Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 October	19 October >

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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G3 by User:Ironholds. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R-peak[edit]

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

Can someone find a reference for this topic (I mean this title with this meaning)? I couldn't. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only info I found was a Facebook page...quoting the wikipedia page. Second for deletion.Marigu goke (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

After some more googling, the actually notable "R peak" topic is something about ECGs, and it's not "cargo cult" at all. [1] Tijfo098 (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substance here and no sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 16:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike O'Toole[edit]

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

Just passing this along after declining a PROD since there have been at least three of them over the history of this article. Primary concern relevant to AfD seem to be that the subject does not meet notability guidelines. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any way (most of) the references in that list could possibly be considered to be from reliable sources - broken links, event directories, Flikr and self-published videos. The one actual news item in the list is about the subject's product (the community television program he is on) rather than the subject. Even then, we need multiple sources, so one falls short. Can't see any way the subject currently meets WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete nothing in google news related to him or google books. As per above, the only links here are youtube and online directories. SalHamton (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looked all around, no indication that he's had significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. His coverage in the Boston Globe article cited in the article consists of a half-sentence mention in the caption of a picture in which he does not appear. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE. --Batard0 (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant third-party coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Beach Plaza[edit]

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

Speedy deletion was declined and removed; this article isn't important enough or notable enough to have an article. It seems to be a local mall. TBr and ley 23:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 00:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)-gadfium 00:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment There seems to be many malls in Wikipedia such as Rockaway Townsquare, The Shops at Riverside, The Westchester, Roosevelt Field Mall. I'm not sure what the criteria are, i.e. WP:MALLS? I see there was a proposal WP:MALL that failed. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take into account this mall is in New Zealand. While a mall of this size may not be notable in the USA/UK, this is reasonably signifcant in New Zealand. It serves a suburb of around 20,000. I can't find any more sources yet, although Isn't the newspaper article enough? I really don't think it's fair to delete this just because there are too many malls on Wikipedia. The other think is, it would be hard to say the mall isn't notable without having been there (which I have done). Maybe it's only a New Zealand thing, but this mall really is the centre of the community. It is the most significant thing in the suburb. No disrespect meant, but I don't think it is appropriate to comment on what the mall is/isn't ('It is a local mall!') without having been there. And the only two people who HAVE been there have said it is notable. Videomaniac29 (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG, though. Sure, that source is a good one, and reliable, but just one source regarding itself isn't notable enough, it needs to be widely covered, regardless of where you live, or are. That doesn't matter, nor does the fact that it serves a suburb of 20,000. It wouldn't be deleted because there are too many malls, no, it would be due to WP:GNG, a notability policy. I welcome any further comments or opinions from other editors, too. Regardless of this, you are obviously editing in good faith. TBr and ley 03:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE, tell me how to find a more notable source. Very rarely will there be a notable source about anything in New Zealand, other than the local paper. I know this mall is notable enough, but there just isn't the media coverage in NZ as there is elsewhere. Many NZ articles solely use local papers as sources, and they are not up for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoppingCandyTexas (talk • contribs) 03:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently added a new source. ('but just one source regarding itself isn't notable enough') So it no longer solely contains self-regarding sources. I doubt there'd be anymore sources, but I'll post here if I find one. Videomaniac29 (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just found a source from major NZ newspaper. Quotes from it: 'Papamoa is Tauranga's fastest growing suburb and thousands of people visit the plaza every day. Tauranga's population is forecast to grow to 150,000 residents over the next 20 years. The plaza's immediate catchment encompasses 17,000 residents and a higher than average median income for the Bay of Plenty region. During the summer holidays turnover takes a huge surge when the immediate catchment swells with up to 216,000 visitors.' To me, that seems notable enough. Please tell me if you think it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Videomaniac29 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more info backed up by several more sources, among them the NZ Herald, one of the widely distributed papers in NZ. That proves it is notable. Could you please consider removing deletion requests now because I made the article in Good Faith, and now it is backed up my numerous notable sources. For an NZ articles, it has well above average sources. Videomaniac29 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that, but I'd still like to keep this open, just in case someone has something to say regarding it, and to make sure that it is for sure notable. Cheers, TBr and ley 04:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But as it no longer violates Wikipedia's policy of notability, could this be closed quite soon, so the article becomes 'normal'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Videomaniac29 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the point, I'm not sure, and would like to await the opinions of some others, quickly. Regards, TBr and ley 04:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that the new sources definitely make the article notable. Well done to Vid' for putting in the effort to locate the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoppingCandyTexas (talk • contribs) 05:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the article is crap. The citations are awful. The article suffers from problems with lists. It almost needs to be nuked and re-started from scratch. That said, Google News search shows 27 sources that reference it, including a fire in there, what management is doing, etc. This is covered by the major national newspaper and by local papers. [2][3][4][5][6][7]. Mall meets WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the thing is, I made and saved the basic part of the article. Then, as I was typing up improvements and extra bits, I noticed it was up for deletion, so I ceased improving the article because my effort would have been wasted if it was deleted. That's why I am wanting this discussion to end ASAP, because I've added the requireed sources to make it notable. When this ends, I will continue improving the article, but until this ends, I'm not willing to improve it, in case it gets deleted. Videomaniac29 (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Videomaniac29 (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT...READ: I have changed my mind, and started improving the article. I have added a lot more sources, and a lot more content. There is absolutely no way this article breaches Wikipedia's Notability Guidlines. I am therefore asking if this discussion could be closed, and the article returned to normal. Videomaniac29 (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to videomaniac29's cleanup and research efforts. The Steve 04:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient information for a keep. NealeFamily (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although it's true that the initial article had problems, the sources that have been provided since then demonstrate that the subject does meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 03:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 16:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A.N.S. Raghavan[edit]

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

There is no evidence of notability due to insufficient information about the subject and I haven't found any relevant sources with Google News India. Considering the article mentions "1920s", it is certainly possible that any sources may not be English or Internet-based. Although A. N. S. Raghavan and N. S. Raghavan are both businesspeople, there isn't any evidence to suggest they are related. Considering the article claims he was a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), I searched but found nothing relevant. I found recent news articles for a B. Raghavan but, like N. S. Raghavan, there isn't any evidence of relation. As I mentioned, if this person truly existed, it is likely that useful sources are not English and I wish there was a native name to expand my search but there isn't. I should note that I have watched this article since June 2012 and, unsurprisingly, the article hasn't received any activity or improvement. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that this person truly existed, per the Google Books search linked above. Notability is another matter, about which I have no opinion. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete – Per above. Dcfc1988 (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Current article has no references demonstrating notability. There's a The Hindu article profiling A.N.S. Raghavan, but I haven't been able to find much else. As the nom has suggested, the sources, if they are out there, are likely in not in English. I'm willing to change my opinion if more sources are provided.--xanchester (t) 19:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I tend to agree with Xanchester. There's this book cite, but it's about his death and is in passing. All other book mentions are mere listings of people. Nothing else to be found rises to the level of significance under WP:GNG. If he's a pioneer in his field, it's a bit surprising to me that there isn't more English sourcing. English is commonly used in India as a language of business, and there ought to be corporate histories of India in English, although I haven't checked this. Given the subject's age, I allow for the possibility that there may be Hindi or other Indian language sources to support this, but I am doubtful based on the information we have. --Batard0 (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep due to malformed submission. Nominator, please read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Nominating_article.28s.29_for_deletion before nominating this article or others. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Beesley Starling[edit]

This article gives an unpleasant impression of double standard policy concerning notability on Wikipedia. It took me 5 weeks to demonstrate the notability of Jean-Paul Herteman who is the most important person in French Aerospace. Wikipedians should be able to apply to themselves the tough criteria of notability they apply to people outside Wikipedia. Euroflux (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and warn the nominator for using AfD for disruption to make a point. First Light (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as First Light. Note that this AfD has been done incorrectly and therefore will not show up in AfD lists. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep votes are unconvincing because none provide sources that discuss the subject of "clubs and societies of Royal College, Colombo", as required per WP:LISTN. Sources that discuss individual clubs and societies, while great for individual articles on the clubs, don't support a list article like this one. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 17:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of clubs and societies of Royal College, Colombo[edit]

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

Pure WP:SCHOOLCRUFT. Clubs at an elementary, junior, and senior high school do not deserve their own page. Note that I'm not even proposing a merge, because the majority of this isn't even important enough to be listed on the main article (Royal College, Colombo), and it's almost entirely unsourced anyway. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might be best to expand this AFD to some or all of the other contents of Category:Clubs and societies of the Royal College Colombo. postdlf (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Following refs indicate the level of significance of most of these societies in Sri Lanka;

Radio Club of Royal College - [8], [9], [10]
Philatelic Club of Royal College - [11], [12], [13], [14]
Interact Club of Royal College - [15], [16], [17], [18]
Astronomical Society of Royal College - [19]
Royal College General Knowledge Club - [20], [21]

I do agree some of these societies should be removed but ones such as these have a national level recognition as mentioned in the refs provided. Therefore the article should be kept but modified. Cossde (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If those clubs are notable in a Wikipedia sense, then they should have Wikipedia entries. The concept of "clubs at Royal Columbo" is not a notable concept, and thus it should not have an article. Please note that when you consider creating those individual articles, they must be discused in detail, not merely mentioned as having one event or another in a newspaper article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of a Wikipedia entry does not mean they aren't notable. Just no one took the time to write one. Dream Focus 08:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood my point, Dream Focus. I'm actually saying that the clubs Cossde lists above should probably have their own articles. What I'm saying we shouldn't have is some sort of catch all article on the concept of "clubs at school X" unless reliable sources have discussed the concept of "clubs at school X". This is a well established requirement for List articles, as explained in WP:LISTN and in numerous AfDs. What we should have is articles on each notable club, individually, then a list in the main article that has links to those individual articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And just have agreed upon criteria for inclusion, and eliminate things that don't belong on the list. Dream Focus 08:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom. Keeping a cut down list would only provide a focus for non notable cruft.--Charles (talk) 18:52, 18 October 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, Drmies (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Royal_College,_Colombo#Clubs_and_societies, removing all unreferenced entries. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find no references to these clubs and societies as a group, as required under WP:LISTN. The sources cited above are in any case uniformly trivial in nature, and I don't think they're enough to satisfy the significant coverage requirement under WP:GNG. A search turns up little else. --Batard0 (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted at author's request. Achowat (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

2012 Maine earthquake[edit]

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

Non-notable, just a news story per WP:NOT#NEWS and fails to meet any of the criteria in Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes/notability guidelines Mikenorton (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There have been destructive earthquakes in New England that we have articles on, but this one doesn't quite make the grade. There is just not that much to say about it and it definitely doesn't meet the general notability guidelines for WikiProject Earthquakes. Dawnseeker2000 22:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly, there's only routine coverage, and not enough to inform notability. I'm the only substantive author, so I'm going to throw a {{db-author}} on the top. It was created hoping there would be more substantive coverage, but it's been 3 days and nothing's come up. Achowat (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 17:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donato Seppi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, founder of a really small party (5.688 votes in 2008) whose higher seat is a member in a third-level political assembly in Italy Vituzzu (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: the pages has been created and then (mainly) maintained by him, who is supposed to join this afd soon.--Vituzzu (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, well, the article isn't well written, especially due to the fact that a "supporter" is was the main author, I think that's obvious. But nevertheless the article shouldn't be deleted, since Seppi surely reaches our requirements for notability.

Vituzzu writes that Seppi is a member in a third-level political assembly. That's from a strictly hierarchical viewpoint correct, but fails to explain that this "third-level political assembly" is not some minor negligible institution, but the parliament of an autonomous province (South Tyrol) with a destinctly high level of legislative competencies. Secondly, every member of the South Tyrolian parliament is automatically member of the (second-level) regional assembly of Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol (which is by the way - speaking in terms of realpolitik - far less important than the former...). As far as I know politicians at these levels are considered surely notable at en.wikipedia, kind of obvious when we have a look at Category:Members of the Idaho House of Representatives...

Additionally, he is a quite controversial politician (I think the photo in the article speaks for itself, his communication techniques are based on a self-portrayal as a tough defender of the South Tyrolean Italianity), and thus he can't be considered a silent backbencher, since his activities gain (on a South Tyrolean level) a broad press coverage. Just as an example the hits for his name in the archive of the Italian-language newspaper of the province Alto Adige: [22]. Unfortunately other media in the province don't have a openly accessible archive... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Mai-Sachme. Seppi is a notable politician, both for his role and his character, in a country where regions and autonomous provinces play a big role. That's especially true for the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (or South Tyrol). I know that in it.Wiki politicians like Seppi are not considered encyclopedic, but fortunately this is not it.Wiki but en.Wiki. --Checco (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep as a notable politician who has been elected to national office. The article itself needs to close attention in relation to WP:COI. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; meets WP:POLITICIAN: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices." He holds a province-wide office, which nobody seems to dispute. There's also been some coverage in Italian and German, although most of it is trivial. I'm willing to cede the benefit of the doubt and assume that there is more significant coverage in reliable provincial sources not available online. --Batard0 (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 17:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

442 – Live with Honor, Die with Dignity (soundtrack)[edit]

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

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of charting. No evidence of awards. No evidence of long-form professional reviews. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Soundtrack to a film of uncertain notability, which does not have a Wikipedia article. No reliable third-party sourcing or evidence of in-depth coverage. Apart from the track listing, the article mainly appears to be padded out with information about the 442nd Infantry Regiment rather than the music itself. --DAJF (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Couldn't find a single reliable, independent source covering this. That said, there may be such sources in Japanese. Fails the WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS guidelines, although it would be helpful if someone could do a quick search in Japanese; if solid sources are found, I'll change my stance. --Batard0 (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 17:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Your Side Part Deux[edit]

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

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of charting. No evidence of awards. No evidence of long-form professional reviews. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. I was able to find a good amount of blog entries and website mentions, but I wouldn't consider any of these sources reliable. Nothing turns up in a news search, which you'd expect it to if it were notable given the context. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. --Batard0 (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 17:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kerb (fruit)[edit]

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

Anyone else doubtful as to whether this fruit actually exists? Searching (example, example) turns up nothing of relevance, just false positives. Furthermore, I find it improbable that a fruit has some use in a a massage. CtP (t • c) 21:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any sources about this. If it is ever found to be a valid name, it should redirect to the plant's article. First Light (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't stand up. Warden (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be made up. AutomaticStrikeout 22:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment It is possibly confusion about pronamide/propyzamide, (trade name Kerb), a pesticide sometimes used on fruits. The Steve 05:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Either as a hoax or a misunderstanding. The "massage" line has my leaning towards the former. Achowat (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as competely unreferenced. No local language wikis to steal references from either. If references get added, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing turns up in a search. Likely hoax. --Batard0 (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Contrary to Euroflux's notability and reliable sources claim, the article contains a BBC News reference which is widely considered as a reliable source, as well as Financial Times links. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Driss Ben-Brahim[edit]

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

This person lacks notability ; no reliable sources ; the content of the article is obscure...

This stub is an orphan : no equivalent on the French WP whereas he is supposed to be an alumnus of Centrale Paris and INSEAD, no equivalent on the Moroccan WP, nor on the Austrian WP....

A dubious stub... Euroflux (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep For the context on why this is even up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 9. Suffice it to say that if a trader is so well-known in London that the Financial Times publishes an article about that trader changing jobs (twice, see [23] not cited in the article), then the trader is pretty clearly notable. There's also coverage from BBC, the WSJ [24], City A.M. [25], Reuters [26], and so on. Pichpich (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Pointy and disruptive nomination, as explained by Pichpich. What happens on other WPs is irrelevant here. Is there even something like a Moroccan WP? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to the claim by the nominator, there are reliable sources and the content is not "obscure" (not sure what that really means - the subject?). "Stub" is not a valid AfD argument, neither are the article requirements at other wiki sites. First Light (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:POINT. Nomination is in reflex to his own articles for creation not being accepted as they do not meet WP:GNG. User is being consistently disruptive on the English wiki since he has been banned from the French wiki. (When an account has been banned from one wiki, why not them all?) --Bob247 (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and move to close - obviously pointy nomination by a editor upset about an AFD elsewhere who has now done this twice. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

H. Rutherford Turnbull[edit]

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

Unnotable person, none of the material here is cited, and a Google search doesn't turn up anything noteworthy. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Considering that he has a field of work that wouldn't show easily with searches, I searched deeper by adding "special education" and Google News archives found results, Google Scholar provided some work and co-work and Google Books provided one book that he co-authored. I plan to improve the article soon. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clear pass of WP:Prof#1 with an h-index of 24 including some high cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Citations to his book Families, Professionals, and Exceptionality alone show that he was influential in his field. Celtechm (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as the reasons given already, his named chair at U. Kansas gives him a clear pass of WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bellshill Celebration[edit]

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

PROD removed. New article for a non-notable feast/celebration. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it should be notable if it has been held across the United Kingdom for thirty years!Britishman9999 (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it has, it should be, yes. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. Held across the UK? Yeah, right! -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have never heard of it and I can see no evidence on Google that others have either. I too conclude that it is made up. --AJHingston (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a lack of coverage by reliable secondary sources. A search for news articles doesn't bring up anything, which is suspicious for a celebration that is allegedly widespread. The subject does not meet the general notability criteria.--xanchester (t) 03:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholic Dr Pepper[edit]

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

The once source that was supplied (since removed) was to a wiki. Unable to find any reliable sources discussing the drink in a significant manner. Found several blogs that have the recipe but those are not reliable sources and just finding a recipe does not automatically confer notability. SQGibbon (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, I searched with Google News and Books but found insignificant results. However, as mentioned by the nominator, I found three recipes here, here (found this link while searching "Dr Pepper Shandy") and here but nothing significant such as the history. The link that the nominator removed is this cocktailmaking.co.uk link which provides nothing useful. Considering that it is not actually connected to Dr. Pepper, it wouldn't be appropriate to redirect, although the beverage is its namesake. This beverage is not notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 20:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree as per nominated. I couldn't find anything on google, or other resources anything about this beverage. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO; sources cited do not indicate notability. Miniapolis (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. AutomaticStrikeout 23:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find anything either. Corn cheese (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obscure cocktail, no evidence of notability.--SGCM (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Jerome's Church (Manhattan)[edit]

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

A single closed church building in Manhattan is hardly notable. Furthermore, a google search reveals that there are several St Jerome's Churches in Manhattan. I was unable to find any substantial secondary source coverage of this particular building, and do not see any reason for it to be included. It is possible that we may want to put the information into the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York article, but don't really see a reason to do so. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This particular church fails to have notable value that singles it out -- no notable references. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Top Room at the Zoo[edit]

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

X-factor UK is being televised and encouraging a rash of articles about the contestants before they achieve independent notability. This case is unusual, because the article is about a 2011 self-published album by a current X-Factor contestant, released for download 12 months before anyone knew of her. It gets several recent mentions in the press, because it had to be removed from I-Tunes. Maybe the best (and only) mention in any depth is this recent article. The track 'Last Night' has probably had significantly more coverage because it was sung during the audition stage of X-factor. I would argue that the album, in comparison, has been largely unnoticed. Does not meet WP:NMUSIC criteria. Sionk (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: It does meet WP:NMUSIC criteria. The album has peaked to number 22 on the UK Albums Chart and number 72 on the Irish Albums Chart and does meet WP:NMUSIC. The album has also received coverage. Greenock125 (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This is a charting album which would have done even better, had it not been deleted: "Spraggan’s independently released 2011 album, Top Room At The Zoo...is also the sixth biggest selling album of the week" Gnu andrew (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So where's the evidence of strong coverage to back up the 'strong keep's? Charting isn't sufficient in itself to pass WP:NMUSIC. Sionk (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i prefer seeing the coverage, personally, but that's not what the guideline says. 86.44.49.108 (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albums and recordings need to meet WP:GNG. Neither of the 'strong keeps' (one of whom is the author) make any argument based on WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though placed in reply, that comment is entirely unconnected to mine. Hence I can't see that addressing it would lead to you dealing with either that reply or my original one. 86.44.49.108 (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'm not sure what point you were making either. Like you say, best leave it. Sionk (talk) 19:49, 18 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 18:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Strong" is too strong for me, but I do believe enough coverage exists on the album [27][28][29], combined with the chart info, to warrant an article. Gongshow ^Talk 20:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied following page blanking by author. Peridon (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akash soukhee[edit]

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

Autobiographical article claiming notability as a Mauritian model who has appeared on the cover of Vogue, but no verification can be found for this or any other claims of notability, other than unreliable self-published sites. Images available of Soukhee as a Vogue cover model appear to be self-created photo-shop fakes. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently, this is not the first time down this path for this article. I suspect WP:CSD#G4 applies. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as G4 - As one of the voters at the first nomination, it was clear that this was a hoax probably started by the subject themselves. As a result of this, I have warned them at their talk page. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looked at it and thought I'd deleted it too. Must be wishful thinking... I've removed the speedy tag as it was not actually deleted at AfD. It was speedied while at AfD, so I feel G4 does not apply. If anyone finds a contrary opinion, I won't rush to DRV. I wish the lad luck, and won't oppose when there's a real showing of notability (and an improvement in the grammar in the references...). I wish the lad luck - making a success at modelling is harder than the writing or music businesses. Luck and being in the right place at the right time - or possibly being in the wrong place at the right time, which can be more noticeable. Peridon (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article's author has blanked the page. Could this be considered a WP:CSD#G7 speedy deletion candidate at this point? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BrowseControl[edit]

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

According to Notability (organizations and companies)

"If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy."

Beyond that, the article has been primarily created and maintained by the producers of this software. In addition, the company itself is not notable enough to merit its own Wikipedia article... otherwise I would suggest merging the article into the broader company article.ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is not notable, and a quick search through Google, didn't turn up many/any notable results. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mirko Spasojević[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Eeekster (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should NOT be deleted - please check official website of Football Asociation of Montenegro, there you will see that Mirko Spasojević played in Montenegro First League (T-Com 1.CFL) and Montenegro Second League (Druga Liga), and they both are fully pro league, and he also represent his country (U19 Montenegro National Team). Here is the link http://fscg.co.me/index.php?option=com_joomleague&view=player&p=28&tid=165&pid=1763&Itemid=981 Perko92 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The Montenegrin first league is not fully professional as shown here and he is not notable. Dcfc1988 (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete – Dear Dcfc1988, the link you posted is from 2006, when Montenegrin Football Federation was still not accepted by UEFA and FIFA. Now is 2012, and Montenegro First league IS fully professional since few years ago. If you check this link and translate it - (http://fscg.co.me/2008082566/Savez/istorija-saveza.html) you will see that Montenegro Football Federation is accepted by UEFA on 26.01.2007. on Congress in Dusseldorf, and MFF is accepted by FIFA on 29.05.2007 on Congress in Zurich. Since then, the League is also accepted as fully professional, and every season 3 best teams plays EURO cups, as you can see here on FIFA website - (http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=mne/nationalleague/standings.html). As for Mirko Spasojević, I see that Soccerway accepted him as professional footballer - (http://www.soccerway.com/players/spasojevi-spasojevi/147239/), so I dont think will harm anyone if he has his page also in Wikipedia. Thanks. Kakoste7 (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that is not supported by reliable sources, making it an invalid claim to notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of image processing software[edit]

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

This page contains no actual discussion, has a cherry-picked and unexplained list of features, and only lists three software packages out of at least dozens (and possibly hundreds) in use.} Thouis.r.jones (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This comparison doesn't make sense -- many of these "functionalities" are similar or variations of more general algorithms. Most of them can be easily implemented in Python, Matlab and a multitude of other programs. Perhaps merge part of the list to image processing, or move it to list of image processing algorithms or some similarly named page. kml (talk)
Delete Not a subject, the supposed "subject" is an action taken on three selected softwares. So also no indication of wp:notability for the "subject" North8000 (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Miguel Alves Mendes[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tayfur Bingöl[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The player has been in a fully pro league in turkish 3rd division for 31 matches. Turkish 3rd division is a fully professional league. As it clearly published that turkish 3rd division is a fully professional league. This is the official rule paper of the divison. and here it declres that turkish 3rd division is a fully proffessional league. Just same as turkish super league, turkish first division or turkish second division. http://www.tff.org/Resources/TFF/Documents/000013/TFF/STATULER/TFF3Lig-Statusu-Son.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plexus14 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, this document refers only to the 2012/13 season, while all of Bingol's appearances were in 2011/12. Furthermore, it's professionalism criteria are only for management whereas WP:NSPORT refers to professionalism of players. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – even if the Turkish fourth level is fully pro (I'm not expected to understand Turkish, so I'm assuming good faith on the above comment), the player still fails WP:GNG, which prevails over WP:NSPORTS: ("...standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline.") – Kosm1 fent 09:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. And even if he does pass NFOOTBALL, he still fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a lack of secondary sources covering the player. A search doesn't show anything. Fails to meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 00:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, empty list so no substantive content. postdlf (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Sikar[edit]

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

A list of only two entries— one red-link and another is up for speedy. Infinitesimal chance that this article will ever be populated to satisfy the criteria of stand-alone lists. — Bill william compton^Talk 16:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The list provides nothing useful and a small town like Sikar would hardly gain notable residents (former or current). Additionally, this article would be eternally prone to users adding themselves or other non-notable people (local doctors, teachers, etc.). SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant content. It would be better to make this list a section within Sikar until a significant number of bluelinked people from there are identified. Both of the people listed here are redlinks, so there is nothing to merge as yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G1: Patent nonense, meaningless or incomprehensible) by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs)

Cat Puns[edit]

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

Insupportable list of non-notable facts, created as original research and which could only be maintained through further original research. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Purrsonally, I think it's a clear case of WP:FORUM. §everal⇒|Times 16:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:OR. Lugia2453 (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CATastrophe. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense, and for not including the obvious and very hackneyed "Chairman Meow". And am I the only one who doesn't get the cat connection in Squint Eastwood? Keresaspa (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After I !vote to delete this, I Can Has Cheezburger? --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although the article may be fun, it would provide nothing useful for Wikipedia and it is likely that any links would be unreliable blogs, nothing significant for news coverage. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Provides no benefit to WikiPedia, as an encyclopedia. Also a per the previous delete reasons.--Clarkcj12 (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's a significant enough group of editors here who believe the topic is worthwhile that the possible linkfarming is convincingly a cleanup problem rather than a deletion problem. Renaming is possible, though I'm not sure there's a consensus here for it. Since it's essentially a "how do we organise the content" question, I thus have to give a lot of weight to the headcount. Wily D 06:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Texas breweries[edit]

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

Seems to be a WP:LINKFARM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nominated and for WP:NOTDIR. Mangoe (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of breweries in Texas. Compare to List of breweries in Quebec or List of breweries in Berkshire. The presence of many external links doesn't mean this is a link farm; compare to List of universities in Iran, which unanimously survived AfD. Don't think of them as external links; think of them as references that verify the brewery's existence. --BDD (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also List of US breweries. Like most coverage of beer, these articles need some work, but AfD is not for cleanup. --BDD (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could also simply remove the links; see California breweries. (I'm working on standardizing these titles now.) --BDD (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice, though, that one of the justifications given for the Iranian list was that universities are by default held notable. Are breweries? Mangoe (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure some of them aren't, but individual breweries can be represented in lists even if they aren't notable enough for their own articles. See WP:NLISTITEM. --BDD (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs to be cleaned up, and the links need to be removed. The subject of a list can be notable, even if the list items are not.--xanchester (t) 00:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories serve the same purpose as this; nothing more than a list. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a name change to List of Texas breweries. Useful source of in-links and an aid to navigation, logical and limited inclusion parameters. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Consumerization. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consumerization of applications[edit]

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

This is nothing more than a dictionary definition of a term that is used widely in the IT industry, but with widely varying meanings depending on the context. No verification can be found for the author's claim that he invented the term. PROD declined by author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to consumerization Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with Mangoe's idea. Had I known that the Consumerization article existed, I would have simply proceeded with the redirect. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to consumerization, as above. This is currently an unreferenced stub. Dialectric (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The argument that it passes WP:N are hard to overcome. NOTNEWS is much trickier - how can one evaluate the long-term significance of a event that happened a week ago? I can't see the case that it's "routine news reporting" the way baseball games, horroscopes, or traffic reports are - one would need to make a compelling case, which isn't done here. There is, I think, a sufficient consensus that the phrase and subsequent meme should be mentioned either in an article, or in an article about the second debate (which appears to be merged into an article about all the debates at the moment). I can't tell which from this discussion, because both positions rely strongly on guessing what may come, partisan assertions. The argument that it's POV to merely have an article on the topic would need a compelling argument, not just a straightforward assertion, given that the sources come from across the political spectrum. If it was only far left sources repeating it, I would be inclined to give that position serious weight - not so much when it's the Globe & Mail. As with every article, merger remains an editorial possibility if a local consensus agrees to it (since people often ask this be stated explicitly). I wasn't able to detect a trend that way in the discussion - but it's tricky, because the sources kept appearing as the discussion continued, which may have changed the calculus is a way that a discussion like this, with much heat but little light, didn't illuminate. Wily D 07:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binders full of women[edit]

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

This is nothing more than Silly season garbage that is highly unlikely to last any longer than the lame Big Bird issue from a few days prior. ~~This is an attempt by the left to attack Mitt Romney and push the continued fictional "War on Womnen".~~ As such, the use of WP to push political memes is highly inappropriate, however if for some crazy reason this becomes something huge it can be added at a later time. At a very maximum this should be covered in the presidential debate article as it is not worthy of its own page. Arzel (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012. The article has coverage in reliable sources, so mention of this meme can belong on Wikipedia, but I don't think there's enough content to stand on its own article. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what content should be merged? The phrase is already mentioned in that article. --BDD (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, as the subject isn't my area of expertise, but since AfD is not cleanup, that doesn't matter. If information is verifiable by reliable sources, it can potentially have a place on Wikipedia. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Redirect and merge verifiable content to Second_U.S._presidential_debate_of_2012#Reception. Not independently notable, long-lasting impact is very questionable at this time. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012, United States presidential election, 2012, Mitt Romney are existing articles on the subject providing the topics against which "Binders full of women" is measured at AfD. The topic "Binders full of women" is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of existing articles and those editors working on the other existing articles can decide whether the source information from Binders full of women belongs in those articles. If the Binders full of women there after reaches enough content, editors can create Summary style spin-off. As it stands, now, the topic also falls under WP:NOT#NEWS since there is no enduring importance/significance of this events in the context of (1) Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012, (2) Mitt Romney, (3) United States presidential election, 2012, or (4) the indiscriminate collection of commentators generating content on this topic. As for (4) the indiscriminate collection of commentators generating content on this topic, reliable sources originating commentary on the topic need to have been covered in reliable sources themselves to add the material to the "Binders full of women" article. Redirect if desired/needed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk)
Delete As nominator. Arzel (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge into an appropriate article. If there's a separate article on the debate, that'd be a good destination, otherwise, the article on the 2012 Presidential Race. Its obvious based on NOTNEWS that a separate article isn't warranted. But given that its received mainstream media coverage (NBCNews.com had an article, I assume its already in this article), so its reasonable to have a paragraph or so somewhere, and to have the phrase not be a red-link. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012. The phrase is already covered appropriately in other articles; if it becomes more notable on its own, well, then the article can always be recreated. (I'll also note that This is an attempt by the left to attack Mitt Romney and push the continued fictional "War on Womnen" in the AfD request is not a valid rationale for deletion; partisan opinions in either direction are not relevant to the deletion process.) Edit: Changed to Keep, see below. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inconsequential malapropism, not noticed immediately after by any of the serious media; no person with room-temp IQ failed to understand what he meant, womens' resumes. Definitely an awkward phrase, but no hidden meaning or substantial significance. Online barrage of Bill Clinton jokes afterward amusing, not exactly historic. WP editors' spin to conflate this and link to "Gender studies"?? "Misogyny"???? and "Feminism" just ridiculous (and it isn't a "Controversy"). Text at Debate article too long and WP:UNDUE, considering major substantial issues discussed and actual newsworthy disputes. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete While I absolutely don't agree that this article is "attempt by the left to attack Mitt Romney", as the first post puts it, it's a fine example of the power of the Internet to make something out of practically nothing, an attempt for a fleeting bit of notoriety. The phrase will be gone in a matter of days, and the navel-gazing articles shortly thereafter. This one should be first to go. If it's worth anything at all in the long run (questionable), it should be mentioned in an article about the debate.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead on accurate description of the overnight phenom., and what the pop-culture references in newspapers were all about. Some pretty funny stuff, too, of no consequence, and probably already over. Once reported on, though, you have had several extreme nasty and humorless attempt to turn this into something else, and the WP article as written is an example. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However silly the use of Romney's poor phrasing is, it's still an event that received large amounts of media coverage. Suggesting that it's of no consequence and probably already over is WP:CRYSTALBALLing; indeed, it's still prominently on the front pages of MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, two days after the debate. Maybe it'll die out in a few days. Maybe it'll get more traction like the equally overblown "You didn't build that". I don't see why we wouldn't cover it in the appropriate articles. (But still agree that it's undue for it to have its own page at this time.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete with option for recreation in a year or so A textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS, there's a pretty good chance that in a few months nobody will care. Even then it's likely to end up as a couple of sentences in the debate article. Mangoe (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic, Election 2012 fooliganism. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In terms of notability, that's established by all the references. Beyond the notability, the statement is significant because Romney's claim that he sought names of qualified women has been disputed (those who dispute claim is that the names were provided unsolicited). I don't think we have to wait a year before determining notability. This is similar to the You didn't build that article, which survived an AFD. Sometimes simple expressions become notable, and the threshold for notability does not have to rise to the level of the notability of Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now that is part of the "controversy" as well? Only a conservative could be criticised by the left for trying to be inclusive of women

Facepalm. Arzel (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy is that he claimed to have sought out women, when in reality the list he received was unsolicited. He is basically taking credit for something he didn't do. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romney did not just solicit help from MASSGap, and the MASSGap effort expanded once Romney signalled he wanted their help. Their previous chief organizers acknowledged this but asserted that it was their idea first, just that Romney ran with it as Governor-elect, which he did.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know he didn't also seek out women? Tell me when you get to the top of the mountain. Arzel (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.49.252 (talk • contribs)
- Please note that this is not a vote. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This topic is likely short-term in nature and does not belong in the encyclopedia. If it lasts beyond this week I'd be surprised. Bring it back only if it has a lasting impact, but not now. BTW, most of the things I've seen actually seem to be a poke at Bill Clinton on the left rather than Romney. 72Dino (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Questions about the truth of his statement, and discussion in media of this being similar to affirmative action even though his party doesn't normally support it, both notable. 69.243.159.96 (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions are marginal; dispute over percent credit for what every involved party agrees was a collaborative effort, enthusiastically adopted by Romney. Not like affirmative action, as he merely made a huge effort to make sure women got a fair hearing, and that produced results. There were no quotas, no set-asides.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Several editors are conflating or confusing two different things. The overnight outbreak of humorous postings and jokes about the awkward phrase, while nowhere on the evening of the debate, WAS reported the next morning (and by some News sources that missed it because of deadline, the next evening or morning). THAT is distinct from leftist attack groups buying domains (the ultra-left Soros PAC), and trying to now use and divert that humorous blip to make up connections. The former got general attention, was fun and short and is over. The latter exists in a nasty partisan bubble, is crude and nasty, was not a serious part of the discussion, and only still happens due to Democratic campaign push. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not even a topic. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not even a topic. -- Can you elaborate on that? — goethean ॐ 20:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" If in the next month or so it ceases to be relevant, then sure, delete it, but it does has the potential to be a significant moment in the election, so it deserves to be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.162.241 (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Clearly notable; high probability of having staying power way beyond the election. This is not just about the memes and FB posts, but (for example) has even extended to Binder reviews on Amazon. IN just one day this thing started living "a live of its own".Not to score a WP:POINT, but this article is very comparable to You didn't build that. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 19:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No relation to You didn't build that, which crystallized a major long-term criticism of Obama, and caught on precisely because it so neatly summarized in his own words a perceived antipathy to American business. Romney's malaprop about going above and beyond to recruit women means..... what????--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and please do not merge. Coverage at Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012 is plenty sufficient of this ephemeral soundbite (Memorable line from the debate? Check. Meme? Check. Done.). --BDD (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets the notability requirements; arguments for deletion appear to mostly be that they don't like it. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - passing news item not worthy of an encyclopedia. Pure POV and partisan. In depth studies don't exist. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you asked me on the eve of the debate, I might have said simply Merge. Looking at the flood of sources over the past 24 hours, and it looks like a candidate for its own article. It has generated a whole national discussion on the veracity of Romney's statements, after the source of the "binders" chimed in.Sally Season (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romney did not go out of his way to solicit women's resumes from just ONE source. The idea was out there, Romney ran with it. There is an argument over how much credit belongs to who, but not that Romney did not make women a priority. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012 per WP:NOTNEWS. ~~We didn't allow for a Paul Ryan water gulping or Joe Biden condescending laugh article...~~ Go Phightins! 01:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden's creepy laughs and behavior got MUCH more serious press, and directly related to the influence of the debate on the electorate, which this did not. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I initially said merge...but random meme stuff keeps piling up; now we have amusing Amazon reviews of random binders, amongst other stuff! [30] (TIME article.) The "Binders Full of Women" group on Facebook has over 345k "likes" now, and seems to be actively growing. So even without the political aspects, it seems notable; Wikipedia has plenty of articles about Internet phenomena that are famous just because of the number of YouTube views, or whatnot. The non-meme political aspects are also important of course; people are definitely discussing Romney's comments in general under the "binders full of women" label. Obama's used it at a campaign rally. So I don't think it cleanly fits into the presidential debate page, since it's a weird mix of Internet meme and political discussion with plenty of coverage, thus keep. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to second presidential debate article per Ritchie. Good lord, why on earth does anyone think we need an independent article on this? A shortened version of this material would do just fine in the article on the debate itself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other delete recommendations, or as a second choice rename to Misunderstanding of metonymy by Mitt Romney's opponents. Perhaps if Wikipedia had existed during the time of Mark Antony and he had actually spoken the words Shakespeare attributed to him, we would have an article titled Mark Antony's request for people to cut off their ears and give them to him temporarily. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the You forgot Poland precedent, which is similar. Talk:You forgot Poland Calwatch (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but link to the original article if merged) 71.52.199.48 (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Keep; or merge. Seems this has picked up enough steam to stick around. --216.81.81.82 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If all news/mentions peter out next year, revisit deleting, but probably an image that many people will refer to for many years and thus worthy of an article. Should be named like any other phrase which becomes a popular catch phrase like "Where's the beef?" or "War on Terror" or (Add your favorite example), i.e., just use the phrase. CarolMooreDC 16:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012. Kaldari (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep keep for now. revisit deletion later. Spgilbert (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious propaganda contrary to WP:SOAP. Warden (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So this is how it works on wikipedia? I make a few edits to add content, essentially quotes, from mainstream media that put this in perspective, and an editor named Anonymous209 immediately deletes them. And then I come over to see the argument for deletion of the article and he is aggressively pushing to delete it. The name should be changed to 409 because this is an obvious effort to sanitize wikipedia of this information. I didn't even get a chance to go into how [31] shows the media storm this article has. Yes, that's current. We can't know whether this incident will be a memorable, long term issue that affects the presidential election, something to be discussed and learned from; or if it will be something that dies away. We can discuss that later, IF it fades away. At the moment, its big and significant. Well documented, well sourced. At this time there is zero rationale to delete it. It would be further documented and explained had my edits been allowed to stay. TruthtellernoBS (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Above I mentioned the name of Anonymous209, who I feel abused his authority by deleting sourced content I had added. To show you ~~what a POV pushing, lowlife this Anonymous209 is~~, he further went into my other contributions, few as they are documented (after I registered), he removed a bunch more of my contributions. I would equate that to stalking. Certainly he's lost all credibility and journalistic integrity. We should discount all of his aggressive negative commentary here and elsewhere. I would guess you have a system to ban people like this. If he persists, I'll have to learn how that works. TruthtellernoBS (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you remove your personal attacks and read up on WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Arzel (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up on civility. Arzel, you and your Anonymous cohort are both deliberately deleting additions to the article while advocating for its deletion. You call it "silly season garbage" but when an explanation for why this is actually significant is (re) posted by multiple editors, you edit war and delete it. Perhaps you feel this weakening of the article supports your claim to delete the article. Actually what this activity does is weaken your position; that you have to artificially (attempt to) hide content in order to reduce the significance of the ariticle. This reveals both of your POV, while at the same time is quite improper. TruthtellernoBS (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has plenty of valid references to reliable sources. Most of the arguments for delete appear to be partisan; some of them actually require translation from wing-nut into English. — goethean ॐ 19:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suppose you could re-phrase your comment without the personal attacks on commentors in general? Arzel (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the pot calling the kettle black. See personal attack of me, accusing me making of making a mountain out of a molehill. Victor Victoria (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a serious violation of both WP:NPA and WP:AGF. AutomaticStrikeout 23:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as everything that comes out of the mouth of a politician does not need a Wikipedia article. AutomaticStrikeout 23:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your personal opinion on words that "come out of the mouth of a politician" is not a good argument for deletion. There are plenty of words that "come out of the mouth of a politician" that do get a Wikipedia article. See Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy, You didn't build that, Tear down this wall!, Read my lips: no new taxes. Victor Victoria (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep the article. Just because some quotes deserve an article does not mean that this one does. AutomaticStrikeout 20:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VV: Thanks for your research. CarolMooreDC 05:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per goethean NYSMtalk page 23:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a rather strange meme, but it's achieved such notoriety (start typing Binders into the Google search bar and you'll see what I mean). There are countless reliable sources describing this thing; I am uncomfortable with political statements in deletion nominations, such as contentious "fictional War on Women" comments. Whether it's fictional or not, that's not a debate for AfD. dci | TALK 01:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly WP:N as an internet meme. It may be note that it is of political in nature, but that doesn't change the fact that it is WP:N.Casprings (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy... Tear down this wall!, Read my lips: no new taxes" .. and to some extent "You didn't build that, " are all phrases that people who don't care about the absurd politics game have heard of. This rubbish is not. Wikipedia does not need to duplicate everything on wikiquote, or encyclopediadramatica.se. Nevard (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rubbish it may be, but it certainly doesn't lack reliable sources. dci | TALK 23:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article fulfills WP:NEO which stipulates that "...to support an article about a particular term we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term, not books and papers that use the term" (emphasis mine). The countless scores of international reliable secondary sources that have written about "Binders full of women" do exactly that: the term "Binders full of women" is thoroughly explained in context, analyzed and interpreted (e.g. 1, 2 3, 4). The term is not just merely used. Thus this term has fulfilled Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for neologisms. Amsaim (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revisit in a few months. Ongoing, widespread coverage of this in news outlets suggest that this meme is notable. Some of the deletion arguments seem to confuse the notability of the topic with personal feelings about the election. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 00:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and revisit in a few months. Less and less coverage of this in news outlets suggest that this meme is non-notable. Some of the keep arguments seem to confuse the non-notability of the topic with personal feelings about the election. --Malerooster (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the article about the second presidential debate. Contrary to what User:Amsaim said above, this is not a neologism. A neologism has "not yet been accepted into mainstream language". This is merely a phrase composed of well-accepted words combined in a well-accepted way. "Binders full of women" is just a quote or sound byte, unsuitable as the title of an article about the second presidential debate. Per WP:NOT, "If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The meme itself is notable by RS and GNG (or at least overcovered online in the past week). Per WP:TIND, this article has WP:POTENTIAL and should stay up. This AfD share much in common with You didn't build that—in this moment, it's notable. If that changes, re-nominate for AfD then. czar · · 00:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, I think you're overlooking something important. The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech was not to have two different articles on the same subject. Rather, the result was to rename the article about the speech so the new title is "You didn't build that". Here, it makes no sense to rename the article about the second presidential debate so that its new title is "Binders of women", and no one is suggesting that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that, and no one suggested renaming the debate article. YDBT was moved because the Roanoke speech had no notability otherwise—it was known for the sound bite. Here the debate has notability and, for now, the sound bite has independent, non-inherited notability as well. I related the two because they had similar WP:POTENTIAL going into their AfDs, but one has had more time to develop since. WP:ASSUMECLUE czar · · 16:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that such a recent and mild utterance is notable, but even if it were, WP:N says: "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." Here, the "Binders full of women" phrase can be easily merged into the article about the 2012 debates (just as the article about the second debate has been merged into the article about the 2012 debates). Do you really think that the "Binders full of women" is more article-worthy than the entire debate in which it occurred?.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I never suggested that. BFoW is a spinout of the debate: separate articles. Whether you or I think it's notable doesn't matter—by policy, BFoW has RS (ergo notable by GNG) and doesn't conflict with other policy (including WP:NEO or WP:CRYSTAL's text). It can exist on its own. Elevate the argument to WP:COMMON and we can go back and forth: my position was and is only that this event is at least currently very notable (as evidenced by its great number of RS refs) with great WP:POTENTIAL for expansion, and since there is no rush, we can afford to wait a bit to see if it loses that moment's notability before striking it down. czar · · 00:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we should not delete this because it is a popular internet meme. Many people who have heard it will want to see what it is and iwikipedia would obviously be a helpful site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.72.36 (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to second debate article. As it is, it fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NEO, but the phrase is a reasonable search term that can be covered on the second debate article. If the phrase stays around post-election, maybe we can talk about undoing the redirect, but at the present time, this is what should happen. --MASEM (t) 08:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Masem and Calwatch. I think the You forgot Poland precedent is worth following here. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a classic example of WP:NOT. Exciting as this presidential election is to some people this is hardly encyclopedic. Quotes have their own wiki. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs full of breaks[edit]

Redirect per Masem, Calwatch, and MZMcBride. I think this is definitely a viable search term, but I don't believe it has standalone significance and beliefs that it has lasting significance is textbook WP:CRYSTAL. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. Thank you. SarahStierch (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I have binders and binders full of historical women who need Wikipedia articles, if anyone feels like helping. ;) SarahStierch (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I don't see why this cannot be discussed in a section in the presidential debate article. A redirect should be kept, of course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since this AFD started, the article Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012 was turned into a redirect, so a decision to merge means its merged to the now sole article on the debates. interesting that the redirect was done with no discussion either before, or after, as if it had never existed.(mercurywoodrose)99.35.51.50 (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this will be quite the interesting decision if the article for the 2nd debate is effectively deleted/merged, yet the almmost nothing political attack on Romney is allowed to remain as a page. WP at it's best. Arzel (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per You forgot Poland precedent. Legoktm (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And someone pls go get those binders and upload them to Wikisource! Jane (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to second presidential debate. Plausible search term, but not enough content for a standalone article. FurrySings (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect either to Romney's article or the election itself. While there are definitely notable-ish sources for this, it only has meaning in the context of the debate/election (or Romney as a whole) and this article is just a definition and a section saying that the internet found it funny (which we did). Gundato (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't noticed the edit war being carried on by Arzel and Annonymous, you are playing right into their efforts to remove content from the article. It looks like an incomplete article about a meme because they keep trying to hide the substance behind it. Its a joke because of the history and attitude of the person who said it. It would be meaningless if anybody else had made the statement. TruthtellernoBS (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per "You forgot Poland" precedent cited above by Legoktm. Just because something passes the notability threshold doesn't mean we have to have a separate article about it. This phrase is better understood in context; we serve the reader better with a redirect placing it in context. -Pete (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously a bad-faith nomination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone on long enough. Go back to your corners. Tarc (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Bad faith?!? Really? I suppose you think there should be a Horses and Bayonets article as well. Arzel (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. But when your reason for deletion is an extreme right-wing political rant, then it automatically qualifies as bad-faith, and your nomination should be trashed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fair to simply ignore you in the future because you cannot look past the bias clouding your own vision. Arzel (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken like the typical Romney teabagger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arzel, could you please strike out your opinion about the so-called "war on women". That kind of stuff is inappropriate in a nomination.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with Bugs -- the wording of the nomination is silly and unhelpful. But still, I don't think there's much call for a separate article of this title. -Pete (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What this is is sheer political idiocy, the usurpation of an encyclopedia for a political campaign. These are candidates for the highest office of the country; everything they do, say, eat, joke about, slip up over is going to be printed and reprinted hundreds of time over by the end of the day. There needs to be some critical thinking here about what is routine coverage of a politician in an election years and what is truly in the spirit of the project's notability guidelines. This is just a throwaway line from one debate. Funny Memes of the Day do not get Wikipedia articles. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability indicated by press coverage. Everyking (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious attack page. William Jockusch (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is of course not an attack, it’s releant, well referenced, and neutral. Some do not like it, but that’s not a reason to delete it. —Fitoschido ^[shout_track] @ 24 October, 2012; 19:49
Point of Order. Important to remind editors that BfoW is in fact not ONE thing but two, awkwardly and artificially shoehorned together. Fortunately, BOTH lead not just to Delete, but to speedy delete.
1. Overnight bloom of stupid B or H Clinton/Heffner/Beyonce jokes. This is the "thing" that got press, notice, crept into popular consciousness. The press it got is not in doubt, just that, since it is clearly a bunch of stupid (but funny) Clinton jokes, it does not belong on WP, and should have been speedy deleted as per WP:CSD#A7, an inconsequential report of and inconsequential web content bloom. There are editors who argue the whole Article should be deleted, as that is the only notable part of the article, and are consistent. Have noticed, though that editors who argue that the Article should remain often then argue either by word or action (deleting refs to the notable part as inconsequential) for deletion on the page. Either the stupid internet jokes need to be prominently displayed and discussed in the article as per WP:UNDUE, OR the notability arguments have to be dropped, since this was most of the mainstream coverage, by far.
2. Awkward attempt to shoehorn partisan attacks The press was about the former, the latter emerged once the stupid Clinton jokes got people's attention (and who doesn't like a stupid Clinton joke). The former is Notability without consequence/substance, the latter is an attempt to make up context/consequence, but with no notability. The effort does not really work and has not made it to mainstream consciousness, precisely for the reasons elaborated on Talk; they don't make much sense. Romney massively recruited women; hence, binders of resumes. The attempts to shoehorn something negative are artificial and contrived, and are unequivocally simply a groundless attack page, which also needs to be speedy deleted as per WP:CSD#G10, WP:CSD#G11--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT political bullshit that does not deserve an article. Truthsort (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like scandal mongering contrary to WP:SOAP as it was publicized to attack his reputation. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crap. Oh, and NPOV. And because this isn't a political game. And because nobody cares. And because neither Obama nor Romney would be particularly notable except as being poor choices and that one or both will end up having been president. Whoopee. --No unique names 07:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another poorly chosen phrase that has reached past the tipping point of notability. It has generated memes and parodies which if notable themselves could be included. Plenty of reliable sources dissecting how this reflects on Romney's stance on women issues in the election cycle. Insomesia (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has the concept of notability degraded to the point where anything that generates any semblance of Internet discussion is inherently notable? Kansan (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is too soon to tell whether this phrase will be noteworthy. A week is a long time in an election, and same too with our collective memory of interesting tidbits from debates. If there's analysis after the election, demonstrating the staying power of this phrase in history, only then would I support it's inclusion, and only then as an element in the 2012 campaign page itself. -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not too soon. The sources are there right now. Everyking (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, but in the context of an election, notability must be viewed through the lens of hindsight. We won't know whether this was a turning point/notable event independently, absent analysis after the election. Lord Roem (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It doesn't need to be a "turning point" to be notable, nor does it need to receive post-election analysis. Hindsight is not necessary; if notability is already established now, there is no sense in waiting for any further confirmation. Everyking (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are missing my main point: this is an event that took place in the course of an election. Context is important. Whether or not this is notable to secure its own article, rather than merge into the debates article or the election article can only be based on looking back and analyzing the event's effects. Otherwise, the standard would be: any statement that received coverage is notable, which doesn't make sense in terms of having independent articles. Why doesn't Obama's "arrows and horses" comment not deserve an article, or Romney's "corporations are people, my friend". We just don't know what the effects were until we can actually ask that question - which is after the election. Otherwise... this is nothing more than a news report. -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- has achieved widespread coverage in reliable sources, i.e., notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fully sufficient coverage in its own right--quite apart from the political context & the great notability of the person who said it, the phrase is so inherently funny as being used in a serious context with such remarkably wrong connotations, that it will be not just notable but famous even after which candidate said it is long forgotten. This AfD isanother example of Wikipedians takingthemselves so seriously they don't know what is important. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. NAC. Cliff Smith 18:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YIH[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. The first entry is a red link. The second entry is a stretch to say that anyone searching "YIH" would be looking for that topic. The third and fourth would be red links if the entries were done properly (Yih (surname), Yih (given name)). The fifth entry has no related article (and really, if someone is searching about the number 1, they are not going to search "Yih"). Finally, the last entry can be dealt with by a redirect (since none of the other entries on this page are proper search terms). Singularity42 (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Yih. I cleaned out the unneeded entries and added the surname-holders. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at either Yih or YIH, with redirect from the other. Now a perfectly respectable dab page. PamD 12:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw my nomination and move as per JHunterJ, and the improvements made to the article. Singularity42 (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Being bold and closing this one - merge is complete and the album appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. Thanks for merging it Gbawden! SarahStierch (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Lung (EP)[edit]

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

This article has already been tagged for notability, it is unsourced and is by an artist who has also been tagged for notability. IMO this EP doesn't merit an article of its own Gbawden (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 18. Snotbot t • c » 10:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rebecca Shearing, assuming the artist herself is notable. Per WP:NALBUMS, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." That seems reasonable here. Gongshow ^Talk 20:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merge done - article can be deleted if that is the concensus. Gbawden (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I intend to take a rather extreme approach to this merger, probably nothing more than a abbreviated version of the lead. If there is anything else of encyclopedic value, which at a glance I doubt, it can be pulled from the page history for additional merging. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Upon taking a closer look it seems this topic is already covered at the target article in about the same level of detail as the lead, so I am just going to redirect it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I acted a it hastily and missed some nuance here. I have re-merged the character bios in abbreviated form and also chopped many of the other character bios at the target article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deimon Devil Bats[edit]

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

A vast article , in enormous detail, about a fictional football team who are part of an obscure manga. No out-world notability, no sourcing. There is one reference here for the whole article, and that's just the fictional text, not even fan-world commentary. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List of Eyeshield 21 characters. The description of the manga as "obscure" is clearly false, as Eyeshield 21 ran for years in Weekly Shonen Jump, which is probably the most prominent manga magazine, and was adapted into a television show that ran for over 100 episodes. It clearly appears to be a notable franchise (the main Eyeshield 21 article has plenty of references). This seems to be a section of List of Eyeshield 21 characters, which I'm guessing was split due to the length of the article. Having a character list for a notable franchise seems clearly appropriate, and since this portion of the list contains the main characters, it should be kept in some form. It looks like the article could be trimmed down and improved, and perhaps it should be merged with the main character list if they wouldn't be too long together. Calathan (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Eyeshield 21 characters. Seems this list was created to keep the crufty "Techniques and strategies" sections along with other trivial details of each player that were removed from the original list. If the characters have been removed from the original list, of course merge them back. —Farix (t | c) 12:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge encyclopedic content to List of Eyeshield 21 characters. Whatever is encyclopedic should be at the character page, while the fancruft has to go. We don't want Eyeshield 21 to have a fumble, do we? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Naruto. A news search reveals a reasonable amount of coverage in gaming sources that I would consider reliable for the purposes of this article, but I think it's all ultimately trivial mentions. There's not one article I can find that treats the subject with any depth. Hence I think it fails the WP:GNG requirements but could see anything verifiable being used in the list article. --Batard0 (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 industrial relations. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Employee relations[edit]

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

Already covered in Employment. Any expansion should happen there if there is something missing from that article (with reliable sources, not one self-published by the article creator). Fails WP:OR as the only source is the article creator's own blog, from which the article is basically copied. This leads to the suspicion that this article was created solely for the purpose of promoting the creator's blog. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Employment. For now, anyway. The subject is one that could potentially be the subject of its own article at some point in time. However at this point in time the article is just a dictionary definition copied from someone's website, which wouldn't be a reliable source even if there weren't concerns of COI and copyvio. There's some definite promotional undertones to this, as the website just so happens to be soliciting its services and products for various people. As far as any COI goes, I want to stress that the original article creator is someone who does web design and designed the website for Oakbridge. This is pretty much a further attempt to promote the company. All that aside, like I said- there is merit in expanding that section about employee relations from the Employment page. This just isn't the way to go about it. Unless someone else can expand the content using reliable sources I'm willing to change my opinion, but as the article is now? Nuke it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our editing policy is to improve rather than to delete and this is clearly possible as numerous have been written about this topic. Warden (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - verges on the dictionary defintion; seems to have been created as a coatrack to provide an excuse for a weblink to the creator's client's website. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blatantly self-promotional OR that has zero utility as the basis of a future spinoff article. Right now, it's just a WP:DICDEF and WP:CFORK whose primary purpose is to promote the business interests of the articles creator, and based solely on one extremely unreliable source. Best to flush it entirely, and build any future spin-off article on clean soil, rather than trying to salvage and expand on anything here. No evidence that a spin-off article is justified at the present time. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete the title. Keep it if someone rework the article to make it useful (which it definitely isn't, due to the problems that Harry identifies), or redirect per Tokyogirl if not. Remember that titles should only be deleted if they're not going to be useful redirects. Due to the copyright issue (there's an OTRS pending template at the talk page), if redirecting be the solution, it might be safest to delete this and immediately recreate it as a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What concerns me is that even if the text is usable without copyright issues, I'm not sure that this is really all that usable as a reliable source in the grand scheme of things. Probably better to just toss it and re-write it entirely.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to industrial relations also known as employment relations and "employee relations" [32]. This page was created as an advertisement for one self-published book (now removed). Whether HRM and IR/ER is the same topic or not is indeed a matter of some debate [33], depending how one defines HRM [34]. However clearly we do not need a 3rd article on the topic using "employee" instead of "employment". Tijfo098 (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is ample coverage about this, as Google news archive search easily finds. [35] [36] There are job titles of "employee relations manager", "Adviser- Employee Relations", and "Employee Relations Supervisor". If someone wanted to write out more information than would fit in the employment article, I'd say keep. If not, it seems to be covered over there. Just redirect for now, and if enough information is added, make it into a content fork later on. Dream Focus 22:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's part of the re-branding campaign of IR. Well explained in the lead of industrial relations. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to industrial relations, which is the same topic. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to industrial relations. The article itself says it's synonymous with "employment relations" (which redirects to industrial relations); Wikipedia articles are normally about things/concepts, not terms, and having two articles about the same thing is a form of content forkery. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 16:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to industrial relations. Professionally speaking, I understand the differences in the various terms from a labor market perspective. That said, in reality, the definition varies from one culture to the next. Having worked in state government with California and Washington State, I am aware that both state labor markets define the terms differently. The terms additionally differentiate from one region and one country to the next. It is clear that this article was created to highlight and promote one organization's interpretation of the terms used. At this point, the content is not differentiated to the point that a separate article presenting one view would be universally understood or accepted. Until that point, I recommend redirecting to industrial relations, which currently appears to serve as a "catchall". Cindy(talk to me) 18:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect as per above. Unnecessary WP:CFORK, but useful term (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Industrial relations which seems to be a more developed article. If sources show this is the correct name instead then it can be moved back. Insomesia (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to industrial relations, which covers the same topic. Plausible search term. Merge, if there's anything of value to merge.--xanchester (t) 00:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AUTOart[edit]

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

Spammy/promotional article about non-notable company. Biker Biker (talk) 06:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-notable is definitely not true in this case. The article is a bit over the top and could use more references but AUTOart is definitely a big player in the diecast car world. Visit any decent hobby store that sells car models over $100 and you will see a string of AUTOart models - at least that has been my experience in Australia, Hong Kong and the UK. Stepho talk 14:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AUTOart is an influential and controversial company that needs to be included in Wikipedia. There are many other articles on toys and miniatures that are less influential than AUTOart. Most are well-written and toy and miniature aficionados would not want them deleted. Who is to say that model car companies are 'non-notable'? The user Biker Biker apparently. Also the article is not very promotional as it deals with rough waters that the company has gone through and criticisms of the company. Thus, the request for deletion is not at all well defined.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per above.--jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some info: Personalized Autoart Products, Autoart races to top of modeling world, AUTOart's BMW models highly detailed. There's some autoart info here. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Martin Sargent. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Web Drifter[edit]

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

Little-known, canceled podcast fails to meet WP:N, WP:WEB, and WP:RS. Survived previous AFD with no consensus (only one "weak keep" vote). Should be deleted. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:38, 5 October 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, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:15, 11 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Martin Sargent. The CNN source is great, but the other two sources on the article aren't usable to show notability for this show. I do notice that Sargent's article needs work, but I think that we could probably cobble together enough sources to show notability for him as a result of his shows and the column he ran for Wired magazine. But for this particular show? As fun as the show sounded, it just isn't notable per current Wikipedia rules due to a lack of sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Martin Sargent - Google Books provided nothing useful but Google News provided several links here (extremely minor), here (also minor) and a press release here (first result from the top but requires payment). This appears to be the only evidence of third-party coverage. Honestly, it's not surprising there are few sources, considering that he is not a nationally known personality and podcasts were new as of 2006, as with other technology. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. sources are pretty weak, but not obviously a huge failure of WP:N, and the headcount is balanced. Wily D 06:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CITYpeek[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources that establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:ORG. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. These sources were found simply by opening the Google News archive search above:

Citypeek forms partnership with Meetlocalbiz.com
Users of Citypeek.com can now make Baltimore restaurant reservations.

— See also WP:BEFORE, section D. Also note (in the event the nominator was unaware) that per WP:NRVE, topic notability is not contingent upon whether or not sources are present in articles. Sources comprised of significant coverage in reliable sources only need to exist. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:44, 5 October 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, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all the spammishness from the article, which unfortunately was almost all of the article. Ambivalent, but tending towards delete; the two news reports linked are local and don't really seem to justify being treated as "significant" coverage. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:42, 12 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage for a WP:WEB-based WP:COMPANY. A couple of quotes from the CEO in a local business journal (Baltimore Business Journal) is not convincing me; a 39-word blurb in the Daily Record (Maryland) even less. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Significant coverage: Baltimore Business Journal July 29, 2011, Citypeek forms partnership with Meetlocalbiz.com. Other coverage: Patty newman was interviewed on WBAL-TV about the website on January 13, 2007: "Sarah: So tell us more about your website. Obviously there are a lot of people that don have tickets today. Patty: And want to watch it at a place that's alive. well, that's exactly what citypeek is. It's a peak, a glance at some of the best in town, so many places give you a thousand places to look for the best bar, the best deal. Citypeek sifts through all that. Restaurants attractions and shopping." There's a mention in Baltimore Sun May 16, 2009" "Patti Neumann, who runs Baltimore's CityPeek entertainment Web site, disagrees." There's a mention in Baltimore Sun July 4, 2009: "says Neumann, founder of CityPeek, a tourism Web site" Another mention, Washington Business Journal June 10, 2011: "The news was first reported Friday by CityPeek Baltimore, a local hospitality and tourism website." A last mention in States News Service September 28, 2011: "Free Fall Baltimore is made possible by presenting sponsor ... CityPeek." Maybe one more significant coverage and the topic may meet WP:GNG. ~~Until then, delete.~~ -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just noticed Northamerica1000's Daily Record December 28, 2005 significant coverage link above. Along with Baltimore Business Journal July 29, 2011 and the other coverage, there's enough source information for the article per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semo-tri-team[edit]

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

fails WP:N Go Phightins! (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails notability Righteousskills (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Decay[edit]

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

Not notable. Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources (only ref is self-published). Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable as there are multiple reviews from reliable sources: Pitchfork Media [37], Tiny Mix Tapes [38], CMJ [39], and a couple I'm less sure of : iTunes[40] (do we value their in-hosue reviews?), Prefix [41] (appears legit, but I'm not sure). Per WP:BEFORE, the nominator should not have evaluated the article purely on its current state but should have searched for sources, though if the search was just made for the phrase "in decay" without the musician's name, it would be easy to miss those because of the false positives for such a common phrase. In the event that consensus disagrees to keep, this should at least be redirected to Com Truise. postdlf (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above sources and other reviews [42][43]; this release appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 05:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnet Folk Festival[edit]

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

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources (the only references are self-published). Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Went to http://google.com.au and searched. Found coverage in Mercury1, Mercury2, Mercury3 Tasmania's largest daily. ABC News covers it. More from ABC (Australian BC) here: [44] There is still more coverage here at the site of a local radio station linked to a network: ABC Hobart. Significant coverage here, and the site says all information on it is vetted:[45]. I think we have sufficient coverage in multiple reliable, third-party sources, and so the article meets WP:GNG. Churn and change (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the presence of significant coverage in The Mercury, Tasmania's largest newspaper, is good enough for me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep not only was it really easy to find significant coverage in The Mercury, I could readily find articles [46] on ABC which covers the festival each year. Sure this stub article needs some love, but in terms of establishing notability of the article this is readily proven. --Breno ^talk 11:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawing Nomination - restored previous version of article, that seems better. Mdann52 (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StarTeam[edit]

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

Appears to read like an advert, and is badly sourced. Mdann52 (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Borland has produced some worthy software so despite the bad writing I think it could stay and be rewritten, however, the apparent fact that it has achieved no mainstream coverage is a minus. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 22:10, 17 October 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This product was formerly sold by a different company, StarBase, before Borland bought them, and searching under StarBase gives a few more hits e.g.[47][48]. Borland have themselves been through several changes of ownership. That said, I'm still not 100% sure this is notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The viewpoint was more neutral in September 2012, before the edits by 213.83.74.60 (microfocus-internap-cpe.altohiway.com). However, the article has always lacked secondary sources. 85.131.104.149 (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That PR dude (or dudette) needs to be fired. Nobody is going to buy their shit after reading such a poorly structured and puffery-laden article. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Has 3 pages in this book: [49]. Also a half-page blurb here, but not that other notable product only have a similar amount of coverage there; for comparison ClearCase (right above it) has even less space allocated. Included a similar round-up of notable products here I found a review from 1997 (for version 2.1) in Infoworld here. Another review [50] in a featured round-up in PC Magazine in 2002. You can find more coverage in google books if you search for StarTeam and SCM. I seems to me the editors discussing above have put very little effort in WP:BEFORE. Tijfo098 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E Health Point[edit]

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

Advertisement Willrocks10 Speak to me 15:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changing to Keep, see below) Although this sounds like a worthy cause, I could not find significant independent coverage about this product or its parent company, Healthpoint Services India. --MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 3 October 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) 22:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found a source here. Is it good enough? Bearian (talk) 19:10, 16 October 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I went to http://www.google.co.in and searched. There is a mention in a WHO report. Following the citation there, I found in-depth coverage here. That source is an independent one, funded by Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, Rockefeller foundation, and others. There is more significant coverage, of an award for the group, at The Economic Times, which, looking at the top left corner of the website, is a publication of the Times of India, the country's largest English newspaper. There is more here, an entire article from Technology Review published by MIT, rather obviously credible. If we consider the Futon bias, and the fact that the group operates in a place where Internet penetration is low and hence reliable sources more likely to be offline or in the local language, I think there is little room to question significant coverage in multiple reliable, third-party sources, the criterion for WP:GNG. Churn and change (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my opinion to Keep based on the sources found by Churn and change. I have added both of them to the article and cleaned it up some. --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. that was an eyefull to read.. SarahStierch (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saalome Global[edit]

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

Non-notable corporation Orange Mike | Talk 01:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unable to find any significant mentions in reliable sources, either on the company, or the CEO. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 10:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - Do not Delete, Saalome Global has been fully verified and article is a work in progress. Any American company that was or still is involved in oil Exploration on the Mississippian Lime formation is considered monumental as it is the largest oil exploration project in US history [off topic person comments removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.112.241 (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Saalome Global - I am Kayden and I started added somethings to this article that may not have been able to be verified by online sources. This company does list proper sources and I will make sure to wait until publish certain facts when the kansas press releases are sent online. This article involves key people in United States oil that have yet to be posted on Wikipedia. I do agree with the above opinion that the original person who asked for deletion is not a credible person and has absolutely no knowledge of American History, Entrepreneurship, as well as Wiki Standard. I will be expanding on articles of T.Boone Pickens, and Creating one for Providence Energy Corporation who is headed by Mike Allen and his son Luke Allen as well As Jeff Crook and Orange Energy Consultants. These are key players in the American Economy and are relevant to the Obama Administration as well as the Pickens Plan. I can not be expected to do an article in 2 days and so please give me time, at least a few weeks. Orange mike seems to be very harsh and like I said I believe he abuses wiki standard. I have modified the article and will resubmit it in a month when the magazine goes on line, if it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaydenemalee (talk • contribs) 12:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

regurgitation of press releases is not "significant coverage by independent sources". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ORANGE MIKE I have read your page and please provide a response to me on a couple things. First, what gives you the right to ask for a page deletion when I have only started working on it. Second, what makes you think that your views of deletion are to be held supior over others when I think you spend all your time looking to delete pages. What is your opion on free information distribution and if the great encyclopedias of our time with held information like you do, it would be no different than burining books like the times of old. Do you think that just because you attend a bunch of classes you can be taken seriously. Please respond to your comments as well.......* I am considered to be toward the "deletionist" end of the inclusionist-deletionist spectrum, because I believe that many articles here (including not only new ones but many existing ones) are violations of our standards: how-to guides and game manuals, fan trivia, in-universe fiction summaries, obscure porn actor biographies, politician self-aggrandisement, memorials, original essays masquerading as scholarship, etc. When I say I am a bit of a deletionist, I mean that I hold articles here to higher standards of notability, verifiability, etc. than some other editors. (And yes, our servers are overloaded, and the problem's not getting any better.) I'd rather see fewer articles, better researched and better written. I am really glad to help other editors in any way I can, though; and please don't hesitate to contact me. Also, as the person said above what gives you the credibility and knowlege to say something lack notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaydenemalee (talk • contribs) 13:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The way to avoid deletion of your article is to show that the subject has coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. See WP:CORP. I guarantee that complaining that OrangeMike is a deletionist will do absolutely no good whatsoever. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no third party coverage found to indicate notability. current sources are merely primary source documentation to indicate existance of company. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ OK guys go ahead and delete this page if it really is wrong. I just spent a lot of time researching it and as far as notability, I think at least the CEO is considered notable. And I agree with Floquenbeam about complaining about Orange Mike. It is just he can not be taken seriously as an administrator because he is openly saying he tries to go outside of Wiki policy. As far a notability, at least the CEO has that. He is the CEO of at least 2 other national companies and a middle distance runner that can be proved online. How can I be expected to put all this in there in 2 days? What determines notability? I read Wiki policy before I started and was sure I followed procedure. I am sorry ok.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaydenemalee (talk • contribs) — Kaydenemalee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- you have already !voted above so i have struck your second one. Your claim about Dustin Croghan being notable would also require "significant coverage in independent reliable sources", and I am not seeing any coverage of him either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kayden, you don't seem to understand anything about how we work. My language which you quote with such indignation, is a full disclosure of my philosophical and strategic position, within the boundaries of Wikipedia policies and procedures, on the eternal debate among Wikipedians about how far we should stretch our limited resources. There is no "freedom of speech" right to use somebody else's resources to house a conglomeration of regurgitated press releases about a person and a company that might be notable someday maybe if things work out. I also note that Dustin Croghan himself wrote this article in the first place, in violation of our warnings about autobiography and conflict of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News found absolutely zero relevant results so it is probably too soon, considering the company started only a year ago. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero references, not even a press release. It's a real corporation.[51] The website is fantastic.[52] Very odd there is no press coverage. As for Croghan, I only found a Dustin D. Croghan of Douglas County, Nebraska reported in Omaha World-Herald, May 2, 2006, age 25, $500 fine for reckless driving. Saalome Global Croghan is from Kansas, not Nebraska, so there does not appear to be any source information on CEO Dustin Croghan. The topic does not meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - comment the rhetoric on the website is grand and vague and glorious; but the fact content is pretty low (apparently they also install burglar alarms). It's a testimony, though, to how slick Premium WordPress Themes templates can look when used well. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chartered Systems Integration[edit]

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

The company lacks significant secondary coverage as required under WP:GNG and also lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. No significant secondary-source coverage could be found in a search. Additionally I have doubts about the claims under the "awards" section: the company is said to have won Microsoft Developer Partner of the Year in 2008 and 2009 and was a runner-up in another category those same years. This listing of 2008 winners from Microsoft makes no mention of the company. I could be looking at the wrong set of awards, but I think this still fails the normal notability test. Batard0 (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:08, 4 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:21, 11 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After an extensive search with both Google News Zimbabwe and US and searching with terms "Zimbabwe", "2007" and "company", I found one but minor result. However, when I started searching with "1st Runner-Up ICT Company of the Year 2011", I found this and this which also supports the "Top Web Developer of the Year" claim. At the second link, one of the comments by a "Mukuru Mukuru" (obviously affiliated with the company) claims the company won "Microsoft Developer Partner of the Year 2008/2009" but, of course, citing a user's comment would be unreliable. Aside from the two links I found above, the other information seems to be supported by the company's claims therefore primary. It is possible that additional sources may not be English, but I doubt it, African countries and companies will use English to conduct business, especially with technology. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mobility education[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability. A passing mention in a Seattle P-I editorial [53] is the only coverage I could find in Questia, HighBeam, Gale, and ProQuest. Here is brief mention in a local blog. What's lacking is sustained coverage in major news media, or books and journals, where Mobility Education is the main subject. Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:44, 4 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:18, 11 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an interesting one, the content would appear to be significant for driving itself but I have found few sources for the foundation or proposal so I'm inclined to delete. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unanimous Wily D 06:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-N Technologies[edit]

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

Non-notable company, nearly all of the current references are primary or insufficient. Nearly all of the results that Google News found are press releases with two non-English links, but they (the non-English links) appear to be insufficient. Unfortunately, Google News archives also provided press releases. The best source I have found is this D Magazine article, mentioning information that is currently displayed, the 1996 establishment, 2007 award, and something new, "Alt-N’s server is now the fifth most-used in the world" which may be notable, but this appears to be the only useful source. Google Books found one small mention here and two mentions through another book here. A possibility is redirecting the article to their product, MDaemon.

However, Google News results for MDaemon also show press releases. Google News archives for the product revealed one useful source here and the other results are non-English so I wouldn't know how useful those are. Although it appeared that MDaemon was a popular product, I have found more press releases than useful sources so both Alt-N and MDaemon may be non-notable. Any thoughts? SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried a google search using "MDaemon review" and a variety of non press release articles came up. A glanced at articles from BerryReview.com, ZDNet.com, ServerWatch.com, and messagingnews.com. I didn't look past the first page of results. The company used to be a subsidiary of Research in Motion, and the article used to redirect to the RIM page with a section about it, so that in itself seems fairly notable. -Dwimble (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 5 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:17, 11 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There aren't enough sources to even write a proper history of the company. The products, obscure as they are, have their own pages. I've nominated RelayFax for deletion as well, by the way. MDaemon looks like it ekes by the notability guideline. Most reviews are ancient though; and it looks like the company which sold it initially was called http://deerfield.com. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did another quick search and found a few sources about the founder and a video interview specifically about MDaemon. They also discuss the company somewhat. Again, I didn't try to go past the first or second page of the search results...I assume there would be more after a more thorough search: D Magazine, InfoWorld, and World Business Review. -Dwimble (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you check out World Business Review? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Their Alt-N Technologies name appears in 200+ news articles, a first one being Dallas Morning News May 13, 1999, where Alt-N Technologies either won or donated $25,000 towards being "a business that demonstrates outstanding leadership in conservation." Their October 1999 move to Arlington, Texas was covered in the news. Between 1999 and 2009, it's mostly press releases. Network World March 9, 2009 might not be a press release. Their October 2012 move of their headquarters was mentioned in Fort Worth Star-Telegram October 15, 2012. The topic does not meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right about the Network World (March 2009) article. But it's yet another review of their main product, MDaemon (I've added it there.) The main problem here is that this company is basically a one-trick pony as far as WP:Notable products go. Without substantive independent coverage about the company itself, it's hard to justify two wiki pages. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout 23:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mor Sæther[edit]

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

No sources, also does not meet notability requirements. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree there are no sources at the moment but WP:BEFORE probably applies here as this looks to be a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem:

This book has a section on the subject in Chapter 2 (though Google Books is not letting me link directly to the pages in question)
This document from local county archives is about the subject almost entirely (in Swedish).
This is from the "Norwegian Encyclopaedia" though I wouldn't know enough about the source to arbitrarily proclaim it "reliable".

On balance, I would be inclined to think the subject probably does (perhaps just) meet notability guidelines, though I agree the article could do with some work. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the source Fylke commune archive (Norwegian, not Swedish, actually) is certainly reliable, and it provides both a history and the text of the poem by Henrik Wergeland about Mor Sæther, so I guess that's 2 sources we can rely on. Store Norske Leksikon ("Great Norwegian Dictionary") seems to be also a good and serious source; it is actually the short version, as there's an Utdypning (further...) which names additional sources:
- K. Haugholt: “Mor Sæther”, i St. Hallvard 1958, s. 270–287
- O. Bø: Folkemedisin og lærd medisin, 1973
- P. Holck: Norsk folkemedisin, 1996

as well as mentioning the use of parish archives and identifying portraits (a lithograph by Gottlief Friedrich Fehr on page 181 of Holck's book). So I think we have more than enough to clear WP:GNG and indeed we should be able to make a really nice article out of it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - and thank you for picking up my language mistake - not sure how I managed to do that given the subject. Ha ha. Stalwart111 (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for locating the key sources. I've cleaned up the article a bit. Someone needs to get hold of the books and add some page refs but it'll do for now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the significant mentions of the subject in the sources highlighted above. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 10:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It needs to be developed, but that it in line with the policy of Wikipedia, were articles are worked on all the time - and the subject are notable, as she is the perhaps most well known within her category in Norwegian history--Aciram (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although needs cleanup, translation etc. Geschichte (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now has multiple references to reliable sources; the Store Norske Leksikon alone usually indicates notability, and she has been discussed in several works besides being the subject of a notable literary reference. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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