Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 June	4 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. consensus is to delete, primarily WP:CRYSTAL, as notability cannot be established at this time (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Drive (4x Game)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, not getting any hits from VG/RS about this game or its development, not sure it'll be notable even once it's out. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The game has received some attention from press, I don't know how many of them you consider notable or not. Here's some that came up in Google: 1, 2, 3 4 5, 6, 7. It's worth noting also that while an article on Iceberg Interactive is conspicuously absent, Wikipedia does have articles on several recent games published by them: Oil Rush, Armada 2526, Nuclear Dawn, Adam's Venture, and Star Ruler. Totally agree about sources, the article does need them - did find this press release which should help along with some of the other news articles and the website itself. -- Revoranii (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this game has seen alot of attention in the last months, they raised 17 grand for their Kickstarter this January, so i believe the page should stay. -- Reagent9 (talk) 3:55, 10 May 2012 (PST)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL point 5 – "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements". GILO A&E⇑ 00:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has be recreated as StarDrive, with the article under discussion here, Star Drive (4x Game), now redirecting to the new page. The new page does still have the afd notice directing to this page. GILO A&E⇑ 00:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Eastshire (talk) 13:20, 10 May 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, Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:10, 27 May 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for a bit more feedback regarding notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tending toward Delete per CRYSTAL. This www.google.com/cse?cx=003516479746865699832%3Aleawcwkqifq&ie=UTF-8&q=StarDrive&sa=Search&siteurl=www.google.com%2Fcse%2Fhome%3Fcx%3D003516479746865699832%3Aleawcwkqifq&ref=en.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia%3AVG%2FRS#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=StarDrive&gsc.page=1 WP:VG/RS Google custom search doesn't seem to come up with anything right now which covers the content in sufficiently detailed manner to satisfy the WP:GNG. --Izno (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kate noakes[edit]

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

This is an autobiography by a new user. Probably should be CSD but better to discuss first in case she is notable. Brian (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably not a CSD as the listed organisation affiliation and prize would indicate potential notability. Looking at these, here are the criteria for membership of the Welsh Academy: [1] (criteria 2 & 3 look lower/more inclusive than WP:AUTHOR) and this indicates that the Owen Barfield poetry prize is organised at University of Reading, where the subject studied; nothing wrong with that, but the award's scope may be internal. AllyD (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per this page it appears that the Owen Barfield poetry prize is indeed an internal Reading Uni prize. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if they are notable, someone else will write the article, fails WP:AUTHOR. GregJackP Boomer! 12:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The meaning of your comment is unclear (and your 'signature' is illegible). If the subject is notable then the article should not be deleted. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:53, 1 June 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per "Comment" discussion above, neither the affiliation nor prize are sufficient to meet the Notability criteria, and nothing stronger has been identified since this AfD began. AllyD (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neither the academy memebership nor the poetry award are sufficient to establish notability. A search for sources to support inclusion in Wikipedia did not find any. -- Whpq (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Styles[edit]

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

Contested PROD, apparently a non-notable person. Google News, News archives, and Books searches using both the terms "Ricky Styles" and "Dimesac" turn up only passing mentions, most of which seem like false positives. The article creator, Dimesac, has a conflict of interest as the subject of the article, making Wikipedia:Autobiography relevant to this debate, as well. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 22:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No possibility of sourcing info from the common reliable sources used for wrestling articles as the subject seems to be a backyarder. Wikipedia is not for promoting your backyard wrestling club. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete - does not meet established notability guidelines (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Weal[edit]

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

Contested prod. WHL Conference All-Star (not league-wide) is not a notable season-ending award. Canada Hky (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't understand the prod removal. Following many a long argument asserting that Criterion #4 of WP:NHOCKEY didn't actually mean what it said, and that "best defensive defenseman" and "academic rookie of the month" constituted "preeminent honors," we nailed exact language down. "First Team All-Star" is quite explicit, and doesn't mean "conference All-Star." Ravenswing 02:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing. -DJSasso (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-notable, unref'd promotion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WatchIndia.TV[edit]

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

Non-notable TV subcription service from Cyprus, a subsidiary of Live Asia TV. No references provided. After a search on Google, 3rd party reliable sources doesn't exist, only publicitary sources. Also, the article seems to be written as an advertisement. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 06:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Hue Sat Lum 21:44, 3 June 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, —Hue Sat Lum 21:44, 3 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 01:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not notable - consensus to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prone to violence[edit]

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

Fails WP:MOVIE, sources don't support notability. Possible vanity. Miracle Pen (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has sources, but only one has details beyond basic stats, so it fails WP:GNG. ChromaNebula (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete It was not difficult at all to correct the thing for format and style,[2] and it now looks prettier. But while the thing is veiwable and downloadable on a number of sites, it seems no reliable sources have actually written anything about it. Fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete as not-notable (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blackquarter[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I found no secondary sources on this company, just promotional ones. Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 28 May 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, —Hue Sat Lum 21:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable website, no secondary sources on Google, News, etc., unreferenced. This also could be speedily delteted per {{db-web}} as a non-notable website. Note that "blackquarter" also seems to be a type of disease. —Hue Sat Lum 22:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources for a web site launched this year. No assertion of notability, so arguably a speedy. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not notable - consensus to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon James (actor)[edit]

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

An actor who's credits include, "Boy on Ferris Wheel", "15 year old Sven", "Boy", and "Bradley". No reliable and independent references given. Fails WP:NACTOR. Prod was contested by a proposed deletion admin. Bgwhite (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 May 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, —Hue Sat Lum 21:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. The Season 5 episode of True Blood has not yet aired, BTW. Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR; no criteria yet achieved -- see WP:NOT YET (actors). As always, no prejudice to recreation if and when his career meets WP:NACTOR. Ubelowme (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, withdrawn by nominator. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award[edit]

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

This appears to be a salary supplement award for which an individual academic must apply, that is awarded to multiple individuals in the range of 10000-30000 pounds per annum for 5 years per the details at [3]. I am unable to locate any reliable secondary source coverage to establish notability of such a salary award. It appears to be designed as a recruiting/retention device primarily. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Popularly known as the "Beckhams of Science". There are buckets of stories from universities celebrating their faculty receiving these prizes, and if we're looking for coverage that's independent of both the Royal Society and the schools, here's some examples:

Nature [4],
Times Higher Education[5][6]
The Telegraph[7]
The Guardian[8]]
--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - Thank you for turning those up, Arxiloxos. They were not coming up for me in google searches. I'll try to include some of them into the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 only keep !vote relies on primary sources/news, and must be discounted. Fails independent notability (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Mosley vs. Sergio Mora[edit]

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

This event fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no demonstration or indication that the event has any enduring notability as there has been no follow up as to why this event is significant in any way. BearMan998 (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG, per [9], [10], [11]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Each of the sources you listed are a WP:PRIMARYNEWS source or WP:ROUTINE coverage of the event so it doesn't actually pass WP:GNG. BearMan998 (talk) 02:56, 28 May 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, —Hue Sat Lum 21:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus to delete (again...with new spelling) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chlo Davis[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Non-notable child actor. Cannot find independent RS confirming notability. Fails WP:NACTOR. Sources are provided in the article, but other than the self-published site, none even mention the subject. At best, this is WP:TOOSOON. Michitaro (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is likely the re-creation of an article Chloe Davis created by the same user and deleted under A7 on November 23, 2011.Michitaro (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources about this child actor. Note that the sourcing in the article consists of Wix (where anyone can create their own wbe site), Twitter (completely unreliable as a source), and a bunch of links which do not mention Davis. -- Whpq (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Ubelowme (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Davis is not mentioned directly in the sources her picture is shown in various of them. In the Dickens Evening her picture is shown, as is the case in the Harrow Music Service source, I'm sure this is also the case in some of the other sources as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.138.17 (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Given that to keep this article, significant coverage about a person is needed in reliable sources, a bunch of pcitures in which the subject is not even identified falls well short of that standard. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete for now. It can be restored later if things change. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tyreek Hill[edit]

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

A Sprinter. Fails WP:NTRACK... No medals at senior or junior level, no senior level wins and no world records. Only find routine coverage of track events and local coverage. No reliable, independent references that talk about him outside of the local level. Prod was contested by, "since he's #2 on the US HS All-Time list, world junior leading by a mile, and about to compete at the 2012 World Junior Championships in Athletics, he meets WP:ATHLETE in my eyes." My retort would be Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and he hasn't yet to receive a medal in the Championships. Also, this is the same case as the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DaBryan Blanton. If he medals, the page can be re-created. Bgwhite (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NTRACK is pretty clear, and he's not close to achieving any of those athletics-related criteria. And beyond athletics, the article provides nothing whatsoever to establish notability for any other reason. Dybeck (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Delete - Agree per nom. Fair assessment, when he medals it will meet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Steven (talk • contribs) 20:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)~~ Striking !vote by sock puppet of banned editor MooshiePorkFace --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is somewhat similar to Houston McTear, Jeff Demps, Roy Martin, Alan Webb, or Michael Granville. None of these guys won a medal anywhere, but they hold (or held) a top spot on the US High School record list. And before some smarty-pants throws WP:OSE at me, I'm just trying to draw parallels, to clarify the significance of track achievements to people unfamiliar with athletics. --bender235 (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposal: Since the 2012 WJCA is only a month away, can't we just keep the article for now and afterwards decide whether to keep it, instead of deleting it now and then re-creating it only a month later? --bender235 (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet the criteria for track athletes at this time. A request to undelete the article in the future is always possible if justified. -- Whpq (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darra Singh[edit]

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

No evidance has been forthcoming establishing notabilty. Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete -If not deleted then article could be improved Thanks,User Talk:W.D. 19:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Weak Delete - I think the subject of the article could meet requirements, but currently as the article stands it should go (or have a large rework done). Joseph Steven (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Striking !vote by sock puppet of banned editor MooshiePorkFace --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As it stands, it should go per WP:BLP but, if it could be improved it may meet the requirements to stay, with more references to back it up .--Chip123456 (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up if possible The article has sources to establish notability, but if it can't be cleaned up, delete—Wikipedia shouldn't allow poorly written articles to stand. ChromaNebula (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 'sources' are not independant, one is a biog from the company he works for ine is his biog on comment is free (in effect a blog), the third is at least independant, but looks like a directory entry, not an articel that established notabilty.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, bare rewrite/copypaste of this page, no good third party refs (one database entry and one article by him, zero about him, may fail GNG). Hairhorn (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on commentary provided by Hairhorn. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jesse Eisenberg. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OneUpMe[edit]

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

No references, notability not established 78.26 (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Jesse Eisenberg. I find only one reliable source mentioning it, this interview with Eisenberg in New York. Insufficient to establish notability but the content should be preserved. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 14:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 May 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, —Hue Sat Lum 18:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Jesse Eisenberg agreed. Old link is no longer valid, but there are plenty of new available ones via Google search. A few ex: [12] [13]. Joseph Steven (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Striking !vote by sock puppet of banned editor MooshiePorkFace --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Comparison of TeX editors and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JLatexEditor[edit]

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

I found no reliable sources. All of the books in Google Books are copies of this article. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 May 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, —Hue Sat Lum 18:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia and we have notability guidelines to uphold, I currently do not see this as passing WP:N, per nom. Joseph Steven (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Striking !vote by sock puppet of banned editor MooshiePorkFace --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and redirect to Comparison of TeX editors Has an appearance of copyvio of [14], although presumably the same author wrote both. I scanned through 98 Google hits but found no independent discussions of the topic, so it fails WP:N; [15] is reliable as a primary source but shows nothing about notability. The softpedia is maybe relevant but is still listing version 0.1.32 when version 0.2 has been released since July 3, 2011. This topic appears to be an example of an article that would not be on Wikipedia had we had a one-source requirement. Unscintillating (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. An alpha of software does not merit a place in an encyclopedia. If it becomes notable and widely used, then but WP is not WP:CRYSTAL. DocTree (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient notability is not a reason to delete a redirect. Redirects are cheap, and this software currently has a place in the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion in the article that this is "pre-alpha" software is not confirmed given the 64 release versions listed here. Unscintillating (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 12:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy markup language[edit]

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

FML is a markup language based on XML. It has no references, no cover from reliable sources. It has a link to a blog hosted by Google's Blogspot service, and on the 'standard' section of the Infobox it says work in progress, but the site doesn't show it. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 20:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An entire IEEE working group is dedicated to this topic. I'd say that's notable enough. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. RJH (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Documented by Apache: [16]. Papers in reputable journals: [17][18][19][20]. JulesH (talk) 18:51, 28 May 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, —Hue Sat Lum 18:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy keep – Per the sources above listed by User:JulesH, which are reliable and third party. I've added some of them to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the nominator – Just visiting the Google Scholar and Google Books links above strongly suggests topic notability, with many various sources available. Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of sources, and not based upon upon whether or not sources are present in articles. See also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Please consider performing searches per WP:BEFORE prior to listing articles for deletion. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmc loader (MLO)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find any secondary coverage. Probably could be merged into OMAP? Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Hue Sat Lum 18:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a directory. WP:NOTDIRECTORY Msnicki (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to establish notability. --Kvng (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No need to merge, as CFORK is not all that different. Consensus is to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee party progressives[edit]

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

Article seems somewhat promotional in its nature. Only links to anything like notability are Facebook pages, blogs, and the group's own web page - in a nutshell, primary and tertiary sources. This is not sourcing that proves notability. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First paragraph is a 100% unmodified Cut&Paste copyvio from a free website (which still describes itself as "temporary"). Doesn't meet Wikipedia's GNG, despite trying to capitalize off a notable group's name and logo, and appears to be an attempt to promote a Facebook group. A previous attempt by this same editor was Speedy Deleted for promotion of a non-notable group (here) more than a year ago, and there has not been any notability established since then. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Coffee Party USA. I think we could reasonably regard the Politico blog as a reliable source, but I can't find any other sources about this group, so the coverage is a bit sparse for us to have an article on it. It's probably worth a mention in the Coffee Party USA article though, and this content would work well in that article once it's copy edited and cleaned of copyvio. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can regard the blog as a reliable source of Smith's opinion, yes, but I can't find any actual reporting on the matter from reliable sources of assertion of fact. After copy editing, we're left only with a mission statement and list of local Facebook pages for a non-notable Facebook group -- may I ask what content from that you would suggest adding to the Coffee Party USA article, and with what weight justification? I ask this because the creator of this CP Progressives page has just been indef blocked as a tendentious sockpuppet, and review of his socks edit history reveals that he has pushed to get "progressive" (and liberal, leftist, etc.) coatracked into the Coffee Party USA article in order to fit right-wing memes and misconceptions. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Getting things up to speed. The "Coffee Party" was started as a Centrist counter to, and play upon, the name of the Right Wing "Tea Party." "Coffee Party Progressives" is a factional split of the former group. I would suggest a merge to Coffee Party USA as a desirable outcome — something that preserves the information without a need to bend notability rules, since it does not appear that there are sufficient sources showing to defend a free-standing piece on the factional offshoot. Carrite (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What information would you suggest be preserved about the partisan offshoot and introduced into the existing article? You may find this an interesting read while formulating your response. Frankly, I don't see the relevant addition. It would seem to me that if promotion of a non-notable group in one article is against Wikipedia policy, it would still be against policy to promote a non-notable group in any article. WP:NOTABILITY only applies to new article creation, while WP:PROMOTION is more applicable here and applies to the content regardless of where it is inserted. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - at best, perhaps a blurb in the Coffee Party USA article may be worth mentioning. *shrug* ---Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a search (Coffee part x) makes a redirect useless, and there is only one good source in the current stub (GNG is not met). Bearian (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & Bearian. A sole reliable source is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG, or warrant a redirect.--JayJasper (talk) 19:12, 1 June 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, —Hue Sat Lum 18:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - per nom. I would also not be against a merge, but it would only warrant a slight mention (and needs some work). However, until we get more than one politico blogger's opinion I will keep a Weak Delete. Joseph Steven (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prathik Prakash[edit]

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

I'm not entirely certain this is a hoax, but there's a lot of vivid imagination going on in this article. The subject has probably had some minor role in a few movies, but the article is filled with reference cooking. e.g. "the media speculated that Prathik were in a relationship though the actor quickly denied such claims" is sourced to Sify.com, but that reference is about Sundar Ramu, likewise other references are about unrelated actors. While it's not exactly G3-hoax material in that it isn't obvious, I'm guessing it's snowing somewhere in the world right now so a quick AfD is better than having to let it sit through BLP Prod. —SpacemanSpiff 17:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Quite apparently the content has been copied from Sunder Ramu, but I don't know why I didn't catch that earlier. As I've opened this AfD, I'm hoping the next person coming by will put this out of its misery. —SpacemanSpiff 17:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not a snowball's chance of this coming anywhere near approaching meeting WP:HIGHWAYS or WP:GNG. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Drive[edit]

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

No references. Originally proposed for deletion ("No reason for this article to be here - we do not have articles on every single road. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"); this has been removed without an explanation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomination. Small street that goes nowhere.TheLongTone (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG. Random streets aren't considered inherently notable, so this article must, and fails to, demonstrate notability. Imzadi 1979 → 21:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is IMPORTANT and should not be deleted because the article Greenfield Estates relies on it. If you delete THIS article, delete Greenfield Estates. Of course I created those two articles! TZLNCTV (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX. Please also read WP:HIGHWAYS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that it is notable even among the hundreds of Highland Drives that exist. MilborneOne (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greek discoveries[edit]

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

Most of the article is a poorly-written patial duplication of Ancient Greek technology. The rump lists four non startling (& non-notable imo) modern inventions, one of them a cure for baldness. The inclusion of which is, I suspect, the purpose of the article. TheLongTone (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Ancient Greek inventions and discoveries or Greek inventions and discoveries per template "Inventions and discoveries by nation or region" including articles such as: Scottish inventions and discoveries.--Coin945 (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, copypaste and promotion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Ridiculous mashing together of significant ancient discoveries and dubious (to say the least) modern ones. Greek inventions and discoveries is a legitimate topic, but there's nothing much to be salvaged from this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Gomes[edit]

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

The subject of the article appears has appeared in a few reliable sources, mostly providing quotes used in the articles that are primarily about other subjects. The sources I have found are slightly more then passing references to the subject, but are not in depth coverage focused on him. This is borderline in terms of notability under WP:GNG and fails the WP:BIO guideline. Normally I would not be inclined to nominate a such a page for deletion, but I have received a request on my talk page indicating the subject would like that article deleted and requesting help in that regard. In light of the weakness of the subject's notability, and assuming good faith as to the authenticity of the subjects request (which I have not verified), I think the proper result is that we should delete the article under WP:BIODEL. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article (and it's subject) are just short of notability. Needs to be elected to some general office above city level. Needs slightly higher credentials. Student7 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I declined a request for speedy deletion with a reason of 'because the subject didn't like it', as that is not a valid reason at CSD. I replaced this with A7 as I couldn't see any reason for it to pass GNG or BIO. I still don't. Peridon (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted.because it is genuine and reliable.i strongly condem it's deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.137.241 (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 12:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fieldwork (novel)[edit]

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

Unnotable book. Seems to have came in second place for an award. Article created on 20 July 2003‎ and used to describe this particular novel years later. Article has never had sources. Delete this article as anything relevant belongs at Mischa Berlinski, the young author's article. VLARKer7 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator should have followed WP:BEFORE, and it is especially hard to understand xis failure to do so given that I pointed out the existence of sources when I removed his proposed deletion. This book has received serious reviews in numerous sources, a number of which are already cited at the author article. Some examples quickly found by a basic Google search[21]: Los Angeles Times[22], The Believer[23], Entertainment Weekly review [24] and Stephen King's column about what he saw as the book's mis-marketing [25], Deseret News[26], The Independent[27], Christian Science Monitor[28]. Search also shows that it showed up on a number of best-of-the-year lists. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Source reviews indicate wide coverage sufficient for book notability guidelines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:NFOOTY applies only to football players. (non-admin closure) —Hue Sat Lum 00:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles F.C.[edit]

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

Fails football notability guideline (WP:NFOOTY) guidelines as it is not in a fully professional league. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand WP:NFOOTY to apply to sportspeople, not to sports clubs. This article does pass WP:ORG, after all, so it should probably stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dybeck (talk • contribs) 16:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I dont know why you think this should be deleted. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability clearly states that "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria." and the I-League 2nd Division is a national competition. So ya, this 100% passes notability guidelines. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a fully professional league though, which is where the standard is set. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With respect Sven Manguard, WP:NFOOTY doesn't apply to Football Clubs only players. I think you need to reread it as you don't seem familiar with specific football guidelines we have 1000's of articles on clubs which play in non-fully professional leagues & clubs that are not professional. We generally use WP:FOOTYN in regards to clubs although it is just considered an essay. It states all teams that have played in the national cup are considered notable which Eagles F.C. haven't but given the fact they play in the Second Tier of Indian football they would be considered notable.★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This club plays at the second highest level in the second most populous nation in the world. That makes it somewhere between the 15th and 39th best football club in a nation of more than a billion people. Trying to apply a biographical guideline to an organisation makes no sense. Its like saying an article on a company should be deleted because its CEO fails WP:BIO. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Alden[edit]

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

My searches appear to reveal that he is just a non-notable managing director of a non-notable company. SL93 (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although this sounds like a Candidate for Speedy Deletion (category A7) rather than for discussion here. Dybeck (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. VLARKer7 (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Appears to be an WP:Autobiography. Msnicki (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annabel C. Perry Elementary School[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary school GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 16:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, for one - and besides, the article does not provide any information other than a list of staff. Lovely though I'm sure the A.C. Perry lunch ladies are, I'm really not sure they warrant a place on Wikipedia. Dybeck (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page was blanked by author, a speedy is now in place. --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 16:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. January (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shekleh Shah[edit]

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

This article was created by a sock of an account with a known history of creating copyright violations (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/پارسا آملی. As per WP:Copyright violations: "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately."

Additional evidence that this article is a copyright violation: the only external link listed in the article (which is currently down) was repeatedly used by the sockmaster as the source for their copyright violations.

See also the logs of Shekle Shah, which this article is a copy/paste of, which was created by the sockmaster, and which was repeatedly deleted under G12. Singularity42 (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In hindsight, given that this article was a copy/paste of an article that was deleted under G12, I am tagging the article for speedy deletion. Singularity42 (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G12. It is enough that this article is identical with one prevously deleted per G12. The fact that the source site is down is irrelevant. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Davazdah Cheshmeh[edit]

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

This article was created by a sock of an account with a known history of creating copyright violations (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/پارسا آملی. As per WP:Copyright violations: "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately."

Additional evidence that this article is a copyright violation: this article is a copy/paste recreation of an earlier deleted version of the same article, which was deleted under G12 as a copyright violation. The website it was a copyright violation of appears to be down at present, but the creator of the article has still referred to that website as a reference in the external links. Singularity42 (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep - valid term, explained well-beyond WP:NEO (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rankovićism[edit]

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

There simply is no such thing as Rankovićism, just look for reliable sources: http://www.google.com/search?q=Rankovi%C4%87ism&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1. Seems like complete OR. Estlandia (dialogue) 13:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By removing the accent on the "c", the term "Rankovicism" can be found in multiple English language books on Google Books, see here: [29]. This reference shows that Yugoslavs used the term, [30].--R-41 (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, even in those 10 (!) Google books hits you get the word is merely used passing by and in quotation marks, meaning it's not really a term.Estlandia (dialogue) 14:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said on your user page, you have been extremely combative here. First you claim it is a neologism and that it should be deleted on that account - then I disproved you by showing that it has been used since the 1960s, then you changed your argument and are still pushing for deletion, it seems that you simply do not want this article to exist. Your accusations of OR are complete nonsense, every sentence in the Rankovicism article uses a source. And what are you talking about that "it's not really a term", you make up some claim that if a quotation mark is used around it it is not a real term - that doesn't make sense because why does the word even exist then? Secondly here is a source that does not have quotation marks around it: [31]. Thirdly, in combination with the material I have shown you, you appear to be denying that such politics existed at all, call it what you will even Politics of Aleksandar Ranković, the politics did exist, it outlasted his death, and there are sources on it. Here is a link to a JSTOR journal article from 1986 that mentions the term "Rankovicite" [32]. And here are 55 results for the term "Rankovicite" on Google Books: [33]--R-41 (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have a bunch of sources and many references. Am I missing something? Appears to be a legitimate term. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Results abound on the search engines and the rivalry between Ranković and Tito was well known in Yugoslav cirlces with the former pushing for a centralised identity to strengthen the state and the latter supporting individual identity as far as practical. The page is well-sourced. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of those 'abounding results' cover 'Rankovićism' as a separate ideology. As far as 'Policies of Ranković' are concerned, those are better treated in the very article on him, not as a separate topic.Estlandia (dialogue) 17:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To what do they refer then? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although an esoteric phrase, this indeed was a pejorative "-ism" cast about in old Yugoslavia following the fall of Rankovic, who had the interior ministry portfolio, if memory serves. A concept that SHOULD be in a good encyclopedia. Similar to the concept of Rajkism in the Hungarian context. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in such an article that could not be treated in the article on Aleksandar Ranković. Considering the state of reliable sources, his policies do not amount to a specific ideology called Rankovićism. Estlandia (dialogue) 18:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly Merge. First of all: in Serbian and Croatian the term is rankovićevština - not that widely used but definitely exists and is adequately described in the article. What concerns me, though, is the fact that Rankovićism - unlike, say, Titoism - is not really a political philosophy nor a movement, but is rather an umbrella concept to describe political agents with a similar ideological outlook. "Rankovićism" doesn't mean much more than "a quality of being like Ranković", same as "Potemkinesque" doesn't mean more than "having a quality of Potemkin['s villages]", because Potemkin did not lead a movement and didn't actually have followers. That's why Rankovićism might still be adequately covered in the Aleksandar Ranković's biography. GregorB (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with merging into the article on Rankovic himself is that Rankovićism outlasted Rankovic himself who died in 1983. There were people like Cosic who desired the restoration of the pre-1974 constitutional status quo, and there are multiple sources that cite Milosevic as restoring the the agenda of Rankovic. Moreover it does have an implicit meaning in Yugoslav political thought and Yugoslav history as involving the promotion of a centralized Yugoslav state along with an emphasis on maintaining the unity of Serbs within Yugoslavia.--R-41 (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A merge might work if we introduce a subsection titled legacy. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that this defines "a quality of being like Ranković" and therefore should not be an article could be applied to the term Stalinism though, there was no official ideology of Stalinism during Stalin's rule, it was used occasionally during his rule by supporters but Stalin himself rejected it, later the term was developed in a pejorative manner. Still there is an article on Stalinism. Furthermore the fact that that the Serbian and Croatian term rankovićevština exists, further demonstrates why an article should remain in my view.--R-41 (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin/Stalinism had many explicit followers (like Tito/Titoism), and also had a major historical impact, to put it mildly. It was also a political philosophy (or a political ideology), i.e. "a set of ideas and principles", a "comprehensive vision" or even a "worldview", that was explicitly or implicitly promulgated by the state apparatus. I find that Rankovićism is lacking in this respect. I agree, though, that - judging based on WP:SIGCOV only - Rankovićism definitely could be said to pass the threshold of standalone notability, so a standalone article might be warranted, especially if it is of substantial size (and it is, actually). That's why I did not - and still do not - specifically opt for Merge. GregorB (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rankovicism is a local Yugoslav phenomenon similar in its local isolation aspect to Deng Xiaoping theory in China - both were designed for their home country's circumstances. Rankovicism existed after Rankovic died - so it is not merely about the man, it is about what he promoted.--R-41 (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is fairly common for Communists to add the suffix "ism" to the names of someone they believe has departed from orthodoxy. There is no evidence that it mean anything beyond that and therefore this article is original research. TFD (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it did refer to specific agendas within the SFRY: (1) a centralized state of Yugoslavia in combination with (2) unity of Serbs, effective Serb hegemony through a centralized state, persecution of Kosovo's Albanians and support for Kosovo's Serbs and Montenegrins. Stalinism is also often used as a pejorative, but there still is an article on Stalinism.--R-41 (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No sources have been presented to support that statement. TFD (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a valid case for a merge to be made. There is a good case for a keep. There is no case whatsoever for deletion, nor is this "original research" in the prohibited sense of OR as the expression of novel terms, concepts, and theories without a corresponding base in published literature. Carrite (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 12:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al Yasmina School[edit]

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

I proposed this article for deletion due to the following reason: "Not notable. Whether in the article, nor through research could I find any bit of information which would make this school notable." User:Phil_Bridger contested it ("contest deletion - verifiable secondary/high schools are generally accepted as notable)." I still do not believe this article belongs here, and I do not believe any high-school is "generally accepted as notable." According to Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), "A (...) school,(...) is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." Expectans (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a high school. We keep high schools. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note:: There is no official rule about we keeping high-school articles. Expectans (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there is an "official rule" about us not requiring official rules. For years our practice has invariably been to keep articles on verifiable high schools, as documented at WP:OUTCOMES#Schools. You can check the individual deletion discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools/archive. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that most, but not all, articles about schools are kept. But, we don't have to join this tendency, do we? I honestly don't see any value in this specific article. Expectans (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ones that are not kept are either below high school level or are unverified. Consensus is well established that articles on verified high schools are kept. What is it about this particular school that makes you think that it should be an exception? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that we have to follow this unwritten rule of keeping all high-schools instead of taking a look at Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) and deciding if we keep this concrete article? Expectans (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the many 100s of school AfD closed as keep over many years, and 1000s of words of perennial discussion on the subject. I agree entirely with Phil. I have left a message on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Standard wikiproject-schools longstanding policy by concensus - It is a high school = Keep, no further discussion necessary 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 02:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Standard wikiproject-schools longstanding policy by concensus supported by 100s of 'Keep' closures. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: can someone point to any reasonable argument about why high-school pages are kept? The tendency is clear to me, but is there really a rational reason that it's not "all others are doing it?" Expectans (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is NO presumption of notability for high schools -- the presumption is that schools would probably have sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. If there is no such coverage, there is no notability. ukexpat (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What checks have you made to enable you to be so confident that the presumption that coverage exists is false? Have you, for example, looked for sources in Arabic? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has a source, he's free to cite it, but we cannot assume that it exists. Expectans (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we can. Ukexpat stated that there is a presumption that schools would probably have sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability (which I would qualify to say "secondary/high schools" rather than just "schools"). The meaning of the word "presumption" is that we proceed on that basis unless evidence is presented contradicting it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - one of few schools in Abu Dhabi that we have an article on and there is no evidence adduced that any sort of local search has been carried out for sources. What search for Arabic sources has been carried out? Experience shows that high schools generally meet WP:ORG and there is no reason to believe that this one cannot. Deletion would be a clear breach of WP:BIAS. TerriersFan (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep something. There are problems here. A lot of this is not referenced or very well written but we do have an independent reference to verify that the school is a real school and the school's own site confirms that it is a secondary (i.e. high) school. I think that is pretty much all we need to keep at least a stub. I think it is about time that we did set the "high school = keep" rule in stone to avoid these misunderstandings. As far as I am concerned if the country's education regulation/licensing body recognises a school as a genuine full-time high school (and not, say, an evening tuition college, summer camp or whatever) then we call that notable. We need to beware of double standards here. Would we even be having an AfD on this if it was a school in the USA or UK? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo is here: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is." What is happening with the "keep all high schools" movement is an anomaly. No rule like that can be set in stone, since it goes against more basic rules. And yes, I would have submitted the AfD if this school were from the US or UK. (Note: incidentally, this is a British school). Expectans (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a British school. It just happens to teach a British curriculum. If this were a British high school it would have links to its Ofsted listing and its entries in various league tables. This would convince many people of its notability although their existence is automatic for a genuine British high school. I don't think anybody sets out intending to apply a double standard. My point is that it is easily done unintentionally. I don't see any way to delete this without declaring war on high school articles in general. Even as a deletionist myself, this seems a pointless use of our time. In my view the best way to deal with a high school that provably exists but has little further notability is to make a stub of it. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, making a stub out of it sounds like a nice alternative. At least we could get rid of things like "To begin with the head of the secondary was Mr. Malone" and "their are different teachers for different subjects in the secondary school." Expectans (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the edit tab in the article is for, although I would advise against removing the name of the first head teacher, as that's the kind of uncontroversial factual content that can perfectly reasonably be sourced to the school's own web site. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article may not be perfect, but verification of its existence should be all that is necessary for that level of formal education, it functions both as primary and secondary. If this article is going to be a tipping point in the 'we keep high schools' argument, please take it elsewhere and notify me of this discussion, because educational institutions, small or large, serve a civic duty and are typically not the subject of advertising. They serve as an institution like a library, historic site, memorial, or monument, which are not themselves notable, but are important for the surrounding community and the thousands of lives they impact. If we are going to deal out 'notabilities' the function and purpose served are important on the local and regional level. Wikipedia has a unique search function where no limit of articles or 'importance' need be defined, to say that any civic structure with such status is a false call to delete something which can simply be ignored if it bothers an individual. Too often notable articles are deleted under the simple claim of 'not-notable' in complete lack of 'on-the-ground' or 'in-depth search' of materials related to it. Typically if it cannot be found on the net, kiss it goodbye, this school no doubt plays a key role in educating the youth from beginning to end of their schooling. It is no wonder the 'we keep high schools' matter came about, there is simply no reason to call for its deletion, the article could easily be fixed up instead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus is that we keep verified secondary schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Fort Walker[edit]

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

This article appears to be a hoax. Neither I nor anyone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military History#Battle of Fort Walker can find evidence that the engagement as described in the article took place. Wild Wolf (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are 23,500 Google hits for it... Dybeck (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the first few pages of the Google hits. They are either wikipedia mirrors or refer to a different Fort Walker -- see Battle of Port Royal. The article in question refers to a battle in Virginia and claims the battle was called The Battle of Fort Walker. Since no secondary source (or primary source for that matter) has been shown to contain this name, then the article should be deleted unless such information is produced.

I have invited the originator of the article to participate in this discussion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS The sole footnote in the article is for this source [34]. It notes that, "The closest fighting to this part of the Confederate line [referring to the Virginia Fort Walker] occurred on June 22 (Battle of Jerusalem Plank Road) and August 19, 1864 (Battle of Weldon Railroad)." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a hoax, then the talk page of the article would suggest that it's a violation of WP:ORIGINAL. The author (or someone else) should try to provide secondary sources. If this can't be done, then it's probably OK to delete. Dybeck (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've spent quite a few hours research the material on this. As noted above the historical marker states the fighting never came to it. Though I'll rehash the notes as follows. The letter comes from Captain A. R. Arter of the 143rd Ohio, Company C. From my exhaustive search. So the individual is real. The Letter [35]
Is from June 19th.
States Fort Walker by name.
Accounts losses and attributes to unnamed USCT
Also mentions 'Fort Stephens' closest I found was Battle of Fort Stephens

Problems with this:

Battery 35 became Fort Walker when the Army of Northern Virginia arrived no earlier than June 18th. Text from Historical Marker. [36] Lee and the army arrived on the 18th. [37] Meaning Battery 35 would have to be named 'Fort Walker' prior to the battle. Fort Walker was a confederate name, and Arter was from the 143rd Ohio, not sure how likely a name change would go over so quick on a 'fallen' fort.
The capture of 'Battery 35/Fort Walker' is historically absent and thus disputed by records from the historical marker which states, "The batteries faced south toward a U.S. Army position two miles away, out of effective artillery range. The closest fighting to this part of the Confederate line occurred on June 22 (Battle of Jerusalem Plank Road) and August 19, 1864 (Battle of Weldon Railroad)."

Capture Battery 8 and Battery 9 here on June 15th 1864, but no Battery 35 or Fort Walker. [38]
No mention in this Google Ebook (public domain) [39]
Or here From Battles and Leaders of the Civil War: Volume IV, 1888. [40]
And yet another" In the Trenches at Petersburg:Field Fortifications & Confederate Defeat[41]

Basically the accounts are Battery 8 and 9 fell to the colored troops, but Battery 35 (later named Fort Walker after the Army of Northern Virginia arrived) did not fall to USCT on June 15th 1864. Which gives question to the second fort mentioned in the letter, "Fort Stephens the inside fort was taking the next evening. the gun boats and heavy seize guns plaid on it all day keeping up one continual volley along in the afternoon. The fort was silenced at which time the negros went over and took possession as they did the other which they now hold. " Either way, the description doesn't match the records. Also according to the map and information contained within here, [42], the USCT were miles away from Wilcox lake and Battery 35 and would be many miles opposite of where Arter and the USCT rallied on the southern side of Petersburg.

Next I'll get into the accounts of the death. The two letters in the article state 'hundreds' of confederate troops being slaughtered. If this was true then surely Fort Walker or Battery 35 would be recorded. Battery 8 and Battery 9 are recorded. And a virtual tour relates the situation. [43] Referring to the 1st, 4th and 22nd USCT taking the battery in action against Battery 8-11[44] For the opposing forces in Battery 35 if it were true the forces would have been wiped out, but a letter from Battery 35 exists and is referenced here. [45] The letter suggests the situation... quite simply that this (the real Battery 35/Fort Walker) was not taken on June 15th and refers to Battery 35 as it is, before Lee's showed up. Which essentially disproves Arter's 'Fort Walker' because men inside the battery would refer to it by name (such as a Fort) rather then 'Battery 35' and all historical records state the name was AFTER Lee showed up. Arter's places the name 'Fort Walker' before or a day after Lee showed up. IF... if Battery 35 was to have been taken then it would be as Roundshot mentions on the forum. [46] Basically is doesn't add up even if we try hard to infer it.

The second letter 'I.P Farmer' seems to be Isaac P. Farmer of Company K. [47] (Arter is listed as Captain of Company C in that resource as well) Seems to account for the events of Battery 8-9 with, "Men who were in the fight told me that they charged several times to the mouths of the cannon in a Rebel fort and had to fall back. At the fifth charge they carried the works. The fort was in plain view of where I stood and I watched the volumes of white smoke it belched forth all day. The last charge was made after dark and during the time the sides of the fort seemed to be a sheet of flame. In five minutes all was dark and silent." So this is probably not which was referred as the other accounts clearly put this as normal for the Dimmock line and not where the Battery 35 was.

Other records like this. [48] From June 1864 tell the same story, attacks on the east, not the south. Though if this Battery 35/Fort Walker was taken it would account for 10%-25% of all causalities throughout the battle and according to official records taken. [49] Also, the most damning piece of evidence is the official account from Colonel Joseph B. Kiddoo, Twenty-second U. S. Colored Troops, Second Brigade, of operations June 15. [50]

So to summarize, the letter from Arter is either gravely wrong about its assertions or he was attributing 'Fort Walker' to Battery 7-11. Also not so sure about Fort Stephens or the issue of gunboats. The piles of evidence simply show that what was attributed to Fort Walker/Battery 35 did not occur and that the only letter we have is either a fake, gravely misinformed or using a naming scheme unfamiliar and not carried by official reports from officers in the field. The other letter is primary source referring to the events of the day and does not refer to the fort or battery by name, so I am removing it. I have plenty more information, but I think I'm done beating the dead horse now. Arter's letter if true, is simply misinformed. This Battle of Fort Walker (as was the initial name of 'Retaliatory massacre' which I removed earlier'. Have never found a source for that, and which is why I believe it was probably a hoax contrived with either that letter or entirely a fake. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally and to clarify. Arter's company nor anyone from the 143rd ever incurred any combat deaths, they did not fight this battle, the account of the letter was purely second-hand from discussions with USCT troops post-battle, which leads even more to the issue of how false statements (names, death count) were reflected in said letter. The letter itself is not even a primary source, its a second-hand account of what Arter was told, and is contrary to official reports, records, information, battle lines, maps and troop movements from the day in question. The matter of Fort Stephens and gunboats as well... remain largely questionable which would have occurred June 16th 1864. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no reference to this apparently significant battle in several major American Civil War sources. It needs proper sourcing before being allowed. Bermicourt (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to exist in any major sources about the ACW (and one would reasonably expect that it would appear given the event). It would have to be totally reworked and properly documented if it were to remain. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I don't think it's an outright hoax. However, I'd echo ChrisGualtieri that "the letter from Arter is either gravely wrong about its assertions or he was attributing 'Fort Walker' to Battery 7-11". I would say Battery 9 or 10 most likely. It appears the author of the Wikipedia article conflated the "Fort Walker" mentioned in the letter with Battery 35/Fort Walker several miles to the southwest. So, while I don't think it's a hoax, the article has erroneous information about the "wrong" Fort Walker and is lacking in detail about the actual location. Unless there's something more tangible to support the initial assertion (since removed) that it was known as the "Fort Pillow Retaliation Massacre", I don't think it's notable enough to keep. Mojoworker (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other problems with that letter exist, namely the fact I cannot find the USCT making another 'fort' capture this one named 'Fort Stephens' on June 16th 1864 as the letter suggests. While I am not 100% certain of the letter's authenticity, I still think these are highly unusual errors for a captain to make as neither the account nor the specifics aline for numerous details. Though if was those batteries mentioned, his view would have also been obstructed. Though I have a letter from August 1864 which states the name of the battery as Battery 35 rather then Fort Walker. The only matter of 'Fort Walker' would be if a more recent individual forged the letter as the 'Fort Walker' name was not used until long after the date listed on the letter. Unless some pre-battle Union scheme attributed 'forts' those battery positions (without buildings no less), then I believe this is a concocted hoax. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ovious hoax. We do not want people to believe this junk. Flygon's friend- Smarter than the average bear! 00:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. More people said keep and gave relevant policies to back up their reasonings. (Non-admin closure)--Chip123456 (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC[edit]

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

This article adds nothing whatsoever that the categories don't already provide. It's hopelessly incomplete, is never likely to be complete, and will never be as informative as the various categories of television programme by channel. There are many like it, but this one is a prime example of a hopeless cause. Dybeck (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because, seriously, we don't do lists. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly do do lists. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Phil. We do a lot of lists! Vertium (talk to me) 02:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The BBC is one of the most notable TV stations on the planet and all the items on this list are notable too. The argument that a category exists is redundant per WP:CLN. Being incomplete is not a reason for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve I think this list is important, but redundant to the category in its current form. Perhaps a chronological list?--Coin945 (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CLN, WP:L. (1) Lists can duplicate categories: "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping"; "Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial because the two categories work together" (2) incompleteness is not grounds for deleting a list (hence we have Template:expand list). Adding info, e.g. transmission dates, which channel it was shown on, etc, would be good. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list is useful, notable, and (best of all), not trivial. Till I Go Home ^talk ^edits 10:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note, of course, that my argument was never about duplication. The point is that this list is a hopeless cause. If it were a duplicate of the category, it would at least be useable. The point is that this a poor shadow of the category. Admittedly, if this list could be improved with some additional information (like dates, or which BBC channel the shows appeared on), it might someday offer something that the categorisation doesn't. Dybeck (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"If"? Why would we think the list could not be annotated and improved in that way? postdlf (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have certainty that it definitely will be, then yes, "If" - indicating the possibility that the list will not be improved in the manner suggested - is an appropriate word for the sentence, no? If, of course, you are able to provide this certainty, then you may wish to consider editing WP:CRYSTAL, since Wikipedia apparently now is a crystal ball... <grin> Dybeck (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very notable broadcasting network and the content will prove a valuable starting point for those who know it's from BBC, but may not know the name. This is a high value list. Vertium (talk to me) 02:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC[edit]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bob Lazar. Merge can be done from article history with attribution. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S-4 (facility)[edit]

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

Article doesn't assert notability. The S4 facility is a place purported by only one person to exist at Area 51. It seems to only be important to that one person's story. If anything, this should be merged to Bob Lazar. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:47, 3 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bob Lazar as the subject does not appear to have notability except in relation to Lazar. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bob Lazar or merge with that article. Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Bob Lazar article Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Bob Lazar article TabascoMan77 (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rename and keep (rename already done). Consensus is to rename and keep (rename has already been done) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Zombie controversy[edit]

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

Not a real controversy (or anything to do with 'zombies'), merely a sensationalist media meme made by stringing together a few unrelated incidents. This will probably have been forgotten by next week. Robofish (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(OK, to be fair, we do have an article on Summer of the Shark. But one article on a silly media frenzy doesn't justify another, and this one hasn't yet demonstrated lasting notability.) Robofish (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the shark one was being discussed and analyzed at least 3 years later. if this search trend is still being discussed in 2015, THEN we might have a basis for an article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: the article has been renamed and moved to Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012

Keep Obviously it's just sensationalism but it's been fairly substantive, to the point that the CDC was asked about it. I'd say it was noteworthy. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that this is nothing more than a media made meme (and not that it is widely reported). SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Keep The article may be based on an event fed by "media sensationalism", but if its scope is as immense and perpetual as past media circus events, it could be worthy of keeping. Also, the article is in its infancy and with just substantial revision it could be fashioned better. ~ Jedi94 19:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because it may sound absurd because zombies don't exist doesn't make it non-notable. KerathFreeman (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- it is not the fact that zombies don't exist. it is the fact that a controversy doesn't exist. the news stories are only reporting a short term blip in google search term trending. we certainly do NOT need to have articles about every unusual search term trend.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a good overview article; a category would be so complicated as to be useless. It is a widely reported meme, as noted by the references therein. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is NOT presenting itself as an overview of a meme. It's pseudoscientifically suggesting there is actually a pattern of events leading to an imminent "zombie apocalypse". There are no reliable sources which connect or correlate any of the events listed under "incidents" to support it's idiotic premise (nor are there even any reliable sources which establish its notability as a meme, had this article taken that route) Father McKenzie (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete the news reports are just a slow news day filler story about a google search trend (and they are simply the same recycled AP story). ~~absolutely not by any way by any interpretation encyclopedic.~~ -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC) striking a portion of my previous comment. After a significant re-write the previous description is no longer applicable. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a slow news day if a story is followed up by the media a week later and more. This is actually about several stories over a months' time. So WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the newly added week later stories talk about the perported subject of the article, the "zombie controversy", nor the actual subject of the original news stories, the trending of a google search term. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no controversy. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Possibly rename to Incidents of Cannibalism in 2012. Parthian Scribe 05:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's just another attempt at inventing a catch-all term to include incidents that by themselves are not notable. And we're not the news. Drmies (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR, because ZOMBIES!!! ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- best. !vote. ever. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a new, trending topic, that if it continues to spread may lead to a better article. I know for a fact that if I saw this article in a few years time I would want to read and relive it. Ddunlea21 (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- key phrase: "if it continues". -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete ~~Memes aren't even given their own Wiki pages.~~ This isn't even a meme, much less an actual controversy or historical event which the article fraudulently presents itself as. The article's own quote from the CDC proves its own non-notability. The "incidents" section is pure pseudoscience, filled with disjointed events that have no correlation. It's a sub-meme; an hackneyed inside joke. There is no controversy. Delete it.Father McKenzie (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- in addition, the other three sources used also each make a statement that the purported topic of the article does not exist: "Fact is, horrible crimes happen all the time. "This is all nothing new," and "after a number of unrelated, yet disturbing, incidents" and "Maybe it's nothing new, either; people do horrible things to each other on a daily basis." (emph added) We would be in a position of actually ignoring the analysis of all of sources used to support the existence of the topic. massive WP:OR /WP:SYN fail. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Per Bearian. Zappa O Mati 19:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- or at least rename. I'm still waiting to hear what the "controversy" is. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Like Bdb484, I still don't get what the "controversy" is. In my opinion, "2012 zombie attacks" seems more appropriate. Zappa O Mati 20:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "2012 Zombie attacks" would need reliable sources that assert these attacks were perpetrated by actual zombies. The only workable rename would be something like "2012 Zombie Meme," which would also have to prove notability of the collective incidents as a "meme." There is no notability here. Father McKenzie (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The next best things I can think of then are "2012 cannibal attacks" (even though one of them doesn't apply), "2012 zombie apocalypse", or "2012 zombie incidents". Zappa O Mati 21:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about just merging it with Zombie apocalypse?
- ~~i think Zombie#In_popular_culture would be a better target~~ -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC) or maybe not. it looks like the whole zombie / zombie (fictional) / blah blah blah article set needs some work. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or rename the incidents actually are notable. The 2012 Miami cannibalism incident article is large and sourced. This article is also well sourced. The nominator has failed to demonstrate that this fails notability. I would ask everyone to compare to 2012 in Iraq (or for that matter 2012 in Iraqi football). --IP98 (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 appears as DELETE per WP:NOTNEWS/WP:GNG (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Lynn Grumet[edit]

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

A clear case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Valenciano (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not news? A Google search for "Jamie Lynn Grumet" returns 109,000 results. Adwords tools shows hundreds of thousands of searches about the Time cover in which she is pictured. And, not to mention, she was on the Cover of Time Magazine. She may only have 15 minutes of fame, but she is certainly noteworthy. After all, *I* went to Wikipedia to find more info about her and was shocked that the article did not exist. This is the first new article I've had the opportunity to create since the mid-aughts. -- Big Brother 1984 (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS means "Wikipedia is not a newspaper", not "this isn't news". --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not demonstrated beyond the Time cover. 15 minutes of fame is not notability. Hey, I've been on a mass circulation magazine cover myself (my parents were the subject of a magazine article, about reproductive health issues, when I was a child, and I was featured in the cover photo), but I wouldn't think that fact, by itself, would be sufficient to justify someone creating a WP article about me. Maratrean (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a different story, Maratrean. Mrs Grumet is actively involved in the discussion on attachment parenting, she was interviewed and her appearance on the TIME cover was noted and interpreted by various columnists and journalists working for notable media [51]. However, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E may be relevant here, as it is still a single and isolated event. What about redirecting and merging the information to Attachment_parenting#Criticisms_and_controversies? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Attachment parenting per Vejvančický.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENT. VLARKer7 (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENT(VLARKer7) and WP:NOTNEWS(Valenciano) Jun.rhee (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Weak Keep It is too soon to tell whether this will pass WP:Event. You can't fairly say "15 minutes of fame" when it's only been "15 minutes". It's been less than a month since she appeared on the cover of Time and there are a lot of additional interviews and WP:RS to use to expand the article. I would agree with User:Maratrean's analogy of his own appearance on a magazine cover if we were discussing an article on the kid. But we're not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertium (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying something dangerously close to "keep, because the subject may perhaps become notable some day". That is not a reason to keep. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm just arguing against the 15 minute of fame reference by User:Maratran. In fact, 15 minutes of fame can be notable and notability is not temporary WP:NTEMP. Thanks! Vertium (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of cricket and baseball[edit]

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

Lack of verification and probability of original research, both of which breach core policies Brian (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. A notable comparison to make, given baseballs roots from leading American cricket clubs and cricketers. The article already has some references, it's these types of articles which could easily reach FA one day due to the sheer abundance of sources. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are a number of references already in the article and plenty of sources describe at least some aspects of comparisons between the 2 sports. For example [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]. So WP:V is not an issue, and any WP:OR can be addressed via editing. Rlendog (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Just viewing a few of the articles listed above by User:Rlendog, the topic is clearly verifiable: [59], [60], [61]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. I change my vote to keep as the points raised above are convincing. I'll ensure the article is adequately tagged. --Brian (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to turf stroke and delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Thornbury Turf Strokers[edit]

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

Minor club only; does not meet notability criteria. Brian (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely no notability nor much chance of any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pope. extra999 (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—As per above. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all the above. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obvious Consensus to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calvian nextadextoxin[edit]

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

no evidence of notability, failed WP:MUSBIO *Annas* (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is spam acting as an article. Completely unsourced, it is probably original research. I did several searches, ending up with not much. I could find no news or reviews at all. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Owl City. Appears to be WP:CRYSTAL. Consensus to redirect (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Midsummer Station (album)[edit]

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

According to WP:FUTURE, this page for this album shouldn't be here. When googling the album name, only things about the album cover come up and therefore it has no notibility. Devin (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete for now~~ - This is a most general case of WP:NotJustYet. WP:FUTURE tells us If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. In this case this is not so. Delete for now, but most definitely recreate in the future after reliable coverage overrides speculation. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 16:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Owl City is the best in this case. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 14:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Owl City sounds reasonable to me, as the title appears to be confirmed but the album does not yet meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 10:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board. Consensus is to delete as non-notable elementary school - creating redirect to school board as per usual policy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Mary Public School[edit]

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

Although schools are often considered notable, this is a elementary school that is written rather poorly and like an advertisement - additionally, the "history" and "appearance" only state what the school looks like and are pretty much trivia. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 07:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This school may be more notable as a building than as a school, since probably-notable architect William Blackwell (architect) designed it and Eberhard Zeidler designed a later addition. But I haven't seen anything to prove that the building is notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not even sure this can be considered as a school article. Apart from its title there is nothing scholastic about it and the text seems to be totally architecturally orientated. There is no school history, no details of principals, no student details, no prospectus or inspections, nothing about education topics. Consequently I disagree with the nomination statement that it is like an advertisement; nothing could be further from actuality. My feeling is that the article should remain as a notable architecture entry but all school categories removed from the bottom of the article. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 12:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that any potential notability is as a building rather than a school. The building is not listed on the Canadian Register of Historic Places or National Historic Sites of Canada, which would have provided clear evidence of notability, but it may still be notable. I found two additional Peterborough Examiner articles about the school building: [62][63]. I'm not sure if this is enough to meet WP:GNG as it is all local coverage, but it certainly doesn't hurt. Generally I lean toward keeping this kind of content if it is verifiable. Camerafiend (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board. It is standard practice to redirect non-notable schools to the School Board they are a part of, particularly in Canada. PK T(alk) 18:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) →TSU ^tp* 01:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hesse state election, 2013[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, not the place to record opinion polls. Callanecc (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see this as an AFD matter. Unless there is serious doubt that the elections will take place in 2013, and I do not think there is, I suggest letting the article run. The German WP article has more on the context and problems can be fixed by editing. I note that WP has had an article on the 2012 US presidential election since 2008 and articles about forthcoming elections are common; where a country's constitution does not fix an electoral date it would be unreasonable to require that the date had actually to be declared (which might only be a month or so ahead) before permitting an article when the media and the minds of politicians might have been concentrated on it for a long time. --AJHingston (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:CRYSTAL, which states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Lugnuts (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the Keep arguments above. The objection to including opinion articles based on opinion polls is strange, given that such polls are typical in upcoming election articles where the information exists.. So long as the polls are referenced and reliable third party surveys, there can be no specific objection to including such polls here. DJ Silverfish (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G5), created by a sock puppet of 10alatham (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 18:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Coupe[edit]

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

Speedy deletion was declined, but the article still has the same issues as two years ago. This article still fails WP:GNG and Mr. Coupe still has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia's soccer notability guideline states the following: "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable." Matt Coupe plays for Gloucester City A.F.C. which is not a fully professional team, and he has no other source of notability. Most other Gloucester City players do not have a Wikipedia page. NJ Wine (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – non-notable as ever, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1 fent 07:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sufficient consensus exists to move the subject article to Deafness in children's literature, which was agreed to be a more accurate title. However, the article requires improvement, and I encourage the participants to spend some time on the new list in order to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards of quality. AGK [•] 11:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf Literature for Children[edit]

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

Apparently this article was deleted but then recreated. I don't see the subject as notable in any way. To be honest, though, I really don't even understand what, exactly, this article is about. Also, I think that, if the article were to be kept, the list would have to be incorporated into prose. —Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 04:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia's list topic policy is somewhat vague, but states the following about lists: "Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. They feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge." Personally, I find the topic to be of limited interest, and most importantly, too open-ended to be successfully written. There are potentially thousands of books that children can read which contain reference to deaf people. I think that this article may be a violation of Wikipedia's noble cause guideline, which prohibits the creation of non-notable pages in order to promote a good cause (e.g., promoting awareness of deaf children). NJ Wine (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...potentially thousands of books"? Name three. (Without peeking at the article!) I just wrote Disability in children's literature, and research indicates that between 1940 and 1970, there were 311 children's books published in the U.S. that included characters with disabilities (various disabilities). Has there been a flood of new children's books about deafness in the past 40 years? Doubt it. Unsubstantiated hyperbole.OttawaAC (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Disability in children's literature is not a list. It actually explains a cultural change over time. NJ Wine (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and maybe rename- (No one can "violate" a guideline, a guideline is not a policy.) The list is notable, Wikipedia:Viability of lists indicates that a list is notable if the topic itself is notable. The portrayal of disability in children's literature is notable. But, I'd rename it "Deafness in children's literature". There's a lengthy article Disability in the arts that should link to this list, I'm going to add a link perhaps at the #Literature section. The list is short but could easily be expanded. If you're going to look at deleting a list as useful as this one, why not also take a look at deleting this list of a "notable" Romanian pornography film actresses' awards and nominations: List of awards and nominations received by Sandra Romain? No one seems to have challenged the existence of that one yet. Priorities! OttawaAC (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Viability of lists also states the following: "Just because a topic is notable, does not mean it needs a list. Common sense and consensus should prevail. ... While a List of U.S. Presidents is a good list idea, a List of U.S. Presidents with brown eyes is not because the listing of U.S. Presidents is quite small and grouping people by their eye color is almost unheard of." "Deafness in children's literature" seems like a contrived listing similiar to "U.S. Presidents with brown eyes", and there is no discussion in the article about the relevance of this topic. Unlike the article on disability in children's literature, it's just a list. I can think of endless theoretical lists (e.g., "environmentalism in children's literature", "animal rights in children's literature", "mental illness in children's literaure"), but it doesn't mean that we should create them. As for your example, if it came up for AfD, I would also vote to delete "Romanian pornography actresses' awards" for the same reason. NJ Wine (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NJ Wine makes a very sound point. Even if there are numerous examples of deaf people in children's literature, doesn't mean we have to make a list of them. Subtopics of notable topics are not automatically notable. Deafness, Children's literature, and Deaf culture are notable, but that doesn't justify the inclusion of Deaf Literature for Children as a list in Wikipedia.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 14:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Disability_in_children's_literature, or failing that I'd certainly support a rename to 'Deafness in children's literature' which I think is a much much more accurate title. Fayedizard (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/comment - I concur with 'Deafness in children's literature' as a better name. I should say upfront that I have a hearing impairment, so any input I make may be perceived as biased, so not going to vote here. But I don't think the article itself ought to be deleted - certainly it needs to be drastically revised and rewritten as currently it is just a list of titles - and not even a comprehensive one. (Why no "Blue Boat" by Dick Bruna and Peter Jones, for example?) While I'd say the article as it stands is very poor, I think there is scope for an article on the subject, although a quick Google does throw up a number of articles on the subject elsewhere such as 1 which has links to other relevant sites on the subject, so maybe it isn't necessary to have an equivalent page on Wikipedia. Mabalu (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and,as has been suggested, rename to 'Deafness in children's literature' . There is sufficient material to start with, and it's been shown that more can be added. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:MADEUP, in fact a WP:HOAX (the teams exist in a non-notable fantasy league, but the team histories are wholly ficticious - but presented as fact). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chiefs Baseball League[edit]

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

It is a fantasy baseball league, and I can find no sources besides a wiki created by the same user who created the article. David¹²¹⁷ 02:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a team in this fantasy baseball league that is also not notable:

I added references for both pages. Please let me know if that will suffice. Thanks. Joe^{—Preceding undated comment added 03:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

Unfortunately, it will not. Wikipedia:Notability requires that there be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Your sources are just the home pages for the teams, and so are not independent of the subject. David¹²¹⁷ 01:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the sources in the article, and from what I found online, it looks like this league and the teams in it are entirely fictional constructs. Have I read this correctly, or do any of these teams actually exist in real life? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a completely fictional fantasy baseball league. The "owners" have made up "histories" for their "teams". David¹²¹⁷ 01:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is sad. But the page should be deleted mercilessly. All the sentences in the article are made up, much as the "league" itself. All the links are to the hosting site, ESPN, but all that you find there are tables and suchlike. That does not make it notable. Nor does it give any basis for all the description that the page is based on. This material belongs on a blog. When the subject has attracted some degree of attention, even by its host ESPN perhaps, I'd change my tune. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Shadowjams (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any independent reliable sources covering this fantasy league, and seeing as it is an entirely fictional construct we are not likely to see sources in places other than ESPN. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus at this time is to keep (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cathi Unsworth[edit]

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

I can find no independent, reliable sources for this person. Nothing that would establish notability seems to be available on line. The subject's own website doesn't count Tigerboy1966 20:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find no independent, reliable sources when clicking on the word "news" in the links spoon-fed by the nomination process? It's a good idea to look at the preview before saving a deletion nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did that, they all seem to be either UG content, trivial mentions, 404's or behind paywalls: no in-depth coverage of the subject. This is my first nomnation for AfD so I might have missed something, but I know that a ton of gnews hits doesn't equate to notability if the quality isn't there. As always I would be happy to be proved wrong. Tigerboy1966 21:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the 3:am source can be counted as reliable - though some of its content seems to be user-submitted, Andrew Stevens is a professional journalist and has written for the Guardian. a I also found this source from Le nouvel Observatour (Google translation) which mentions her a bit. I'd be happier to recommend keeping if there were more sources, but there seems to be just enough available to warrant keeping the page. I agree with Tigerboy that most of the Google News and Book hits don't count towards notability (although being behind a paywall is not a good reason to disregard a source). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unsworth is a fairly well-known writer, and there's plenty of coverage around: [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69]. --Michig (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is plenty of coverage, but my problem was with quality, not quantity. Looks like we are heading for a keep anyway. Tigerboy1966 07:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In a twist to my earlier comment, I have just found out that Cathi Unsworth is also a Guardian contributor, so the 3am source might fail the independence test. This is made up for by the other sources, though, in my opinion. Kudos to Michig for finding the Mirror and the Metro sources - it seems my Google-fu needs some polishing. (How did you find them, by the way? Was it just through a regular Google search?) All in all, I think that while the sourcing isn't the best here, there is just about enough there for us to keep the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete - fails GNG (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vusumuzi Sifile[edit]

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

Not notable, no third party sources. Has worked as a journalist and now has a managment job at an NGO (Panos Institute), but does not appear to meet GNG. Only reliable sources I could find were articles written by this person, not about him. Prod declined, some seemingly autobio edits as well. Hairhorn (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though there are plenty of articles on the web written by him, I also failed to find any third-party sources written about him. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet GNG, I can't find any third party sources and the only reference given states 'You are not authorized to access this page.' so doesn't verify anything. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) →TSU ^tp* 01:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Sports Network (CSN)[edit]

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

Non notable sports channel from Sri Lanka woth no coverage from third party sources. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A channel called Carlton Sports Network exits in Sri Lanka, I know because I live in Sri Lanka. You can find all the information by visiting the channels page www.csn.lk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankan9911 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not challenging the existence of the channel but its inclusion on Wikipedia. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The essay WP:Notability (media)#Broadcast media says that "most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes". I'm not !voting until some sourcing can be found. Sourcing is likely to be non-English, so standard searches might not turn up anything of merit. 93.107.7.224 (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the notability standard for networks cited by 93.107.7.224, and because multiple English-language sources can be found at GNews[70][71] such as [72][73]. See also Wikipedia:Systemic bias. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic passes WP:GNG:

Jayasundera, Ranjit. "Carlton Sports Network And Somerset Entertainment". The Sunday Leader. Retrieved June 02, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Ismail Abeywickrema, Mandana. "Visual Woes". The Sunday Leader. Retrieved June 02, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"'No conflict' in CSN job – Nishantha". Daily Mirror. July 24, 2011. Retrieved June 02, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Arxiloxos. Cavarrone (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Shake It Up characters#CeCe Jones. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CeCe Jones (Shake It Up! Character)[edit]

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

in sificaint content Calu2000 (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Shake It Up characters#CeCe Jones where most of this information already appears. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of Shake It Up characters#CeCe Jones - I doubt the article will bloom and contains little information that is repeated at the list of characters. SwisterTwister talk 01:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of Shake It Up characters#CeCe Jones - The article is unnecessary. Ratemonth (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was copied and pasted from List of Shake It Up characters to make a separate article. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but the article should be moved for now. When there is significant content for a separate article, it may be started again. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point being that there is nothing to move. This content was copied from the proposed target of the move. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 15:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect due to a lack of sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the same as CeCe Jones, the previous incarnation of this article, has been redirected. (#REDIRECT [[List of Shake It Up characters#CeCe Jones]] {{R to section}}). Also see discussion about this issue here. Actually this article could be deleted as CeCe Jones already exists and is the proper title for the article if it ever does get created. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Prozak (rapper). Sufficient consensus to merge after 2 relistings DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album without coverage from third party reliable sources, chart positions, or other sign of notability. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 21:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Prozak (rapper). Not a notable album. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Prozak (rapper). At the moment it is non notable and can easily be mentioned in a section on the artists article. --Chip123456 (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. New info has come to light. I withdraw. (non-admin closure) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sridhar Tayur[edit]

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

At first look, the article looks kosher. However, the sources used aren't specifically about him, and when I checked google the only pages I could find about him were either from his employing organisations (the notability of which is questionable in itself) and personally published sources (such as his twitter account). There are NO news results for him. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Prof. Sridhar Tayur served as President of MSOM, a professional organization in the field of Operations Management with more than 3000 members. Or check the following Fortune magazine article for his work: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2000/10/30/290626/index.htm In that article, he was named by the Fortune magazine as one of the "four masters of supply-chain efficiency." Also, Carnegie Mellon University's notability is NOT questionable at all, at least for anyone in the U.S..

Sources (even prestigious ones) which merely mention the subject are not sufficient - the coverage must be significant and plentiful. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please check the following media reports: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/news/new-pittsburgh-well-funded-smartops-helping-firms-with-supply-chain-management-519575/ http://www.scienceofbetter.org/podcast/tayur.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tldai (talk • contribs) 01:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, those are just passing mentions. The only available material mainly written about him are published by his employers. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are NOT passing mentions! In the Fortune article, he was one of the four main subjects! The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette articles were solely about him and his company! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tldai (talk • contribs) 01:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please also check INFORMS's interview with him in 2011: http://www.scienceofbetter.org/podcast/tayur.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tldai (talk • contribs) 01:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to the proposal of removing this entry. Dr. Tayur's work has significantly influence all over the country. At Darden School of Business, University of Virginia (This is a top 10 business school and NOT his organization), for example, he has been featured by an MBA case: https://store.darden.virginia.edu/business-case-study/smartops-corporation-forging-smart-alliances-4615 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tldai (talk • contribs) 01:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tayur's book "Quantitative Models for Supply Chain Management" has been one of the most popular supply chain management books, and has been cited more than 400 times: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=sridhar+tayur+Quantitative+Models+for+Supply+Chain+Management&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=Wr_KT8-oLoWm6gHU9dgB&ved=0CEYQgQMwAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tldai (talk • contribs) 01:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I didn't realise he'd written a book...cue embarrassing climb-down. My apologies. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loop device MAC OSX[edit]

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

The article looks like an OS, though it is not. But it contains some procedures and nothing else which doesn't establish notability. Also it is completely unsourced and needs wikification. →TSU ^tp* 00:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:NOTHOWTO Andy Dingley (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andy Dingley. As a Mac user, this is mildly interesting, but the author should take it to WikiHow or some other suitable venue, though. —DoRD (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. JIP | Talk 08:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at best, some of the content belongs in loop device in a MacOS X subsection. No need for a separate article. Maratrean (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A how to guide. SL93 (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTHOWTO, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook." That's clearly what this is and it should go. Msnicki (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:NOTHOWTO. This is what it comes across as, so should be deleted.--Chip123456 (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else; blatantly a how-to guide. Wikipedia is not the right venue. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 22:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:HOWTO. --Kvng (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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