywhere else) he was far from being a notable child actor, and there is no evidence that he has achieved any kind of fame as a grown-up actor, or even that he has pursued an acting career after the age of 15 (maybe he will, and will become a notable professional actor, but that is far from the case right now) I should add that the "Awards and nominations" section in his article is disingenuous. Two films he played in did receive awards and nominations, but he didn't. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"he hasn't attracted any particular attention when he did"... except in Variety ([29]), The New York Times ([30]), Libération ([31]), Paris Match ([32]), Le Nouvel Observateur ([33])
Also, your claim that "This might be a case of family-oriented self-promotion" on en.wp may violate WP:FAITH, without any other argument. Comte0 (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The film was mentioned in newspapers because it was directed by a notable actress. I am not being judgemental about the picture : what I am saying is that Kolia Litscher was just a teenager when he appeared in that film directed by his sister, and he hasn't done much of anything since then (as an actor, that is).
As for "family-oriented self-promotion" : the account who created the page has contributed only to pages related to Catherine Belkhodja (an article tagged as suffering from a conflict of internest) and her children. And on the french wikipedia, there has been some amount of pov-pushing/conflict of interest in those specific articles : 1. Moreover, Maïwenn publicly stated that her mother had been writing her wikipedia biography without her consent. So I definitely have some reasons to suspect (without being 100% sure, of course) that there might be some conflict of interests here too.
Should this page be kept, it would have to undergo a major cleanup anyway. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should have read the US sources I quoted: I was actually talking about two differents films... Comte0 (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. Both were performed directed by his sister (who is notable) : in the first one, he was a child actor, and in the second a young teenager. He hasn't done anything public since then. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this were Yet Another Dabase Entry in IMDB I might have agreed with you, however I don't expect really non notable French films, and their actors, to be reviewed by the New York Times and Variety. Regards, Comte0 (talk)
See above : this is not about the film but about the child/teenage actor who hasn't done much of anything since and might even not be pursuing an acting profession anymore. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NTEMP tells us that even if an editor herein makes a supposition that an actor "might even not be pursuing an acting profession anymore", that actor's sourcable notability for having had significant roles in multiple notable productions does not somehow disappear. And that the actor involved himself in significant roles in notable productions because of a family relationship is irrelevent to this discussion, as involvement in entertainment because of family quite often goes hand-in-hand. I am reminded of the Sheens, the Baldwins, and the Barrymores. A supposition of COI is addressed through cleanup (if required) to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. More cogent is that the article author has not edited any of these articles since July 2007,[34] and the multiple edits by others have pretty much laid that worry to rest. We do not maintain such tags if they no longer apply. A 4-year-old allegation of COI is no longer COI if the issues have been addressed and the author refrains from editing such articles... as are the cases herein. Article and the project will benefit from further improvement through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Léonor Graser[edit]

Léonor Graser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person, at present, lacks notability in her native country. Her entry at the French wikipedia has been unanimously voted for deletion. It appears that it had a mainly promotional content. Her mother is vaguely - and I do mean vaguely - notable in France (though the opportunity of her article on the english wikipedia is debatable) and her two half-sisters Maïwenn and Isild Le Besco are definitely notable. However, having notable relatives, and playing minor parts in movies directed by them, does not make one notable per se. Please take note that the "awards" listed on her page were given to the films she took part in and not to her personnally as a performer, scriptwriter, director, or anything else.

So far, Léonor Graser has not become notable as an academic either (as her professional activity seems to be as a lecturer at University of Paris III: Sorbonne Nouvelle and not as an actress).

The case of her brother Kolia Litscher is somewhat similar.

Also take note that the Maïwenn and Catherine Belkhodja articles have been protected on the french wikipedia due to what appeared to be a conflict of interest (apparently coming from the same user and not on Maïwenn's part). There does seem to be such a conflict on the english wikipedia, though not on the same scale.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Projet: Cinéma has been notified on the French Wikipedia. Comte0 (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. You could also ask the question at fr:Discussion_Portail:Cinéma français. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We really do not worry here whether or not the fr.Wikipedia has article on subjects or not, as they are far smaller than en.Wikipedia and do not use the same inclusion criteria as do we. And the article that was deleted from fr.Wikipedia seems to have been done through some varient of WP:PROF [35] but NOT ours. As the article HERE asserts this person as a French actress, scriptwriter and film director, we can disregard an inapplicable WP:PROF and instead look to available sources to see if our WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR or WP:CREATIVE can be met through body of work, coverage of those works, or awards won. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She is referenced in a database as an actress because she did appear in a few movies. But actually, three of her five movies were either starring or directed by her sister, and she played only minor parts in them. She did work as a casting director and score composer for the film directed by her sister. She played a minor part in another feature film, and what appears to be a major role in a short. If I am to believe her english-language article, she did direct a short film herself (year unknown). None of this seems to satisfy the notability criteria. I have failed to find any trace of her in any french talent agency (not that it means anything).
I may add that the french article presented her as an academic and actress. She does seem to have graduated as an academic and is apparently now working at the Sorbonne and not in film so all that I can assume is that she worked in a few films, mainly with her family, whilst pursuing her studies. However, she has not achieved so far any particular notability in either field (though she may one day). I can guarantee you that so far, in her native France, she is so far an unknown. Having two notable sisters and a semi-notable mother does not make one notable. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sridhar Teegala[edit]

Sridhar Teegala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Contested WP:PROD.

Contested by user who started article: "If any person (even the author him/herself) objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion}} tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." Shirt58 (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can find nothing but social networking sites and blogs - linkedin, facebook, twitter, hi5 etc. Also can't find anything on the films he is supposed to have directed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing out there to show this person has notability. For the record, this is one of many articles added by a single purpose editor trying to promote his film company.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete. Per the two users above, and also just to annoy the bloody spammer who created such havoc. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I already proposed this article for deletion per WP:BLPPROD but it was removed (by the author) and (edit→ added later by another fellow editor). This article provides no links for reference/verification. I don't find any relevant results at Google either. Other articles like Dead Morning, Sameena Kausar, Sara Entertainment Pvt Ltd and Gayathri (2013 film) are also created by User:Wasirg (original author) which are either unsourced BLP, link to Facebook or don't have any references at all. I'm fed up with all these articles. Most of them have been nominated for AfD or proposed for Deletion. Considering the lack of reference, all of them could be a collection of hoaxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trunks ishida (talk • contribs) 12:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The PROD was reinstated and is there too - it might be deleted that way first -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing I'm worried about as far as the PROD goes is that the author can still potentially re-add it with a "source" akin to the facebook pages he's been trying to use thus far, which might result in having to go through AfD again.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Once the page is deleted through this discussion, CSD G4 would be applicable if the content of article is similar (no substantial change) to the deleted one. If PROD tag is deleted by the author, or a source (Facebook, as usual) is added to the article, I don't think we have any choice. We'll have to go through AfD. However, We can try group nomination if there are multiple articles. trunks_ishida (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Userfication of the article for transwiki-ing is available upon request. Jujutacular talk 19:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hedyot[edit]

Hedyot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hedyot is a dictionary definition, it should be moved to wiktionary. Gsingh (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's not English. Warden (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a definition of a Hebrew word. Some Hebrew words have entered English usage and apply to topics that have received significant coverage in reliable sources. This is not among those notable Hebrew based topics. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are you kidding?? Just because the term hasn't entered "English lexicon" - whatever that is... that doesn't mean it is not notable at all. There are countless concepts in Latin and French etc that the average English speaking jo shmo won't know, but that doesn't make the concept any less valid. This term has an article on JewishEncyclopedia.com for goodness sake. I made the stub in the first place as part of the Missing encyclopedic articles WikiProject (see Wikipedia:Jewish Encyclopedia topics). The site is cited as being entirely notable. To combat Gsingh's argument, the shortness of the article in its "dicdef" state doesn't discount the possibility of it becoming a proper encyclopedic article. Also, frankly, Warden's "argument" makes no sense at all. I honestly can't see what the problem is.--Coin945 (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it's not about anything except the meaning of a word in a non-English language. It's not about the concept described by the word (or either of the concepts). It's a dictionary definition or two. PamD 12:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note It goes beyond a dicdef when you start to cite all the concepts in Judaism that include the adjective "hedyot", such as

........ the list goes on and on. I think this topic is very notable as it links together many different concepts within Judaism by explaining their root, and also analysing the concept of "ordinariness" within Judaism.--Coin945 (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note ...I still fail to see how that fact that the term is "non-English" makes a bit of difference... it's almost as it some people think that English words have more importance than words in other languages... the dicdef argument, i can live with, but the non-English one is ridiculous IMHO.--Coin945 (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to wiktionary. It is a notable term but it is nothing more than a term. Coin945 has given us a nice list of defs that should make an excellent wikitionary entry. Joe407 (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or move to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, whether in English or whatever language this word comes from. (I'd expect a word from the Mishnah or Talmud to be in Hebrew or Aramaic, rather than Greek as this article implies.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be persuaded to !vote "keep" if the article were expanded to show how this is in some way a technical term in Judaism, but at the moment the article says little more than "Hebrew word for 'private person' or 'layman'". (Interestingly, the Greek word meaning 'private person' that the Hebrew word is derived from is also the source of the English word idiot.) So I say expand to show encyclopedic relevance, otherwise move to Wiktionary. And if moved to Wiktionary, it will have to be listed under its Hebrew spelling, הדיוט or whatever it is. Angr (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to wiktionary. While there are many foreign words/expressions in Wikipedia, not every one will be notable enough to get an article. Laissez-faire is an obvious inclusion but we wouldn't have an article on every French word. --Ifnord (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to wiktionary per WP:WPINAD. Stubbleboy 03:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because, as pointed out above, only a small number of non-English-related terms are notable enough to deserve treatment in an English-language reference. Failing that, Transwiki to Wiktionary, since this process has been running for fourteen days without anybody choosing to expand the article past dicdef condition. BusterD (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under G7. Slon02 (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona She-Devils[edit]

Arizona She-Devils (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The website's dead, and this team looks like it never played a single down of football in its life. The league article doesn't link to this one, either. It's a shame: I love the original placement and the logo. Raymie (t • c) 06:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sadly, they never did play a down...I'm the author, so I give the OK. Tom Danson (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Kosik[edit]

Alison Kosik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial coverage only, and possible violation of BLP. (excessive prominence for potentially negative material). Earlier, positive, versions were deleted for being copyvio from the first reference cited. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Here is some Kosik-related controversy from the right on a related issue, and from the left on a different issue. Here's her CNN bio which should be a reliable source for providing background. "Kosik earned a Fellow from the Scripps Howard New Media Fellowship from Columbia University in 2001. She also received a 1999 Florida AP Award for Best Spot News and was a 1993 Fellow from the International Radio and Television Society." seems to establish notability. 67.6.132.34 (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only problem with the CNN bio is that since she works for CNN, it's seen as a primary source and you can't really use primary sources as a way to show notability. (WP:PRIMARY) In order to use that as a source at all, you need to have reliable secondary sources to prove everything that's put in the bio. It's in CNN's best interests to make her look as good as possible in her bio and it's fairly common in any field for things to get played up or added to a public bio so that person looks as official as possible. The other big issue is that she seems to pretty much only be known for her Occupy remarks, which would be considered one event WP:BIO1E. Unless that one event is extremely large, akin to Rebecca Black singing Friday, you can't really justify having an article where the only notable thing the person has done is one event that got a medium amount of coverage. I'm researching it and will make my decision later, but just wanted to put this in here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Additional. The big problem I'm finding with some of the sources given is that in many of them Kocik is only briefly mentioned or quoted. In the Star article that was on the wiki entry, she was very very briefly mentioned. The article wasn't really about her, so it can't really even be used as a trivial source. In the Fair.org article she is only quoted briefly, which doesn't really count as a source proving notability. A good example would be an article like this one [36], which is about her and in-depth. However, most of the articles I'm finding are about her Occupy remarks, so you need to find articles about her that are in-depth like this one but don't really focus on the Occupy stuff.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete. I searched, I really did. There's just not anything out there to show that this journalist is notable enough to merit her own article. I was going to say that maybe she might be worth mentioning in the reaction/criticism section of OWS, but I can't even see where she's really gotten enough notice to even warrant that. There's only about a handful of articles (and of those, only about 2 even come close to being considered reliable) that mention her remarks in October, not nearly enough to consider her remarks notable enough to mention anywhere. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG. Articles that serve principally as vehicles for derisive/derogatory content regarding minimally significant elements of their subject's careers should be summarily deleted as BLP violations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe I started this article, and if people think it should be deleted, I wouldn't argue against it. When I wrote the article I expected the story might continue to develop, and/or the journalist might get additional coverage for other reasons. If that hasn't happened, and there are no additional existing good sources, as Tokyogirl79 says, I wouldn't argue that the article is warranted as-is. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE, WP:CSD#G4. postdlf (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of WWE '12 characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of WWE '12 characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was already decided to be deleted. Also, there are no references. —JC Talk to me My contributions 05:11, 2 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) 14:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - The article was just at AFD about a month ago. The result was delete, everything from that discussion still applies. Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Majela ZeZe Diamond[edit]

Majela ZeZe Diamond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Though this person has created a funny internet meme, I can't seem to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I therefore conclude that this page fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:WEB, and WP:GNG. (I'm willing to withdraw this if someone can provide significant sources that I missed). Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete After some comprehensive searching, the only thing I found that comes even vaguely close to a reliable source is this: the Metro, a free tabloid shitrag, has posted a Vagina Lady video on their website with two sentences of commentary (which fails on "significant coverage"). Other than that, I'm somewhat surprised how few sources there are. At the very least, I'd expect to see something from the Daily Mail moaning about how she's corrupting the moral compass of Britain's youth (rather than Simon Cowell and the reality TV bandwagon). —Tom Morris (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after starting tagging and trying to clean (didn't start since the afd came up), I wanted to niminate that article, too. mabdul 15:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Mortal Kombat (2013 Film). (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat (2013 Film)[edit]

Mortal Kombat (2013 Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Detetion request is per WP:NFF. According to [37], filming hasn't started, and won't start for months. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 04:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PRIMEMAN3457: I know filming has not yet started. I read one source that said it'll start in March. However, when I got the message that the page was in nomination to be deleted, I decided to remove that from the page and to wait for further information. (This is the first time I been in a discussion like this on Wikipedia)

  • Incubate. My first thought is that since the film hasn't been made yet, it falls under WP:CRYSTAL in that we don't know if it'll get made at all or if it'll fall through. The thing about films is that anything can cause the project to get dropped regardless of how popular the project might be or become. Then again, this is already pretty high profile and there's been a lot of media buzz. The only thing that's making me lean towards delete is that no filming has actually started and the vast majority of the press was from September/October when the film was announced. My only true argument for keeping it is that there's going to be more press once the filming starts in 3 months, but that's a WP:CRYSTAL argument and not a valid one. I really, REALLY think this should be incubated or userfied by someone who can keep on top of it so they can re-post it once more sources become available. I posted what I could find, but most of the sources stem from the same date range. I don't think this has gotten enough publicity for this to fall under WP:NFF.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. clearly non-notable; almost a speedy. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Valley[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Heritage Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable development. Tinton5 (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm only seeing trivial mentions; no significant coverage. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The ridiculousness in the article is amazing, but there's no significant coverage of this housing development.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No notability shown since it was deleted in 2005. SL93 (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient sources to demonstrate notability ukexpat (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clearly non-notable. I would in fact probably have consider this qualified for speedy A7. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wedgewood Farms[edit]

Wedgewood Farms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable development. Tinton5 (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete My searching is not turning up coverage in 3rd-party sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any reliable coverage, although there's plenty of ads for places to buy a house.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient sources to demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kickboxing. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American kickboxing[edit]

American kickboxing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At best this article should be merged to Kickboxing at the worst this article should be deleted it has failed to demonstrate why this article is notable with no reliable sources to verify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is unsourced and most of its content is already in the main kickboxing article. For that reason I think merging would also be OK. I also think "American kickboxing" is an unlikely search term. Jakejr (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Not an unlikely search term, as several notable practitioners have claimed it, but doesn't appear that notable on it's own. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kickboxing Most of the content in this unsourced article is already in the kickboxing article, so a redirect seems the best solution. Astudent0 (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kickboxing No sources for a separate article and Kickboxing alraeady contains the same material. Papaursa (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If more reliable sources are found the article could be restored. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GT da Guitarman[edit]

GT da Guitarman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A7 declined (correctly as claim was somewhat valid). BLPProd removed by OP. No sources other than blogs (since removed). Not even sure it meets WP:MUSIC at this point.. Lots of unsourced claims on his personal history and music career. Alexf(talk) 14:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment needs heavy cleanup for promotional tone and unsourced personal info per nom, plus more and better references. I can't find any mention of his nomination on www.hiphopworldawards.com, but this article says he performed at the Hip-Hop World Awards 2008, which is an award with the same name held in Nigeria: not being from there, I can't comment on whether it's notable nationally there, so I'll try to ask at the relevant portal or Wikiproject for some expert advice on that. Does performing at that award mean that he was a nominee, or just a guest musician? There is a fair bit of coverage on him in the Ghanaian and Nigerian music press online: [44], [45]. No idea whether these are WP:Reliable sources for those countries, again, advice from someone with better knowledge of the West African pop scene would be helpful. Filing Flunky (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not convinced that the two sources found above are reliable, and I couldn't find anything else. His MySpace states that he is unsigned, and I don't think he is notable by WP standards yet.--Michig (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Needs substantial RS coverage, which I can't find, and is not in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Silver Moon Bookshop. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Moon Books[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Silver Moon Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability per WP:ORG found in the article or in a Google search. Not to be confused with Silver Moon Books (erotic publisher), which is also nominated for deletion. Could be redirected to Silver Moon Bookshop after deletion; all content in this one-sentence article is already in that other article.  Sandstein  20:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The previous AfD linked here seems to be for the erotic publisher. For this one, the crossover with the linked bookshop makes it difficult to isolate particular references, but some such as "Feminist interventions in international communication" are as much about the publisher as the bookshop. But given that crossover there's an argument for a Mergeto on Silver Moon Bookshop as the resolution? AllyD (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm seeing good coverage in multiple secondary reliable independent sources. — Cirt (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources, and what sort of coverage?  Sandstein  09:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of what I found in searching related to the erotic publisher rather than this business. I just wasn't able to find anything that wasn't a business listing, copy of a Wikipedia article, or a notice of something that was being published by the business. Much like the erotic publisher by the same name, this is a case of a business that might be doing well but just isn't getting enough notice to provide enough reliable sources to prove notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Moon Books (erotic publisher)[edit]

Silver Moon Books (erotic publisher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability per WP:ORG found in the article or in a Google search. Not to be confused with Silver Moon Books, which is also nominated for deletion.  Sandstein  20:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did a search and while there are some results with books, they're almost all copies of Wikipedia articles or business mentions in various magazines. There was only one book hit where it looked like the business was mentioned, and that was with a book called "Out of the Margins" [46] Much of the other book hits were for things that SMB had published. In a general search all of the hits came back with business generated content, such as entries for books they released and listings for their business. It looks like it's one of those businesses that does do good business, but just hasn't gotten a lot of notice for what they've done and to be honest, probably never will because it doesn't have the press-grabbing resources that other publishers might have. It's frustrating, but unfortunately the way it so often turns out to be as far as women's publishing goes.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • I reckon that "Out of the Margins" reference is likely to be for the other publisher of that name also at AfD? AllyD (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Leonard[edit]

Julia Leonard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neither UK local councillors nor defeated parliamentary candidates are considered to be notable per se (see WP:POLITICIAN). No other reasons for notability have been put forward in the article. A Gsearch doesn't offer any grounds to regard this subject as notable. Merge is not an option as there is already an Uxbridge by-election, 1997 page which lists the subject as a candidate. asnac (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Uxbridge by-election, 1997, as per standard practice for parliamentary candidates. The fact that a by-election page exists doesn't rule out a merge automatically, but there doesn't seem t0 be anything notable about the candidate other than the fact she stood in a by-election. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A plain Delete would be even better: failed Parliamentary candidates are inhernetly NN, unless notable for some other reason. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability and I agree that there is not really a good case for redirection either. There are other Julia Leonards and although the subject is listed in the by-election article her participation is almost incidental. --AJHingston (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus for deletion of the new version of the article.  Sandstein  17:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian existential apologetics[edit]

Christian existential apologetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm sure this is very interesting, but it's original analysis of primary sources, ie. an essay unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Pattern of revision history of this article suggestive of meat/sockpuppetry. asnac (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is a really interesting case. I'm not sure what the norms are for a serious philosophy or theology piece, but this one actually looks at a drive-by glance like good work, albeit maybe with a bit of POV that needs to be sliced and diced from the end. The edit history is indeed intriguing. No opinion as to whether this constitutes prohibited original research or a nice job of encyclopedic coverage of a serious topic. Carrite (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...the fact that it's prohibited original research is exactly why it's being nominated for deletion and why it is not, in fact, "good work." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...IN THE OPINION OF THE NOMINATOR. That's what we're looking at here, eh? Carrite (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The comment written on December 24 that denies that this is "good work" is out of date.  IMO this is clearly good writing.  While my !vote remains delete, and maybe at this point in time the article deserves some WP:IAR weight for being good writing, wouldn't this be a good article for a magazine?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'. This looks like a classic case of original synthesis. StAnselm (talk) 05:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  A search on ["christian existential apologetics" -wiki] indicates that there is no such thing, at least currently, as the alleged topic.  I don't see that the article or the article's talk page provide additional references that verify that this topic exists.  If WP:Identifiability were a policy, this article would fail it.  See also WP:Fringe, "Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects."  Unscintillating (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Calgorian and I put this article online. What changes does it need to conform to Wikipedia policy?
  • Comment That is, Calgorian and HannahCoulter.
  • Comment User:HannahCoulter —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • The topic of "Christian existential apologetics" needs to be determined to exist by its coverage in reliable secondary sources, and the article needs to cite those sources rather than engaging in original analysis of primary sources, ie. those writers whom you believe to be existential apologists. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. That might be able to be done by eliminating large parts of the article and including only the secondary sources. I will check with Calgorian. User:HannahCoulter 3:30, 30 December 2001 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.129.48 (talk)
  • Changes Will make changes during the coming week: delete most of the article and replace with secondary sources. User:HannahCoulter 15:20, 30 December, 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 15:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Changes Changes made just now: deleted two sections near the end and recast a section near the end. Changes to make (tomorrow or early next week): eliminate the first two long sections on Proponents and Opponents and replace with a short description from a secondary source.--HannahCoulter (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the clarification, Roscelese. I now see what the Wikipedia policy is and how the article did not fit it. I think I can make it fit, and would like several more days to do so.--HannahCoulter (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed About 95% of the article has been eliminated, including original analyses of primary sources. Thanks for your comments on the article.--HannahCoulter (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article in its revised state seems to have shaken the OR/POV feel that the earlier version was showing. Appears to be an encyclopedic topic, glancing at the reading list, although this is not my area of specialty or special concern and others are probably in a better position to make this determination. Still, to me, this looks like a keeper in its current form. Carrite (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We now have a reliable source for the phrase, but it's from a book published in 2011. This sounds like it might be a neologism - there doesn't seem to be any evidence that anyone else has adopted either the phrase or the concept. The whole Williams quote is "Apologetics in Protestant and Catholic apologetics has been too evidential. It should be supplemented with existential apologetics." That sounds like Williams is trying to drum up support for the idea. I don't see why Wikipedia should support that. StAnselm (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that the topic is notable.  --Lambiam 14:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge , either into Christian existentialism or Christian apologetics. It does not appear that this is yet a distinct and notable topic, though the content appears usable. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The references are essentially press releases, not independent. I acknowledge the difficulty of sourcing in this field, especially for companies rather than performers, but we need somewhat more than this. I did not base this on the nature of the comments, just the content of the article, though I would advise Erpert that a stronger case is made by avoiding personalities. The effective rebuke to unreasonable arguments for deletion is not attacking the people in the discussion, but that the article gets kept by consensus on the basis of policy and evidence. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orgazmik Europe[edit]

Orgazmik Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established. All refs are either self published or unreliable sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are the XBIZ articles unreliable sources? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "XBIZ is a trademark of Adnet Media." which may be ok for some things, but not to establish notability. They are in the business to promote adult industry businesses. This means they aren't independent of the subject matter.n Dennis Brown (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That isn't exactly what "independent" means from a Wikipedia standpoint; please review WP:PRIMARY. If XBIZ only existed to promote Orgazmik Europe (for example), then it wouldn't be independent. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did you even look at the story? it isn't an article. The biline is "Company Press". No author. It is a press release. You can find the exact same worded press release on other websites. This doesn't qualify as an independent source, plain and simple, because it came from the company itself. It is a primary source published on another website, and on many other websites, as a press release. All you have to do is Google any snippet for yourself. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why would I add a reference to an article without looking at it? Anyway, the supposed "many other websites" are only six, which, aside from XBIZ, are all blogs, mirrors, or unsourced wikis. Those are unreliable, but the XBIZ link isn't. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 17:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The XBIZ reference is the one that is a press release. Regardless of how reliable the website may or may not be, they were still publishing only a press release. A press release can't be used to establish notability, via any interpretation of WP:N, regardless of who publishes it. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, I'll give you that for the fourth reference, but it doesn't apply to the fifth one (nor the first). It would be different if all the references were primary. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 21:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Dennis, XBIZ is part of the pornography PR machine in the sense that they cover issues regarding the pornography industry. Disqualifying XBIZ as source for not being independent of the pornography industry is like disqualifying ESPN from all sports articles as not independent of the sports industry. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you will read all the comments, or just follow the links, we are discussing a press release, not an article. I don't care if the press release was published in the New York Times, it can't be used to establish notability. Added to the fact that the creator has already admitted that all the other sites are blogs and fail WP:RS, it becomes very clear. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. No sources independent of the subject. All sources promotional/advertising. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As stated above, the XBIZ references are clearly independent of the subject (you don't have to disagree with everything I do, you know). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're just being purposefully obtuse now. The XBIZ references are quite plainly identified as "COMPANY PRESS" in bold type capital letters right under the headlines. XBIZ is part of a PR business, and the article subject is likely one of the PR business's clients; but whether it is or not, the "references" are unmistakeably press releases which contribute absolutely nothing to notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article does not indicate in any way how it is notable, beyond the scope of its own bounds; it has no connection with anything else as far as I can see and do not believe it is suitable for Wikipedia. DarthBotto talk•cont 10:44, 03 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I feel that relisting a third time is not a suitable action - there is obviously no consensus to delete here! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don Moody[edit]

Don Moody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find reliable sources which are independent of the subject to show that he meets the notability criteria. My understanding is the the BusinessWeek profiles information are submitted by the person/company involved. All the links I could find were to PR sites or social media sites, nothing independent. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't find a way on BusinessWeek to add or edit any company information, leading me to believe that BusinessWeek gathered and added the information on their own. I will continue to seek additional reliable sources to bring validation to the article. Transatlanick (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional reliable sources, independent of the subject prove that he meets the notability criteria. Please keep the article, or continue to assist me in improving it. Thank you! Transatlanick (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to WordWorld. If the Emmys had been his alone, I'd say keep, but they're both shared, and he's only really known for the TV program. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Emmy for Outstanding Achievement in Main Title Design is in fact in Don Moody's name. This makes him eligible under WP:ANYBIO Transatlanick (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

IMDb says it was shared with three others. In any case, it hardly qualifies as a "well-known and significant award or honor". Clarityfiend (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does a well-known and notable award becomes less well-known or significant if it is shared by others? As any such award is given in recognition of creative efforts, you offer a conundrum. When a notable organization wishes to recognize and award creativity, they award those reponsible. An award is not neccessarily diuted if shared. Or would an Academy Award become less well-known or significant if it is shared? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well-known? Outstanding Achievement in Main Title Design? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Light (software)[edit]

Intelligent Light (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established. And given that we are talking about a 25 year old piece of software I can't see that changing. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'm in a quandry about this. Because the software is so old, and because there's another company with the same name selling lighting products which trumps Google searches, finding reliable online sources seems to be pretty much impossible. However, there might well be offline (paper-based) sources for this, that nobody's going to be able to find within a week the AfD is going to run for, which seems a bit unfair. Still, if somebody turns up something later, the page can always be re-created as it has little content. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete, G12 by User:Fastily. Lenticel (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

West Sussex Youth Cabinet[edit]

West Sussex Youth Cabinet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor political group. Sources only confirm existence. Declined PROD, concern was: No indication of importance. An unreferenced article about an organization that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Fails to meet criteria at WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - as a copyvio per G12, so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Give Up the Ship: The Tale of a Boy and His Boat[edit]

Don't Give Up the Ship: The Tale of a Boy and His Boat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage for this short film. SL93 (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article contains one reference from a local paper. I could find no more coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  17:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti Kifayatullah Dehlavi[edit]

Mufti Kifayatullah Dehlavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Perhaps someone else can find substantial RS refs for this person; I cannot. Zero refs; tagged for that problem for 3 years. Epeefleche (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep. Currently this is a potentially good article with plenty of almost certainly true claims to notability (as a religious leader, the author of a textbook on Islam that is still widely used, and a politician at least), but rather stymied by the complete lack of references and carelessness with linking. I have found one very substantial potentially good source, which may indeed have been used by the article's original author. It's apparently a translation of a biographical article in Urdu, intended for use with English translations of the subject's textbook on Islam. However, it just seems to be floating around the Net as a PDF, so I don't know quite how to determine its reliability. His role in founding the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind seems to be confirmed on the organisation's own website, though under a different version of his name - a very definite problem here, as the three-word article title seems to be excerpted from a sixteen-word name, including honorifics (for instance, "Mufti" for certain and possibly "Kifayatullah") and patronymics, and the apparent family name "Dehlavi" could instead be just a toponym ("of Delhi"). Also, Urdu (or Hindi or Arabic) to English transcription is something of a minefield - for instance, "Dehlavi" can also appear as "Dehlvi" or "Dahlawi". I therefore seriously suspect that my lack of success in finding references to him in sources from his lifetime is that I simply haven't been able to work out what those sources would have called him. More work obviously needed, though I doubt I have either the time or the expertise to do it. PWilkinson (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apple USB Power Adapter[edit]

Apple USB Power Adapter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough for its own article Breawycker (talk to me!) 01:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per WP:PRODUCT Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 01:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with iPhone, since it is most notable for being distributed with that product, but not notable enough to warrant its own page.  dalahäst (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's nothing useful to be merged, and a redirect is simply implausable as a useful search term IMHO. Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Tsin Su[edit]

Yang Tsin Su (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no independent sources to support any claims of notability. All of the sources in the article are primary ones. The art also appears to fail WP:MANOTE, as well as WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found no independent sources that show this style meets any notability criteria. Astudent0 (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search found no independent support for any claims of notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Grubbs[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Todd Grubbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why the page should be deleted Tasterson (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has had a tag questioning the notability of this person since 2008, ample time for interested contributors to remedy the sorely lacking notability features of this article. It's also had a "verification" tag since June 2008.

This person's purported notability seems to be based on the fact he plays guitar, has self-released several CDs, has taught guitar for 15 years and attended (briefly, for less than a complete term, no degree) Berklee School of Music, and was mentioned in a number of (mostly) small guitar magazine over 20 years ago (most in the late '80s). He has never played in a notable band (lists "3 Green Windows", links to their personal site, Google brings up no citations at all for this band) and has never been signed to even a small record label nor released even an indie label album, only self-produced and self-released CDs, and those were also in the late '80s to mid-'90s. This article seems long over-due for deletion, with over 3 years sporting a "notability issues" tag. Tasterson (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Nom makes it sound like a sad case, but are we sure of that?
PremierGuitar **** Review
Adequacy.net Indie Music Reviews (positive)
Babyblaue Prog-Reviews (pretty negative) (in German)

Sounds quite close to being notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused because a while back I advocated for keeping an article on a drummer/podcaster Brent Bradley and admins and other editors argued that merely having reviews written about you didn't make you notable, and one major consideration was the fact he had never released an album on anything but a self-produced label, nor had been a member of a band which did so. I came to agree with their assessment, that failing to sell a significant number of albums and merely being reviewed did not make you notable, necessarily. One very cogent argument made, which helped convince me, is the idea that these magazines need grist, they need something to write about, and consequently write about many thousands of bands and individuals: the compelling fact is 'do they advance to the next level from merely interesting to truly notable' and another argued that if anyone wanted information on these individuals, the reviews themselves were more than adequate to do so, Wikipedia did not need to catalog everyone mentioned in every magazine. I think the main points are that this individuals albums have all been self-produced, he was reviewed due to extensive self-promotion, and posted this article about himself, himself (he says so on his personal site). All this is in itself is not reason to not include someone on wikipedia, but the fact that the only notability he has at all is due to self-promotion, and none due to actual accomplishments, seems to make this article smack of another in a series of attempts to self-promote rather than inform the public. There must be millions of musicians with greater accomplishments than reviews in 3 magazines who are not included. However, I defer to the judgement of more experienced editors on this. I think this article is 1. not verifiable, hence the very old (2008) verifiability tag and 2. not notable, hence the 3 year notability tag, during which nothing of substance has been added. Perhaps, if consensus does feel this article is sufficiently notable, this tag should be removed after 3 years? Or, conversely, the article should be deleted. Tasterson (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those (terrible) arguments led to deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Bradley. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it helps, the criteria for musicians are at WP:MUSICBIO, which in a nutshell says the musician has to meet at least one of the listed criteria, such as having an album in the charts, releasing 2 albums on a major label, etc etc. The criterion that I think applies is number 1: "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician". Guess that means I have to be clear and vote! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I understood at the time, Brent Bradley himself keeps submitting the article after is was deleted the first time, either sheer persistence has won the editors over, or the editor(s) who most vociferously argued for deletion have reconsidered, or they just don't care anymore. Actually, BB is, I admit now, probably not notable enough to be in the wiki either. At least one independent or major label release should be attributed to anyone claiming to be a modern, professional musician of note, else what are they notable for? Your own website should certainly not be any kind of criteria, as you can say whatever you wish on your own website, with nothing to back it up. Tasterson (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand, i think. If you follow the link, you will see that the BB article was deleted at AFD due only to the lack of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. To turn to the matter of Mr. Grubbs, in my opinion you should ask, or seek yourself to ascertain, "What makes adequacy.net a reliable source? What makes Babyblaue a reliable source?" The Premier Guitar source seems solid, so the subject is at least on the brink of notability. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Side note, verification is 1. his personal site 2. an interview with the subject himself. If he is, indeed, notable, wouldn't it follow there would be some other reference to him on the net other than himself? This further backs up the idea most of his perceived "notability" is mere self-promotion. Tasterson (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The Premier Guitar review, this, this, and several articles in the St. Petersburg Times (e.g. [47], [48], and a few others), is getting there in terms of notability, although I would really like to see more than this.--Michig (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Premier Guitar review, the review by respectable freelancer Hamilton & the first local paper link are sufficient for me. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. Per Michig.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Human rights reports on 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising; keep and merge as suggested. If the contents here are used, a redirect must be kept to maintain attribution. I consider this merge compatible with the non-consensus close of some of the other parts. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Targets of Retribution[edit]

Targets of Retribution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. No evidence provided for the notability of this report, independently of the uprising it chronicles. This report may be used as a source for the 2011 Bahraini uprising article, but there's nothing that warrants an article dedicated to the report itself.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Topic is notable. Reliable sources: BCHR: News Conference Invitation: Bahrain: Targets of Retribution, EA World View: Bahrain Document: "Targets of Retribution" --- The Regime's Attack on Medical Staff (Human Rights Watch), UNHCR: Targets of Retribution: Attacks against Medics, Injured Protesters, and Health Facilities. Will search for more if needed. Bahraini Activist (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, and I suggest using this as a source for an article on the 2011 Bahrain uprising rather than making this source itself the subject of an article There is a trio of articles with the same story. The subject of the reports is notable, but there is little or no indication of wp:notability for the report. Sources given in comments are generally the author of the report itself, or just condensations of or listings of the report. The content of the article is a presentation of the assertions of the report rather than being about the report. North8000 (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find the Merge as a good compensatory idea. I think there are 2 more ICG reports and 2 more HRWF reports as well, but I stopped working on that since this issue was raised. There is also one more local report by Al Wefaq to be published. Also there is the Irish Fact Finding Delegation On Bahrain, which according to these articles [49], [50], [51], [52] should have reached a conclusion, but I couldn't find it anywhere. If it's not too much, I asked you (Boud) to take a look at that topic as well as give your opinion about it. Bahraini Activist (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Herkenrode Tripel[edit]

Herkenrode Tripel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a sad thing to do, but I have to ask for deletion: this is a non-notable beer. The only thing I found that noted it was this, which--ironically or stereotypically--is a publication by the Flanders Catholic church. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Eager to prove my friend Drmies wrong for once, I commenced a search for reliable sources providing significant coverage to this beer. Alas, all I could find were blog posts, user-submitted reviews, and online sales outlets. None are of any value whatsoever in establishing notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do'nt aggree with deletion. The International Institute for Quality Selections "Monde Selection" see rewarded the award winning producers from all over the world for the quality of their products on May 24 2011. One of the products that became a golden award was the Herkenrode Tripel.see User:Willy Leenders13:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what, that's about as much as one can expect for a beer, I think. Willy, please add that to the article if you haven't already. Strange, BTW, that De Standaard doesn't show up in a Google News search... Nomination withdrawn. Cullen, what do you say? Drmies (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are the nominator, Drmies, so I won't argue if you have decided to withdraw the nomination. However, a visit to the website of the The International Institute for Quality Selections "Monde Selection" raises concerns in my mind. The website seems like it is pitching food and beverage manufacturers on how nice it would be if they participated in this award process. It looks to me like a "pay to play" award and thus not truly independent. I downloaded the PDF for beer entrants and they charge 1100 Euros just to enter the competition. This sentence in our article Monde Selection raises additional concerns: "About half of the products come from Japan. 80% of the products presented by Japanese companies are awarded prizes." So, my question is, should we consider a Monde Selection award, by consensus, an inherent claim of notability like an Academy Award, a Nobel Prize, or (I would argue) a Michelin star? And if not, should a single newspaper article reporting on that prize and quoting the company's representatives about how wonderful it all is be considered as conclusive evidence of notability? I am reading a Google Translate version of the coverage in De Standaard, so what I say next could well be wrong. But it reads to me as a reprint or a superficial rewrite of a press release from the brewery, rather than truly independent editorial material rising to the level of significant coverage. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Searching for coverage in reliable sources that would verify the independent credibility of the Monde Selection and the International Wine Contest which they run, I find nothing. I do find massive volumes of industry backslapping by those who have won the awards, but have so far been unable to find anything by a notable food and wine writer or critic discussing these as credible independent awards. It seems to be a successful business venture, though. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You clearly read deeper into the joint than I did; kudos. Still, I guess even an industry award is better than nothing. The report did probably use the press release heavily, I don't doubt that. I guess I'm remaining neutral, then--what a flip-flopper I am--with the final note that the beer seems to have garnered one somewhat dubious award and that no other coverage can be found. I should consult you before I nominate anything else! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.

Andrew Stroehlein, a 43-year-old from Morristown, New Jersey, is trying to become the first person in the world to try all of Belgium’s 800-some beers. In doing so, he’s put together one of the handiest Belgian beer references in English on the web. Andrew Stroehlein works in Brussels as a spokesman for the International Crisis Group. With index cards and little stories on 400 Belgian beers, lists of top beers and bars in Brussels, the site has become a handy resource, especially for beer aficionados in the U.S. Source: The Wall Street Journal 6 juli 2011. You can read his appreciation of the Herkenrode Tripel at http://40beersat40.blogspot.com/2011/01/herkenrode-tripel.html User:Willy Leenders16:45, 9 January 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 merge to Human rights reports on 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising. merge, together with the other articles. If the contents here are used, a redirect must be kept to maintain attribution. I consider this merge compatible with the non-consensus close of some of the other parts. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Fact Finding Delegation On Bahrain[edit]

Irish Fact Finding Delegation On Bahrain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. No evidence provided for the notability of this report, independently of the uprising it chronicles. This report may be used as a source for the 2011 Bahraini uprising article, but there's nothing that warrants an article dedicated to the report itself. This is just a news item, with no evidence of long-term notability. No report was issued.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The delegation efforts have long-term notability, they managed (along with others) to put enough pressure on the government of Bahrain to release the doctors, move them from military court to civilian court, stop using the confessions taken under torture as evidence. This topic was mentioned in CNN and Irish times as well as local Bahraini newspapers. Bahraini Activist (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources: CNN: Irish fact-finding delegation 'bullied' in Bahrain, Irish Times: Irish delegation travels to Bahrain, Irish Times: Delegation to Bahrain described as terrorists, RTE News: Irish delegation secures Bahrain pledge, Irish Election: Irish delegation to Bahrain creates further complications, Gulf Daily News: RCSI denies link to group's visit, MENA FN: Irish fact finding delegation to Bahrain mobbed by regime backers, 24/7 News: Irish delegation hosts Press conference unlawfully
Delete. Countless delegations travel to countries, especially in the aftermath of violence, and however noble they visit reports be, they normally don't deserve a separate article. For example, an International Commission of Inquiry into the 2010 South Kyrgyzstan Violence, supported by many countries, EU, OSCE, etc., does not have an article, despite its report bearing long-term consequences on Central Asian politics; nor the Commission itself does even have a website. I don't see why a smaller commission of just one country (Ireland) be important enough to have an entry. Normally, existence of bodies such as the Irish Commission should be indicated in the main article on the country's history, or in the one describing the violence and the subsequent peace process. kashmiri (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that this article should be indicated in the main article on the country's history and the 2011 Bahraini uprising I don't see any problem about writing an article dedicated about the delegation it self where more details can be found, specially if notability can be proven. What's the problem with creating "countless" articles about notable delegations? The original reason for proposing this article for deletion is notability and that is what we should focus on. Bahraini Activist (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Bahraini Activist: I understand why you are trying to defend the article, as you just created it a few weeks back and are its only editor so far. However, you still have not explained why the topics - that Irish delegation - should not be just mentioned in the context of the 2011 Bahraini uprising article but stands as notable as to merit a separate entry on Wikipedia. Maybe I am wrong but I believe, primo, that any information of relevance about the Irish delegation is strictly related to the narration of the 2011 Bahraini uprising article, and secundo, it will be much easier for everyone to read these few sentences you said on the delegation neatly incorporated in the text of 2011 Bahraini uprising. Thus: delete. kashmiri (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri: It can be mentioned in the context of the 2011 Bahraini uprising article as a summary, but with more details in the separate article. The article as it stands now is very short indeed, but if you have taken a look at the references I provided, you would understand that much more can be added to it. I think you mean merge and not merely delete. Bahraini Activist (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Bahraini Activist: Yes, merge the content and then delete the article. kashmiri (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable as evidenced by the sources above, however those sources should be used in the article and emphasize the notability of the Irish delegation particularly their influence on the uprisings (with proper third-party citation when necessary). Galadrist (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have updated the article with most of the reliable reference I provided earlier. The article as it is now can stay and a summary of it can be added to 2011 Bahraini uprising article. Merging all this detail to 2011 Bahraini uprising article would seem unnecessary and I'm sure others would suggest moving it into a separate article. Bahraini Activist (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete to the Human rights reports on 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising page. There's no need to break out a separate article reusing much of the same information for a two-day fact-finding mission that is not likely to effect any sort of change from the status quo in Bahrain. I don't think notability has been established sufficient for a standalone article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Young Kidd[edit]

Young Kidd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this rapper to reflect notability. Tagged for notability since May. Epeefleche (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on WP:MUSICBIO criteria 7 as a prominent artist in the Winnepeg rap scene. He has some coverage in the Winnipeg Free Press, covered by Macleans magazine who identify him as "widely considered to be the city’s first bona fide rap superstar". He has been nominated for two Aboriginal People's Choice Awards. Although not a major music award, it is legitimate and the awards do receives some press coverage. So the wards do add to notability for this artist. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep On the one hand, there's a good source which could hardly be more explicit about his meeting point 7 of musicbio if they quoted the guideline. Yet rather than the sort of online coverage that should imply, there is little beyond that source. There's a brief-ish mention in an accompanying online feature from the same source, and the local paper source is good (7 grafs, has useful detail, local goes towards point 7, puts me in mind of wp:bias). He won Best Solo Artist in a rather indiscriminate (98 categories) reader's poll in a Winnipeg arts mag called Uptown, prompting a small writeup there in a big list of winners.[53] And that's it, as far as I can tell. Paradoxically I'd probably feel better about this if Macleans' claims weren't so strong. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient coverage (and hardly 'significant') to establish notability and support an article. The awards mentioned appear to take nominations via an entry form, so simply being nominated does not seem an indication of notability, and these are not major awards.--Michig (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What's your take on criteria 7 in this case? (note: user is {{busy}} but i thought i'd ask). 86.44.31.213 (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we would need more coverage indicating that he is one of the most prominent musicians in Winnipeg, which he doesn't appear to be. I don't think it's sufficient to have a source stating that he is one of the most prominent artists within one particular genre within a city that isn't generally known for that genre. --Michig (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with his being a big fish in the small pond of Winnipeg hip hop, but yes, the quantity of coverage available barely reflects that contention. Maclean's and, reading its article, the Winnipeg Free Press seem rather strong sources, tho, backed by the dubious Uptown writeup. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely weak keep. It "may" meet the WP:Bio guidelines, however, I am not certain that this musician may warrant a page on here. Borderline notability plus limited sources leaves me on the edge. Tinton5 (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aji Susilo[edit]

Aji Susilo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an MMA fighter with no significant independent coverage. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT. Jakejr (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only information I can find is the standard fighter profiles and record; fails WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search mirrored what the others said--no good independent sources and he fails all the notability criteria. Astudent0 (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the previous comments. Papaursa (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Deleted on January 3. SL93 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Money Saving Voucher Codes[edit]

Money Saving Voucher Codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no sources for this website in searches. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article was created by Graham Miller who, according to the infobox, is one of the website's key people. SL93 (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - as spam per G11, so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medical record mix up[edit]

Medical record mix up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Want other opinions to see if this page is notable to stay. Had trouble finding sources. Possibly merge to another related page? Tinton5 (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect. This is just one of many ways in which medical errors takes place. Current article is NPOV deficient. JFW | T@lk 01:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without a redirect. This is an unlikely search term ("Medical record" and "Medical error" already exist and will be auto-suggested if someone should happen to try to look up this term), and there is nothing of encyclopedic value in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete - Author request. ϢereSpielChequers 01:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Rice[edit]

Jay Rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was BLP prod, sources added, but don't really support article per se. Notability is unclear, I think AfD is the way to go. Clearly written by a new Wikipedian so perhaps just needs cleanup/better links to actual sources. Hobit (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article does not source sufficient notability, and given that this is an apparent autobio (writer of article is "Jay Arroz", and arroz is Spanish for rice), which is strongly discouraged by policy, this does not win benefit of doubt. Same author had previously opened article in 2010, when it was apparently speedy-deleted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ USA Today, 1 March 2005
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_January_2&oldid=1142635199"