Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 29 November 1 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 04:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Adyashanti

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

Delete, unreferenced BLP, no reliable sources, notability not established Yworo ( talk) 23:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Great, go ahead and source the article with those. Yworo ( talk) 22:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
On second thought, not all of those are reliable sources:
  1. Not independent, affiliated with subject "It was then that I met my teacher Adyashanti".
  2. This is an advert in Tricycle, not an article.
  3. Awake Publishing appears to be affiliated with the subject. See their website.
  4. This appears to be a valid source, though it's an interview.
  5. This source also looks good.
  6. AuthorHouse is a self-publishing service, not a reliable source.
  7. This source looks good.
  8. This source also looks good.
  9. Publisher is self-publisher eBookIt.com, not a reliable source.
Looks like not nine, but four usable sources: 4, 5, 7 & 8. Yworo ( talk) 22:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
My vote is the same. I also found this interview. I won't add the sources to the article because I am personally not interested in the subject and they shouldn't be all external links. I can try to save the article from deletion though. SL93 ( talk) 22:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Here is another interview in Tricycle. SL93 ( talk) 22:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Sun Magazine. SL93 ( talk) 22:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G6 by Fastily (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 06:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply

CategoryMedusozoan stubs

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

page created in error bondolo ( talk) 23:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete per G6. Tagged accordingly. I guess this AfD also means G7 applies. — KuyaBriBri Talk 23:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Excellent keep argument evidencing that the subject meets a SNG. I considers relisting as this is unsourced but there is no evidence in the nomination that a through search for sources failed to turn any up. If you nominate an article for deletion its best practise to look for sources before running the AFD, Spartaz Humbug! 04:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Arthur Iberall

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

No reliable sources. Notability unverified. Joja lozzo 23:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has an h-index of 14 based on a GS analysis, which itself would call for a keep. But most importantly, is a co-author on the 1978 article “Homeokinetics: A Physical Science for Complex Systems”, which seems like a seminal article on homeokinets; this may actually be the founding article on the topic. The term “homeokinetics” itself has over 7,500 citations on GS.-- Eric Yurken ( talk) 20:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, withdrawn, NAC.  Chzz   ►  01:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Melissa Monet

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

Non-notable porn actress and director. A few times nominated for awards, but she never won them. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the articles found appear to support the building's notability. ( non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Camden County Library

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

Non-notable library. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose Deletion/Keep I have added the information - with two references from two different news organizations - that it holds one of the largest book sales in South Jersey on a regular basis. Allens ( talk) 23:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Oppose Deletion Libraries, particularly groups of libraries such as this one, are pillars of their communities - I've just done a rudimentary Google search and found major articles like this one which show evidence of good coverage. Obviously, stuff like this needs to be added to the article quickly! Sionk ( talk) 00:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Done; thanks for finding the reference! Allens ( talk) 01:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Multiple published sources showing in footnotes, passes GNG. Libraries are civil centers of sorts and they are the sorts of community institutions about which Wikipedia users are likely to seek information. This article is weak, but it's a start. Carrite ( talk) 07:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    • The library still fails to make clear what makes in notable among other libraries. Having a book sale is not something special, I have seen that in several countries. Lending books and related materials is the core business, so that does not make them notable too. Libraries are very PR-sensitive, so you can probably find newsstories about every library in the world. Night of the Big Wind talk 10:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Umm... what about what Sionk found (and amplified in the article when I'd missed it)? That isn't simply a book sale (and people in South Jersey would probably like to have the book sale in Wikipedia for their reference!). Moreover, pretty much every college and university is considered notable for Wikipedia - it isn't necessary that a college or university be different than every college and university for it to be listed; the same is true of towns (try doing a few "Random article" clicks sometime and see how many tiny French communes you come across... down to 10 people!); so why not libraries? WP:GNG doesn't list relative notability as a requirement. Allens ( talk) 12:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
        • I agree with you that not every secondary school, seagoing vessel or university is automatically notable. Vested interests (Wikiprojects!!) declare the most strange non-notable subjects notable. I do not agree with that nasty habit and stick to the rule that every article/subject should be judged on its own merits. Based on that, and with working experience in the public library sector, I have found the library just an average library with nothing special and non-notable. Night of the Big Wind talk 13:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 04:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Volopt

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

non notable web portal/search engine. All non reliable sources except wired. Wired does not mention volopt Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply


Thank you everybody for your notes The website is newly born, how can we still inform about its existence without violating Wikipedia's rules? please advice to edit accordingly, thank you Ghoroob ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC). reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Subject meets criteria generally accepted notability standards for sports persons. ( non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Regina Mader

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

Disputed PROD ; "I see no coverage in WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE, google shows 5 hits, all passing mentions; can't see how we can have a separate article per WP:BIO, and presumption in favour of privacy." - removed with ES "per Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Notability_guidelines_on_sports_persons" which says, "An athlete is presumed notable if the person has actively participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics, and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (my bold)  Chzz   ►  21:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Keep firstly, a note on etiquette: if you are going to quote my edit summary, please either quote it in full or indicate that you have only taken a small part of it. When nominating an article for AfD, please also actually read the policies to which you refer, rather than just reading the nutshell, which is from where you grabbed the quote "An athlete is presumed notable if the person has actively participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics, and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I did not link you to the nutshell, I linked you to:
Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Notability guidelines on sports persons
Which clearly states that:

"Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they:

  1. have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics.
  2. meet any of the qualifications in one of the sports specific sections below."
Please note that skiers do not have a specific section. Since Regina Mader participated in the 2010 Olympics in the Ladies' Downhill Ski, as shown by the source ( webarchive) provided in the article, she therefore meets the first requirement of the policy regarding notability guidelines on sports persons. She is therefore notable under policy.
It should be noted that nutshells of policies are to give a brief idea of the gist of the policy and should not be relied upon for actual specific application. (e.g. AfD)
Regardless of this, she has received coverage in multiple sources. A google search for her name (in double quotes) returns many hits, some of which are more than passing mentions, such as [13] and [14]. I politely request that the filer, in the interest of the project, makes more of an effort to find sources (and read policy) when filing an AfD, especially if his PROD has already been contested. Saying that a google search only "returned 5 hits" is firstly an invalid deletion argument and secondly an invalid statement.
Spitfire Tally-ho! 21:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Apologies for not quoting the entirety of the edit-summary; I thought that the link would suffice. What I am quoting is, the "nutshell" of the SNG, which states, "An athlete is presumed notable if the person has actively participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics, and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (again, my bold) and GNG, Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. - sorry, I did truncate that, the full guideline is of course WP:GNG. - Hope that helps clarify.  Chzz   ►  22:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
I know you only quoted from the nutshell; I addressed this in my comment above, which I invite you to read. As I said above, the nutshell aims to merely give a brief idea of the gist of the policy and should not be relied upon for actual specific application. For application you should instead actually refer to the text of the policy, which makes it clear that sports figures are presumed notable if they have participated in the Olympics, as demonstrated by the link I gave you: Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Notability guidelines on sports persons and as demonstrated in my comment above. Furthermore, quoting policy without explaining its relevance does not support your argument: for instance, you quote the GNG, however, proving that something does not meet the GNG (which you haven't proved) does not prove that the topic is not notable: it may still be considered notable under other topic-specific polices such as WP:ATHLETE. Please try to actually address the points I am making, rather than just wildly quoting irrelevant policies without providing any reasoning. Best wishes, Spitfire Tally-ho! 22:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Participation in the Olympics is sufficient, as much so as playing in one Major League Baseball inning. Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Olympians are always notable per consensus. A downhill skiing competitor - who will usually have spent years competing in national and international competitions beforehand in order to qualify - is more likely to be truly notable than some guy who played one inning of major league ball. -- NellieBly ( talk) 23:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Could you please explain that in terms of WP:ATHLETE? Thanks.  Chzz   ►  01:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:ATHLETE#Generally acceptable standards. Look at all the bluelinked Swedes who finished out of the medals in the Tug of war at the 1908 Summer Olympics! Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - As having competed at the highest level of her sport with participation in the Olympics, FIS World Championships, and about 60 races on the World Cup circuit. And as for coverage, [15], [16], [17] are some examples. -- Whpq ( talk) 16:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    Aha, thanks for finding those. Google news-search often fails to show articles in other languages, unfortunately. I cannot speak the language, so can someone confirm if they're reliable sources? If they are, I'll happily withdraw this request; my concern was the lack of apparent coverage. (Of course, it would be even better if the sources could be added to the article)  Chzz   ►  17:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Olympic skier with 26 ISF Top 3 finishes from 2003 to 2011. Ref added to article at nom's request.  The Steve  02:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of schools in Charlotte, North Carolina#Private schools. ( non-admin closure) jcgoble3 ( talk) 00:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Trinity Episcopal School

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

Promotional article about a church-related independent elementary school. It teaches kindergarten through eighth grade, and such elementary schools are typically not kept in AFDs, getting deleted or merged or redirected to their parent organizations. It is not clear what that merge target would be. Found only directory listings at Google Books, and typical local coverage of open houses etc at the local paper, the Charlotte Observer. Someone with access might check if any of the news items behind paywall have any other coverage which would support notability. Edison ( talk) 21:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lenticel ( talk) 06:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Coke Zero Facial Profiler

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

This article appears to have been created - by a user account with no other edits - for the sole purpose of promoting a (relatively non-notable) Facebook application. It has limited content and no significant edits in well over a year. It thus appears to contravene Wikipedia's guidelines on spam and notability (specifically, recentism). Robin S ( talk) 21:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment: I've just noticed that the result of the previous AfD (two years ago) was delete, yet the article still exists. What? Robin S ( talk) 21:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep. It is completely irrelevant which editors created or contributed to the article or why they did it. Everyone here is anonymous anyway unless they voluntarily disclose their real-life identity. What does matter is notability WP:N, which requires reliable sources WP:RS: If the sources exist, the topic is notable, no matter how much you dislike it. And as Alessandra argues, sources don't get much better than the NY Times and The Wall Street Journal. Msnicki ( talk) 22:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: While reliable sources exist, this alone does not guarantee notability. I would argue that the cited coverage of this application falls under "routine reporting". The subject of the article fails pretty much every criterion for notability on the Notability (events) page: it was a temporary event, with limited if any long-term consequences, which received no news coverage beyond the immediate aftermath of release - and what coverage it did receive could hardly be called in-depth in the sense described on that page. Robin S ( talk) 03:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
When you make it into the WSJ and the NYT with stories having bylines by actual human being reporters, it's not routine coverage anymore. They weren't just reprinting press releases; they wrote their own stories. Under the guidelines, that's significant coverage. Msnicki ( talk) 03:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Software packages are not ordinarily considered to be events for notability purposes. Alternatively, we could consider the release as an event with a very significant enduring significance: the software was actively used by large numbers of people well after the "event". Most software, even packages we consider notable, will never receive significant coverage in extremely high-profile media, instead being relegated to computer-specific literature. When's the last time you read a detailed exposé about fsck in The New York Times? Being covered in sources such as The Wall Street Journal blows this software right out of the notability park. Alessandra Napolitano ( talk) 03:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Selena albums discography. Spartaz Humbug! 18:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Mis Primeras Grabaciones

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

Sources are a fansite, Yahoo, Amazon and answers.com. I couldn't find any non-trivial sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Tom Morris ( talk) 08:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose largely because it is notable. The album can be expanded similar to Selena Live!, I haven't gotten that far down the line with expanding as I'm currently working on Ven Conmigo. Furthermore, even though the album never impacted any music chart nor did RIAA issued a certification, her singles had extensive airplay in South Texas (while ineligible for the Hot 100) and were issued out as promotional singles. I support the mass redirect of her non-solo career singles but not her albums that helped shaped her in the Tejano market and to be noticed. Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 14:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
This source and these states that the album was one of the early milestones of her career, though its not enough to say that it is anywhere notable in Wikipedia as a stand-alone article. However, this source says that the album did not sell well and gives genres the band used to record the album. The album is mentioned in the book called The encyclopedia of popular music. It was given a three out of five star rating by Allmusic. If these are still not enough to save this article then I'll vote to redirect the article to Selena albums discography. Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 21:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
While it does have stars from Allmusic, that means bupkis since they didn't bother to write a review. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Then a redirect would be best in my opinion. Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 00:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Which is acceptable, since unlike one of her other albums, the existence of this one is verifiable if not its notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 04:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Cobra (programming language from Squeaky Duck)

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

Lack of notability. The tag of notability has existed since December 2009. I searched for sources but I found none. Previous nomination happened in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cobra (programming language) (the article has been moved). Ricvelozo ( talk) 20:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Zilch on the 3rd party front. Shame, as it sounds like an interesting language for a rather different market from usual, but without some coverage elsewhere, WP is not an appropriate location for first publishing. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 04:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Strictly Come Dancing Celebrity Averages

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

Completely redundant article; as far as I can see, it is only a restating of some of the information on the List of Strictly Come Dancing contestants. Cwmxii ( talk) 20:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Still_Game#Series_1_.282002.29. v/r - T P 04:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Cauld

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

Non notable individual episode, all plot, no references. If this goes through, I will likley nominate the other episodes being created. Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — AllyD ( talk) 23:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 02:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Charlie (Charles) Jones

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

fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu ( talk) 20:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A promising junior but does not meet inclusion at this time. Good luck on his career and no prejudice to recreation if he progresses to the point where inclusion is met. -- Whpq ( talk) 16:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Only some national level junior results. Has an empty player record on the ATP Tour site. Fails notability at this moment. MakeSense64 ( talk) 07:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The person creating the page is named Jonesy512... maybe the player in question? It's the only edit by this person so they may not realize the protocol at wikipedia. I can find nothing that would indicate notoriety for tennis at ATP or ITF sites. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 02:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

5 Hour Energy - Potential Health Risk

5 Hour Energy - Potential Health Risk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is overly specific for an encyclopedia topic and as a non-notable subject does not meet criteria in the guideline WP:GNG. Most of the content is either redundant to content in other articles (such as the articles for each ingredient listed) or the content would be better merged into those articles. Peacock ( talk) 19:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 by Fastily (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://letsbefamous.com/1160/difference-between-press-release-and-article/). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 21:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

What is difference between article submission and press release submission?

What is difference between article submission and press release submission? (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR WP:ESSAY Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Nation19

Nation19 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CSDed. Recreated. CSDed again . removed by anonymous user (sockpuppet based on history). Non notable. Advert. Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 02:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Motorized recliner incident

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

This article discussess a single incident and has no enduring enduring historical significance or a significant lasting effect. Coverage is not in-depth or of relevance outside where it occured. Incident was widely reported internationally as light news trivia. See also Wikipedia:EVENT and Wikipedia:WIDESPREAD#Don.27t_create_an_article_on_a_news_story_covered_in_109_newspapers Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 01:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Keep It had coverage in newspapers in countries all over the world, January through November of 2009. It went beyond a watercooler story which numerous paper covered in one news cycle. It is comparable to the story of Larry Walters flying to great heights in a lawnchair lifted by weather balloons. Edison ( talk) 02:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
comment There's no question of coverage, but enduring significance / notability is another issue. There is equivalent coverage on many similar incidents (google 'motorised drink driving') - including bar stools, beer coolers and wheelchairs. Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 02:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
If articles were determined to be non-notable because similar subjects with equivalent coverage in RS exist, we wouldn't have many left. Besides, nearly a year of international coverage in RS is enduring, by any reasonable definition of the term. Which of your similar incidents have achieved this level of notoriety'? Alessandra Napolitano ( talk) 04:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
While coverage appears to have lasted Nov-april, international coverage was limited to mentioning the incident. The article itself refers to an almost identical case (Kile Wygle). More noteworthy cases could (in terms of media and as legal test cases) can be found at [ [22]] (note title 'another') and [ [23]] Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 04:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Edison. Also, this incident was described in a law review article [24]. Alessandra Napolitano ( talk) 02:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT WP:EVENT twaddle, a stupid human-interest story one finds at the end of their local news alongside heartwarming stories of the dog that can bark Ode to Joy or the 90 year old farmer still on the job. Tarc ( talk) 05:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    Comment Maybe we should have articles on the other two topics you mentioned. Good suggestions. Edison ( talk) 16:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    Thankfully (for the project's sake) I made them up. Tarc ( talk) 16:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    You're effectively arguing that the article should be deleted because you find it to be "twaddle" and "a stupid human-interest story". This is a classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, festooned with irrelevant policies. Invoking WP:ONEEVENT is silly, since the article is about the event, not one of the participants. WP:NOTNEWS is a deprecated redirect, designed to draw attention to just this sort of misuse of a "potentially misleading shortcut". The actual policy title is "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". It allows "development of stand-alone articles on significant current events" but doesn't permit "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". Incidents receiving major international attention are seldom routine news reporting. Alessandra Napolitano ( talk) 17:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    Just because you have a bug up your backside against my position at WT:NOT doesn't mean you get to carry your snideness to other venues, so dial it back a bit, will you? As for WP:ONEEVENT, that was a mistake on my part, I meant to link to the main event notability guideline at WP:EVENT. There is not lasting effect of this incident, no wide-reaching effect. It is just one very ridiculous story that poppped into the news for a few days, everyone has a chuckle over it, and then it is swiftly forgotten. We get hundreds of these AfDs a year because some yahoo sees a funny headline and scrambles here to write an article about it, whether it is the woman who fell into a shopping mall fountain while texting or a news reporter seems to have a stroke while on-air. These sorts of things are always judged by WP:NOTNEWS standards and quickly deleted. My call to delete is based on a sound argument used many, many times in the past. If you disagree, fine, but try to contain your responses to the realm of the rational. Tarc ( talk) 17:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    So, your "sound argument" is to take a subject with months of coverage, as described by Edison, and counterfactually describe it as having "poppped into the news for a few days"? Your imploring me "to contain your responses to the realm of the rational" is deeply ironic. This AFD may ultimately involve a philosophically profound discussion of the nature of reality: is the chronological length of coverage an objective fact, or can it be transmuted according to one's desires, just by imagining it to be so? Alessandra Napolitano ( talk) 22:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    Amazing how many words you can use and not actually address what someone says. Recap; guy hooks up an engine to a la-z-boy, guy gets arrested, everyone enjoys the lulz. End of story. No lasting significance, no continued coverage. Just a dumb news blip and it is gone. Similarly trivial news-of-the-day junk has received far, far more coverage than this shit, and has been easily deleted. This one should be a no-brainer, but in the end it all depends on who shows up to weigh in. Tarc ( talk) 23:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I am not unsympathetic to the inclusionist position here, but I do not feel it is consistent with the notability guideline at hand. Because Edison mentioned Larry Walters in support of keeping this article, I think it's valuable to contrast the two situations. In both cases, someone converted a chair into something else (aircraft, car), got arrested, and had the story reported in a zillion newspapers. Walters' flight was "a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance" -- several plays, poems, songs, TV episodes, and a major studio motion picture were based off the event; the event under discussion has not been such a catalyst. Interest in and reporting on Walters' action was diverse and sustained, including requests for late-night talk show appearances, efforts by the Smithsonian to acquire his chair, an advertising campaign with Rolex, and follow-up reports years later including coverage of his eventual suicide in People; in contrast, coverage on this event has been much narrower -- the event happened, the chair was auctioned off, and La-Z-Boy objected to copyright dilution in the media. It is conceivable that this event will in time meet the expectations in the guidelines, but at this time it is more akin to one of the "and finally" stories deemed likely not notable by the guideline. As a separate response to one other supporting claim, the FindLaw Blotter blog entry linked by Alessandra Napolitano might be a reliable source (although I am uncertain), but it is certainly not what is normally contemplated as a law review article. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 20:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I am extremely unsympathetic to the inclusionist position here. Fleeting coverage, classic not a newspaper stuff. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 20:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This incident may have been newsworthy a couple of years ago, but it is not sufficiently notable to be a suitable encyclopedia topic. Peacock ( talk) 21:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The deletion argument here is blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Claims that topics have to have lasting historical significance are hand-waving prejudice because many/most topics are just not that important. Clicking random article a few times we have Travis Lee (wrestler), Oxnard Elementary School District, Izzy Lang. It's only after getting through mundane stuff like that that we come to a timeless topic like structural rigidity and such topics are a fraction of our content. So, to pick on the recliner incident just because it seems wacky is contrary to core policy. The incident has had international coverage and has made it into at least one book. Notability does not expire and so this topic passes the notability guideline. Warden ( talk) 23:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and that none of those listed articles have the same difficulties with the terms of the event notability guideline) aside, the linked book is published by well-known print-on-demand publisher PublishAmerica and thus does not constitute a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 23:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
"Other stuff exists" refers to the argument that because there are some articles that are equally problematic as the one at AFD, the latter should be retained. If accepted, this line of reasoning would obstruct the AFD process, since there are always bad articles that we haven't gotten around to disposing of yet. However, when someone proposes to delete an article in part for reasons that, if accepted, would eliminate about 95% of Wikipedia articles (no great historical significance), that's a problem, since any attempt to start a massive article burning would quickly be quashed by overwhelming consensus. The enduring significance test in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER may be crystal balling going forward, but it's an objective metric when evaluated retrospectively - either coverage of the event died out quickly, or it didn't. When reliable sources are still covering an event months later, we have enduring significance. Thus it is for the motorized recliner incident: significant coverage in reliable sources started in January 2009, and ended December 2009. Establishing notability has never required coverage of events to continue indefinitely. Arguments to the effect of "this is trivial crap, fsck it" aren't sufficient to show non-notability; AFD is not a venue in which to evaluate subjects against our own tastes. Alessandra Napolitano ( talk) 02:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • WP:Other stuff exists states that "a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain.". Historical significance is not a logical test for recent events because we are unable to predict what will be thought historically significant in years to come. Warden ( talk) 10:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The metrics I'm applying here don't apply to 95% of articles, nor my personal tastes, only to those discussed in WP:EVENT, under the Inclusion Criteria, where "lasting, historical significance" is cited explicitly as one of the criteria that should be evaluated to distinguish news stories from encyclopedic topics. As a matter of personal policy, I cleave especially tightly to the guideline's inclusion factors when considering events involving a single primary actor whose biographical article would be discourged by WP:BLP1E. On the subject of dates, I haven't had the chance to look into the conflict, but the October 2009 date given in the article lede seems in conflict with January 2009 sourcing. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 14:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I think that was a transcription error in that source: 23/01 rather than 23/10. It seems that the event occurred in August 2008. The story broke in October 2009 when the matter came to trial. It was still being reported the following April 2010 when police were trying to auction off the recliner again. It fetched $3700.

    It's moving me to address this issue over and over and I really would like this issue to be over with, because I have other things to take care of in the community

    — Chief Walter Wobig of the Proctor Police Department
    . Sounds like the chief felt that this matter dragged on for some time. Warden ( talk) 15:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 02:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

20 Avenue

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

Not a significant street in the borough of Brooklyn. There is absolutely no need to have this article. An IP user who lives in the area removed a speedy deletion template from the article for no apparent reason The Legendary Ranger ( talk) 00:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Well those pages will eventually become articles on here. Tinton5 ( talk) 21:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete: This street is not notable; it has no significant coverage to warrant an article. Acps110 ( talk • contribs) 21:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep. Notable street but could use expansion. Tinton5 ( talk) 21:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete - Just one of many numbered streets in Brooklyn. Dough 48 72 01:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Subways are not built on random streets, nor are subway stations so located. They're built where there's an important concentration of commerce (or sometimes, center of a residential area); if they are not so originally, they are consciously intended and planned to develop into one. Why does it happen that the most important cross streets in Manhattan have subway stops? Mere serendipity? Same goes for Brooklyn. The argument that we don't have articles on many of them is a good indication of our incompleteness--there's still plenty of scope for new editors. Such articles can all be developed beyond one or two lines: there's the subway planning--there's the subsequent development of the area. Most subway history includes discussion about individual stations. The nearest analogy is local rural railroad stations, which played exactly the same role in the previous century. Whether we want to go into streets in more detail than that I leave for further discussion, but it's odd to see an argument that we should seriously consider whether we want to make articles on something reasonably notable , because someone might want to make articles on something less notable of the same general type. As far as I can tell the evidence that "it was created by someone who just lives there and wanted his street in Wikipedia" is non-existent. (And the ip who removed the deletion tag removed a prod, not a speedy.) By the way, nobody notified the creator--I just did, belatedly, and I think that;s enough justification for a relisting. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Transnational progressivism

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

Really an attack page, but deserves full AfD discussion of this obscure ideological ax-grinding non-notable term, "sourced" (if we can call it that) to its coiner, a non-notable political writer, and a couple of science fiction writers who like to use a slang version of this term as an obscure pejorative. Orange Mike | Talk 21:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, I think. The current condition of the page notwithstanding, there do seem to be third-party authors discussing Forte's concept, including a fairly brief mention in this European Law Journal paper and somewhat more commentary here in Science and Society. There are also several books not authored by Forte that devote some space to the topic. Most, admittedly, are essay compilations that include Forte's work directly, but there are exceptions such as this one, where the section in question is authored by Ilya Prizel. There's also this book, but I suspect it's actually talking about something different. Someone more familiar with this material than I am may wish to ensure that this third-party commentary is independent of the Hudson Institute rather than simply written by someone other than Forte, but on its face, it looks like there could be an article here (although it wouldn't much look like the current one). Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 21:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Fonte's concept is notable, being covered in multiple sources. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden ( talk) 00:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, third party secondary sources discuss the subject. — Cirt ( talk) 03:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep good article with sources to back it up. Askadaleia ( talk) 09:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    • reply Really? Where? The only footnotes are to Fonte's own work (two works, one footnoted in two different editions, the other appearing in a publication of rather partisan reputation)! Where does the non-notable Fonte get to create his own diagnosis of an ideology, then smear it all over anybody he disagrees with, like rubbing your own feces in an enemy's face? -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Despite previous claims of "third party secondary sources", the only given sources are, as OrangeMike points out, from the works of the person who supposedly coined the term. How is that "third party" or "secondary"? The sources cited by Squeamish Ossifrage make only brief mention of the topic. There does not appear to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources.-- JayJasper ( talk) 19:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Prizel has a couple of pages on the topic (and could replace many of the direct citations to Fonte). Science and Society is a relatively weak journal, but Harris provides some comparative analysis there, which is important to article development. There's also some coverage in articles in Anthropoetics, the Australian Journal of Politics and History, the Journal of Social Sciences, the Journal of Studies in International Education, the Review of International Studies, the RUSI Journal, and Society. Many of these mentions are trivial; some are less so. Regardless, I think there are enough sources out there to rewrite the sad excuse for an article that we've got now into something with actual commentary and criticism. I'd rather not be the one to do it, as I have my own opinions about the quality of Fonte's scholarship and try to avoid editing in areas where I possess a recognizable bias. But there really is quite a bit of material out there. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 20:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Lee Kwang-sik

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

Formerly PRODded as "Unintelligible machine translation": PROD removed with no explanation, no appreciable improvement to quality of text. Pam D 18:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that sources found provide evidence of notability. ( non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

The American Monomyth

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

This article does not state notability. I did a quick Google search on the article to see if I could find any sources and I couldn't. I would contact the initial editor before tagging but they have no edits since 2007 and there is a notice on their userpage saying they have retired. I therfore think that this article should be deleted on notability grounds. Oddbodz ( talk) 17:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 00:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)*Keep but those supporting a rescue should actually provide inline citations, rather than telling the rest of us how it can be done. reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Phantom automation language

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

Software which exists and perhaps was important, but fails WP:N for lack of reliable sources. The article has always been unreferenced. The previous Afd produced some external links – which show it exists – but aren't usable as sources and shouldn't even be kept as links. Pnm ( talk) 05:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui ( talk) 17:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explorations in Afro-Cuban dance and drum

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Gabriel R. G. Benito

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Only thing marginally notable is his 2005 presidency of EIBA, but I intend to nominate that for deletion as well. Don't see it as a "prestigious scholarly ... association". Bbb23 ( talk) 02:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep co-editor of two books, and probably meets WP:AUTHOR as well as, WP:PROF. In particular , co-editor of Progress in international business research, a series co-published by OUP and Elsevier. Multinationals on the periphery was published by another major publisher, Palgrave/Macmillan/. (for WP:Author alone, reviews would be needed) But several dozen published papers, & a dozen working papers. The reason for keeping is not the count of papers, but the citations, which show notability the way it should be shown for academics, by the citing of his work by hundreds of other scholars which establishes him as an expert in his field. "The expansion of foreign direct investments: discrete rational location choices or a cultural learning process?" in Journal of International Business Studies, 1992 had 319 citation in G Scholar. "Foreign market servicing: beyond choice of entry mode" in Journal of International Marketing, 1994, had 160. After that the counts are 145, 118, 113, 67.... Normally, anyone who manages to publish even one peer-reviewed paper with 100 citations is notable; he has published 5. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui ( talk) 17:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 17:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Seapunk

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

A neologism that doesn't seem to have wide currency. No reliable sources to show this is a widespread term. Prod was contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse ( talk) 06:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Man i just started doing this and i have no idea how to do citations. This might not be a widespread term in your everyday use, but it is in mine and my community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinospartan117 ( talk • contribs)

This discussion runs for seven days, so you have time to find the citations. The best place to start is by reading through Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, guidelines on reliable sources and guidelines on citing sources. Best, Sparthorse ( talk) 07:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or userfy. This is a very, very recently coined term and as such, doesn't have anything that would be considered a reliable source. In response to Dinospartan117, a term, person, place, or item might be considered notable within a group of people, but that doesn't automatically mean it's notable enough to go onto Wikipedia. What's needed to prove notability are reliable sources. (See WP:RS for what's considered a reliable source.) Unfortunately I didn't find that when I did a search on this term. I found some blogs, youtube videos, and sources that would be considered trivial at best, but I didn't find anything reliable. A reliable source would be if Rolling Stone did an article on seapunk or if it was covered in a news article. That said, I think that it might be worth userfying ( WP:USERFY) until Dinospartan117 can find enough reliable sources to flesh the term out. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 07:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79 reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Jyotikalash

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

non notable neologism. Prod declined without explanation by the same ip who restored this lovely piece of fluff [30] Jac16888 Talk 18:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie ( talk) 14:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie ( talk) 14:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article but an essay on a Hindu or Sanskrit word or maybe name. The essay doesn't even explain what the word means ("light pot" doesn't really help), and I didn't manage to find out elsewhere. Delete without prejudice against recreation as a proper article in case someone knows more and wants to impart actual information about the topic. At that point we can still examine notability. Hans Adler 16:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I am no wiser after reading this article. Is this about a Hindi word? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If it's about something else, I cannot fathom what it may be. -- Whpq ( talk) 20:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - ~Laughs~ I am really stunned by the ingenuity of the Indians (pats himself) who are using the lack of familiarity of the westerners regarding Hindi to create an article about a so-called "Stress-remover and success provider website".Firstly it reeks of WP:PEACOCK.Secondly Jyoti-->means "Light"(of maybe knowledge or good action) & Kalash-->means "Pot".Now the point is that ancient sages/ Rishi/ऋषि had dedicated their lives in the search for ultimate knowledge,for which they traveled and meditated in the harsh sub-zero weather of the Himalayas(I dont have reliable source for this).Thus they were objects of general awe.These sages also carried a pot (of clay or metal) to carry water(for what I dont know).Now whenever a disciple bowed in front of them ,as a mark of blessing they used to sprinkle water from this pot on them.People assumed that this water enlightened them, brought peace to their life.This water is also known as "Shanti Jal" /(water of peace).It is from here the whole concept of neo-something and jyoti-kalash came into being.
    Now coming back to the article.This article is actually for a website of the same name and the main subtle need of this article is advertising.For me the lack of sources lead to failure of WP:VERIFY and particularly this article fails WP:GNG.P.S:Sorry for my long explanation ,but I just love drama. Vivekananda De --tAlK 10:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep : I have done major edits to page. Removed copyright text. Added cat. Please note that there is a Category:Given names by culture [31] and I have added Cat Category:Hindu given names accordingly to the article. So notability issue does not arise. Please see the article again to change your opinion. Jethwarp ( talk) 04:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: I still dont get it.If major edits has been done then what are these two references still doing there
  1. Name Jyoti Kalash
  2. Significance of name jyotikalash.net

Both these link to a website which claims to remove "stress and provide success" . Secondly,I beg to differ on the matter of notability regarding names.One of my arguments would be by picking up an archived debate --> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laimnesis (name) which says "No evidence that this name is borne by anybody notable" as a reason for deletion by the nominator.Similarly, my argument here would be we do not have any notable person having this name /surname.Thus there is no need for this article.If in the future somebody notable do come up then new article could be made.But, as the saying goes WP is not a crystal ball.If comparison is to be drawn then I would say Sunil and Parag as the examples for inclusion of names. There are two things that may assert notability for the same :-

  1. Line 1-->"Hindus light oil lamps near Kalasha for nine days in reverence to Durga. These are also known as Jyoti-Kalash"--This reference can be added to Navaratri
  2. Line 2-->"A song Jyoti Kalash Chhalke sung by Lata Mangeshkar in 1961 Hindi movie Bhabhi ki Chudiyan"--This can be added to the list of songs sung by Lata Mangeshkar.

Thus there is no need for a separate article. I will also say that other stuff also exist! Vivekananda De --tAlK 05:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment : rmvd external link. The link are given to cite that Jyotikalash comes from words jyoti & kalash. There is no mention of stress in article. It is a Sanskrit word and has other religious significance and meanings in religious rites of Hindus apart from being a name. I am surprised that you being from India are making such comments. You should be very much aware what at least a kalasha is!!! You have given a fine explanation earlier (above) what a jyotikalash is shanti jal (water of peace). Now when I have added ref explaining what a jyoti-kalash is you want to argue against it. Jethwarp ( talk) 08:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Reply: Firstly,I will take this "you being from India are making such comments" as a compliment and as a mark of my neutrality.I never mentioned the word stress in the article.I said the linked website says such words.I am also not refuting that "religious significance and meanings in religious rites" of the word.I am only saying that there is no need for a separate article.The significance of the word can be kept consolidated by adding separate sections / edits to Navaratri and Lata Mangeshkar,as I have said in my previous argument.But in between all these you did not mention so as to why you are adding this article to Hindu given names and why this particular article can have a stand alone status.The particular religious significance can be added to Navaratri and thus there is no need for a separate article.Now, your link says it all.The term Jyoti Kalash has the greatest significance in the puja or during the Navaratri.As an extension to previous argument regarding--> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laimnesis (name) I add that the "Laimnesis (name)" is "they are historical names dating back to pre-Christian times" and yet they are non-notable just because there is "No evidence that this name is borne by anybody notable".Let us only think about WP guidelines regarding this discussion and not think about other things.See the problem regarding hindu scriptures is the ability of anybody to interpret in his/her own terms.My earlier argument is just an argument and my own opinion just because I do not have any reliable source for it.Moreover please note I have not refuted anything that you have said.I am just saying it does not need a separate article .Thats all!!! Vivekananda De --tAlK 09:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment that is why I have added another Category : Sanskrit words and pharses and given explanation what a jyoti-kalash means in hindu religion, which has a great scope for expansion over the time. As for the name Jyoti Kalash can be found in google book search. Jethwarp ( talk) 09:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment :Can you please add those google book search results to this article.I am oblivious to the "great scope for expansion" argument.You are shifting from "name" (as in name Jyoti Kalash can be found in google book search) to "Sanskrit Word" argument.In which way do you want to keep this article?Cite the relevant guideline. Vivekananda De --tAlK 10:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment : It is not for me to decide how I want to keep the article. I am neither the creator of the original page nor do I own it. This is a debate going on if the article is worth keeping on Wiki and the votes and the closing Admin will decide the fate of article, after looking in to the status of article. Jethwarp ( talk) 11:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Reply: Good quality references, I must say.Lets quote the lines which talk about "Jyoti Kalash" from every source .
  1. Name Jyoti Kalash:Links to a website whose other pages claim to remove stress and so on.Thus for me its still spammy and not a reliable source.
  2. Akhand Manokaamna Navratra Jyoti Kalash:Navratras are the major festive occasions for Shri Mahamaya Devi Mandir. Navratras are observed twice every year, a period of nine days each......Special lamps called Kalash are lit in big halls surrounding the Mandir in the name of devotees. These Kalashas are kept akhand
  3. Adbhar Ashtbhuji Temple : This is an ancient temple of Goddess Devi with eight hands. The Jyoti Kalash are lit here on Navaratri: The Jyoti Kalash are lit here on Navaratri.
  4. Shitala Mandir:Its an image and not technically a source.
  5. Jyoti Kalash are lighted here on the occasion of Navratri:Jyoti Kalash are lighted here on the occasion of Navratri.
  6. Jyoti kalash chalke : One of the most outstanding songs sung by Lata Mangeshkar, this must go down as a very special song in her career as well as in the annals of Bollywood filmy music:Already described in my previous argument.

Now,4 out of 6 sources say "Jyoti Kalash" in the same breath as " Navaratri" and thus it simply supports my argument that there is no need for a separate article.It is a great addition to Navaratri.The same thing applies to Lata Mangeshkar song.Thus there is no need for a separate article.I will again say "In which way do you want to keep this article?Cite the relevant guideline",because I am asking the guideline for your argument.P.S:There was a talk about "the name Jyoti Kalash can be found in google book search",I still dont see any google reference. Vivekananda De --tAlK 12:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Reply : This is my last comment on this matter, as this is not a talk page. Let the Admin & other Wiki editors decide the outcome of debate. You have already covered a large section of AfD putting arguments like a lawyer putting forward your POV. Jethwarp ( talk) 15:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep : The article passes WP:N. Also explains its meaning and use as a name and in culture. Links to photos also help to understand what is a Jyotikalash to a person not familiar with Indian culture. Hardyraj ( talk) 15:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC) User blocked as sock of Jethwarp – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

NOTE:This AfD contains comments from users who are undergoing Sockpuppetry Investigations.See this for further use--> Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jethwarp.I have requested the above investigation and if required my comments can also be not considered if it leads to conflict of interest or leads to the question of neutrality of my comments. Vivekananda De --tAlK 04:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui ( talk) 17:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wouldn't it be nice to have reliable, relevant sources for this? But we don't. Alessandra Napolitano ( talk) 22:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I find Vivekananda De's comments convincing. There are really no references supporting any notability of "Jyotikalash" as a given name. They are mostly references to the Navaratri lamps of the same name, but that is an irrelevant context - that should be covered in Navaratri. And there's the words of one song, which are best covered elsewhere. To support an article about a given name, what we need is sources supporting its notability as a given name, not its use in different contexts -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 19:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by proposer; WP:NAC by Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 05:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Blood Feast 2: All U Can Eat

Blood Feast 2: All U Can Eat (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages because this second article is a duplicate article on the same film. The two pages have been tagged for merge.

Blood Feast 2 All You can Eat (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable film. Film not critically reviewed, and in fact an article on one of the film-maker's other works, mentions this film in passing as "little-seen". A complete dearth of mentions in legitimate media makes me question the notability of this one. Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 16:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
AKA :(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Jordan Lukaku

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Non-notable youth player who has yet to appear in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had been called up to the first team. This is insufficient to grant notability. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Eden World Builder

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

Seems to fail notability. A search of Google News for "Eden World Builder" only brings up 2 hits, both of which are trivial passing mentions. There may be other sources but I haven't found them. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Contains enough information to see what the article is, and is quite a popular game at the moment, in the top 100 at the app store.

silly billypiggy ¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE! 14:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 18:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

This article is important but is not well written. Someone needs to rewrite it. By no means should it be deleted. Cin316 ( talk) 02:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)— User:Cin316 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Comment - Cin316, simply stating that the article is important isn't sufficient. It has to be shown to be important - that is to say, the notability of the game must be shown. The above suggestions that the article be deleted are all based on a lack of evidence of notability. If you want to keep the article, you need to convince the community that it meets WP:GNG. Some good detailed coverage of the game in reliable sources would suffice, I suspect. I looked for that coverage before I commented above, and I couldn't find any - which is why I think it should be removed from wikipedia. Colon el Tom 03:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Week delete. Has a few reviews out there, but none from reliable video game reviewers. I don't really know the reliability of these such as [37] or [38], but they don't seem to be of high editorial oversight. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 09:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G2 by Fastily (G2: Test page). Nwlaw63 and I both guessed wrong on which speedy criterion would be the death of this one. Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 21:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

The Random Song lyrics

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

just lyrics. silly billypiggy ¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE! 14:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Axis for Peace

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

Apparently non-notable conference held once in 2005 which generated no press or scholarly interest. Article's single reference is to the conference's own website - tagged as unreferenced since April 2010. Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 14:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Admiral Markets

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

Removed prod. There have been some minor changes since the removal of the prod, but nothing so far has substantially corrected the problem, which is that the company does not appear to be notable. Given that I can't find any indepth (non-trivial) reliable sources, it appears that the subject isn't notable per WP:GNG. No amount of additional editing could cause such sources to come into existence, so the article should probably be deleted. Of course, if someone could produce such sources, I would withdraw my objections. But as they don't appear to exist now, I don't have much hope. Jayron 32 14:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

M.J Ajithkumar

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

No evidence of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Honey Singh

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

No independent indication of notability and mostly a puff piece. Sources are all personal or fan sites. Article has been repeatedly deleted. regentspark ( comment) 14:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep Article is a complete mess, but at least one of the sources currently there indicates that he has a #1 song on a respected music chart, which would be enough to keep the article as a worthwhile subject. The rest of the problems could be cleaned up by anyone so wishing to. -- Jayron 32 14:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    I'm not so sure. I'm no music expert so am happy to defer to you on this but, is a download chart really notable? (Also, the source doesn't seem reliable anyway. Though [39] indicates that it did hit #1 on that chart at least one week.) -- regentspark ( comment) 14:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply


  • Please Dont delete this page Honey Singh is best music directer and rapper in Punjab. Born in Delhi and raised in Punjab,This young music artist has taken the UK Punjabi hip-hop Music Industry by storm.Now based in the Uk,he studied music at the prestigious School Trinity College,A Music Director,rapper and mixer,he shot to fame after the release of his album like Peshi,Bollywood Rebirth.With Seven years in the music Industry,he has bagged the ETC award for the Best sound in 2006 for Glassi and the PTC award for the Best Folk Pop Award 2009 for Rebirth and PTC PUNJABI Best Music Director 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurjinder.romana ( talk • contribs) 02:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Nothing is systematical in article and every thing is messed up.Moreover one thing is repeated again and again.The language used is also informal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhanikataria ( talk • contribs)
  • Weak Keep - I don't think that having a #1 download represents topping a notable chart. On the other hand, he won multipel PTC Punjabi Music awards as covered here. He is the singer on the titel track from a movie [40], [41]. The article itself reads like a press release / fan site and needs a lot of work though. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply


  • now everything is systematical in article. the lines, from which it looks as a press release / fan site are removed . Please remove the artical deletation tag from the article Gurjinder Romana 15:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedied A9 by Boing! said Zebedee (A9: Non-notable music by artist with no Wikipedia article). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 20:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Raised in a Jungle (album)

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

If Heist (band) didn't pass the general notability guidelines, I doubt their second album meets the general notability guidelines. Shirt58 ( talk) 13:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Best Of Luck Nikki. v/r - T P 01:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Sheena Bajaj

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

Contested BLPPROD. This article cites no sources, and certainly doesn't establish notability. The subject has had small parts in a few films, but fails WP:NACTOR. St Anselm ( talk) 11:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Ryan Moore (American football)

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

Fails WP:Athlete. Never appeared in a professional game and didnt have a notable college career. Yankees10 03:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Players are deemed notable if they "gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." Being named to an All-American team is having gained national media attention as an individual.-- TM 13:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 08:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Disagree Paul. No one addressed either my concern or the numerous articles which help the article pass GNG. Judging by the number of articles specifically about Moore, it looks like he passes GNG as well as NCOLLATH.
  • Listing in a table doesn't do it for me on that alone. The other one at ESPN simply states that he might return and might not. A feature article, yes--but it just doesn't do it for me in this case. We still come back to a player that hasn't done anything but get arrested.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
'Moore' weapons for third ranked Miami is, despite the terrible pun in the title, an Associated Press article distinctly about the high level recruit. I rest my case. High school All-Americans who play at the highest level college football programs are usually going to have press coverage as well as passing NCOLLATH.-- TM 12:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:WABBITSEASON cheers!-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:DONTBEADICK-- TM 18:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Huh? Disagreeing with you is not personal.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 08:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Search2.net

AfDs for this article:
Search2.net (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP. CharlieEchoTango ( talk) 07:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I had nominated this page for speedy deletion for notability but that was declined with the note that there is a "credible claim of notability". I don't know what that credible claim might be. The only tenuous claim to notability is the site's size (5 million sites indexed), but this is a really thin claim to notability, and cannot be verified. If the site claimed 5 million users (which would represent a significant portion of its home country's (Israel) population), that would be something. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Recreated with no notability shown. SL93 ( talk) 22:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Starrfucker Magazine

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. CharlieEchoTango ( talk) 07:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Theodore Theodoropoulos

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

I am not sure whether this person is notable. Lot of WP:OR in article. May also be violating WP:BIO, WP:COI and WP:RS Veryhuman ( talk) 07:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Egg ghost

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

May be a WP:HOAX as there are no Reliable Sources. May not satisfy WP:N Veryhuman ( talk) 07:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Searching for "egg demon" and "egg ghost" brings up a few mentions so it's not a hoax, but I'm not seeing anything in depth in English. I've left a message at Wikiproject Korea asking for help from Korean editors who, if this is notable, will be able to find references in Korean. -- NellieBly ( talk) 07:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as copyvio by Fastily. Lenticel ( talk) 06:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

JoRob

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

I can't find any in-depth coverage for this artist outside of self-published and promotional articles. Reference to a "King of Zimbabwe" in the third paragraph makes me wary of the article's accuracy as well. Appears to be autobiographical, with the only non-trivial references being to unreliable sources - Facebook, Youtube, etc.

I decided against BLPPROD because there are references, no matter how poor, and I decided against nominating for speedy deletion because there is a credible assertion of significance: notability, on the other hand, I'm not sure about, especially since I'm unfamiliar with most modern American music. So I thought it best to bring the article here for discussion. NellieBly ( talk) 06:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Many reliable sources are present now. – sgeureka t• c 18:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Extraordinary Merry Christmas

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

The article/redirect was created without any reliable source or ability to verify the title of the episode, violating WP:RS and WP:V. The only place this name can be found is on the various Glee wiki and fan pages, which are deemed unreliable by Wikipedia standards. Hence, the article page should not yet exist, and ought to be deleted. BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment shouldn't this be listed at WP:RFD? The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

My vote is to keep the re-direct/article, especially if it is just going to be re-created a week from now. Given the number of sites using "Extraordinary Merry Christmas" as the title of the episode (TV.com, IMDB, YouTube, blogs, Glee forum, etc.) I think it is safe to assume accuracy. The article can always be moved if needed. I created the re-direct when I noticed refs for the episode here . I don't see the harm in having the re-direct and I think it is more beneficial to put energy into expanding the article than running through red tape then starting from scratch again. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
My vote, obviously, is to delete (see below for changed vote and reason for change). All the cited sites, including IMDb, TV.com, etc., are unreliable, and should never be used to start an article. Glee (season 3) has been temporarily protected just to prevent those unverifiable episode names and like edits from being added by IPs who don't understand how Wikipedia works. I don't understand why equally unsourced article titles should get special treatment. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC) (note: strikeout and parenthetical comment after added at 03:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC) for clarity) reply
Change to keep. With the early release of the press release today—normally, it might not be seen until next week sometime, this request has become moot as a reliable source is finally available, almost nine days after the redirect was created. Although it's still clearly wrong to be creating episode articles—even as redirects—before reliable sources are available with the title, events have overtaken this AfD. I ask that it be closed, as an actual article (as opposed to a redirect) will be posted shortly. Having the AfD notice remain on the page any longer is now counterproductive.
I was interested to note that posting an AfD on a redirect page as instructed prevents the redirect from functioning properly. Is that supposed to happen? BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment: The Rambling Man, my understanding from reading the various instructions is that Redirects are not eligible for RFDs. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to place it there instead. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
But how do I find and apply V RS for a redirect? In any case, neutral for the duration of this until, in a few days time, it becomes an obvious keep. Happy Thanksgiving to those of you for whom it matters. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
These rumored episode titles have been wrong, and right, before. The title usually originates with a single site and spreads to all the others. (I tracked one because I was curious; it appeared the afternoon of the day that particular episode started shooting.) My understanding of the way Wikipedia worked was that we simply didn't use rumored information, we waited for reliable source confirmation before posting. If those aren't the rules, or they are but we don't care, just let me know. Thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
keep. Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if the new sources added since the opening of the AfD are sufficiently reliable, as well as sufficient to meet WP:N.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwyrxian ( talk) 06:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure why this was relisted: I submitted the original AfD, and noted when it became moot. I would like to withdraw it at this time.
As for reliable sources on a Glee episode, we've never had any question about network press releases or articles from Entertainment Weekly or TV Line: they're professional organizations that report on the industry, and the show sometimes gives screener copies of episodes to the reporters at both. There are more sources for some of the facts in the article, but listing more than one seems excessive, given that the sources involved are all considered reliable. BlueMoonset ( talk) 11:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Individual episodes are rarely notable ... especially before they're released/shown. Nothing in the article suggests any notability. Maybe delete and redirect to the Season 3 article, but only if the title is actually the real title in the long run. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 11:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
In fact, the title was given in a Fox press release after the AfD was filed. To date, all the individual episodes for Glee have been notable, and widely reviewed and commented upon. BlueMoonset ( talk) 11:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Meh. Dr. Who Episodes ? I know, I know, WP:OSE. I live in a Glee-free household (glee-free, some would claim), & have no idea how this stacks up against The Doctor. - Sitush ( talk) 12:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Different in some ways from The Doctor, similar in others. More intense at the moment, I think. I just finished a Glee episode article for which I read twenty reviews in publications ranging from Time and The Wall Street Journal and The Atlantic to Rolling Stone and Billboard to various major city newspapers to the aftorementioned Entertainment Weekly and TV Line. That kind of coverage is standard with every episode that airs, and EW and TV Line, along with their peers, post several articles a week on forthcoming events. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 International Security Assistance Force. I think a redirect/merge best reflects the consensus: those on the keep side argue that an article on ISAF supply lines would have potential, but the keep side appears to accept that the article as drafted is a sub-par attempt with an imprecise title. I don't see the delete side as arguing there is no potential for an article on ISAF supply lines. So, for the time being, this article will be redirected to International Security Assistance Force into which editors can feel free to merge content. There is no prejudice against the creation of a new separate article about ISAF supply lines. If that happens, we may have to re-think the redirect target. Mkativerata ( talk) 20:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

NATO supply Line

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

This is not itself a discrete topic but rather a ubiquitous part of any broader operation. For example, the two articles provided talk about specific incidents that affected supply lines. The articles never are directly about a specific supply line or even the concept of an Afghanistan miltary supply line. Moreover the title is incredibly generic... NATO has undoubtedly had thousands of supply lines in its history.

The concept is explosive too. In theory every conflict in history has had discussion incidentally about its "supply lines." There may be specific supply lines, the Burma Road that warrant articles. But contrast that with what's here and the incidental versus focused nature is clear.

Last of all, there's almost no content here. We're not losing much. Shadowjams ( talk) 06:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia needs to have an article on the NATO supply route,its history and threats to it, thats one of the most discussed topic in the world these days, eventually people would contribute and it would be a great article. Earlyriser10 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC). reply

It is connected to Russia and war on terror. Earlyriser10 ( talk) 11:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This topic has its own timeline although depended on other topics, but those can be tagged at main article navigation links at relevant sections. May be the article should be renamed to a more descriptive title or one given by the media or official, like "NATO supply line through Pakistan". The topic is significantly notable and I expect this article will have a timeline like structure when developed. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 05:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Agree that this is too narrow a topic, and the title implies something different from the content. -- Whpq ( talk) 18:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While the article sucks at present and is probably miss-titled, this is a very notable topic. A huge amount has been written about the arrangements by which the US/NATO/ISAF forces in Afghanistan are supplied. Nick-D ( talk) 01:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article needs to be expanded and improved,probably the title too. But it is an important topic. Earlyriser10 ( talk) 07:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete any necessary material can be transferred to International Security Assistance Force. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep An important topic, especially since the Pakistan routes have been closed. This article needs expansion, categories, and talk page templates. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 01:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per TopGun and Nick-D. Article appears to have signficant coverage in reliable sources and as such is likely notable under WP:GNG. (As a starting point only please see the hundreds of news articles available through Google dating over a period of several years which discuss the topic and the numerous issues which have affected it and ongoing campaign in Afghanistan, not to mention Pakistan and US relations). While I agree with the nominator that the article is in terrible shape and that it would be no great loss if what we currently have was deleted, I would be surprised if this article cannot be developed with the material available (should editors with suitable knowledge be willing to work on it). It should probably be renamed too. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    • The only plausible keep rationale is of the type you're giving here... I agree that perhaps in some form there could be some article discussion NATO logistics... but my point is that article doesn't seem to exist. There is nothing here to even build upon in that sense, and even in cases where we have a title that's plausible, we don't even have that here. For instance everyone's focused on Afghanistan supply routes but that's a tiny part of NATO's history. A rename is one of the many fundamental changes that would be required. And so while I understand the rationale of your, and I think all of the Keep votes here, I just don't see how the article we're discussing is the one you're !voting on. Shadowjams ( talk) 23:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The article has one liners as sections currently. Strictly speaking you can shuffle it to anything, but the basis this article is pointing out is the stereotypical controversial supply route of NATO through Pakistan which has repeatedly been closed and has a history attached to it. This has notable coverage and the fact itself would let it build. The name being clear would help, but the current content of the article does give an indication, to those who are familiar, of what to build on it. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 23:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Edius

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

Spam Vandalism Crowbar1981 ( talk) 02:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Thanks everyone for the help I'm not familiar with Wiki language but I understand it is has no notability. I'm removing external links as suggested in one label in the article

Crowbar1981 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC). reply

  • Speedy keep. This is easily the silliest nomination for deletion that I've seen in a while. It took literally 10 minutes to find 3 sources, which I've added; I'm satisfied I could find as many more as anyone wants. If you click the books link, it's obvious this software is well-known and that many writers have published mentions of the product. This product easily clears the bar for notability as required by WP:GNG. Further, nom is simply wrong in labeling this article as "spam vandalism"; I don't believe he knows what the term vandalism means on WP. Msnicki ( talk) 18:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Msnicki. Alessandra Napolitano ( talk) 22:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Ulzii

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

Has been listed at WP:PNT for the required two weeks with no progress in translation Jac16888 Talk 02:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie ( talk) 20:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Note: I send a message to the Mongolian Wikipedia because I was unable to find any mongolian-english translation websites --> [47]. I unconventionally put it into the discussion section for their main page because that is where it would most likely get noticed.-- Coin945 ( talk) 06:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, from what I've been able to piece together "Ulzii"="Өлзий"=Blessing. I tried some of the words through a Mongolian to English dictionary and it has word like happiness (жаргал), empathizing with each other (биендээ зовлонг) and fond of living (гуниггүй амьдрах дуртай). When you look at the text in the editor it is broken into line with a quoted word in front of each line. (like a poem.) The comment on the discussion page says something about favorite prayer (хайртай маань). Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 21:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wars of Light and Shadow for now. No prejudice against an article being created when it receives significant coverage (i.e., not just announcing the title) in notable third party sources. fish& karate 15:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Destiny's Conflict

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

WP:CRYSTAL. No third party sources and, according to the article, the author won't even commence writing until after the publication of Initiate's Trial. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 07:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. v/r - T P 01:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

List of oldest Chinese schools in the Philippines

List of oldest Chinese schools in the Philippines (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP is not for " excessive listings of statistics". This seems like a perfect example of that. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 01:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Withdraw nomination, due to the discussion below. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 16:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete totally unsourced, doesn't seem to really establish the notability of this intersection (age and Chinese schools in the Philippines) Perhaps if there's a list of schools in the Philippines or something like that some of this might be useful and could be merged there, but it would need to be sourced. OSborn arf contribs. 02:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Merge/move/etc per below. OSborn arf contribs. 16:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I am not done yet with this page. Can you please give me more time for me to include sources or references for this page? Roadrunner272008 06:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner272008 ( talk • contribs)
  • References were now added. --Roadrunner272008 07:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner272008 ( talk • contribs)
    • Hi there Roadrunner. First off, I appreciate the work you've done to get the sources you added. Unfortunately, those aren't the kind of sources this article needs. You've added stuff that shows that these schools exists. OK, but why do we need a list of the oldest schools in the Philippines in the first place? Why are these types of schools notable enough for a list, when they don't even have their own article? Nolelover Talk· Contribs 14:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I think the nom is missing the forest for the trees. It is correct that a list organized by how old the school is would be unnecessary. However, we seem to have a lot of content on Category:Chinese schools in the Philippines (something like 46 articles in total), and this is apparently the only list on that subject (though it is not yet comprehensive of all of our articles). So what I'm going to do is what should have been done rather than start an AFD: remove the problem by moving it to List of Chinese schools in the Philippines, tag for expansion so the list can include all such notable entries, and request this be speedy closed. I leave it to the list's future editors to determine if there is some encyclopedic merit in including non-notable schools in the list, and to determine how to reorganize the table. postdlf ( talk) 03:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I had noticed that category (its the first result for a search of "chinese schools" & "Philippines"), and I'm not averse to an early closure, but I'll ask you the same question I asked the article's creator: why do we need a list when the overall topic isn't notable enough for its own article? FWIW, I have been treating this from the beginning as though the "oldest" wasn't there, because I don't think it makes that much of a difference. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 13:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
      • That's not a meaningful way of analyzing it. Chinese school has an article, Education in the Philippines has an article, and something like 46 of the Chinese schools in the Philippines have articles. This then is just an index of those schools subdivided by country of location, or, viewed another way, a list of schools in the Philippines subdivided by type, both of which are a standard and obvious way of organizing things when the lists would be too large if not subdivided. That particular indexing group doesn't have to be notable in its own right to justify the list any more than it does for a category, and if a category is appropriate for navigation and grouping, then per WP:CLN a list is as well unless there is something about the topic that makes it particularly inappropriate for a list format (which there isn't here). postdlf ( talk) 14:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
        • I'll go ahead and withdraw my nom, pending your reply, but I don't think you're looking at the notability of lists the right way. WP:CLN, and more specifically, WP:AOAL, only says that the list "...may include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles" (emphasis mine). It says nothing about allowing overall un-notable topics to remain. You say that the "particular indexing group doesn't have to be notable in its own right to justify the list", but WP:LISTN clearly says that "a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines" (link mine). I believe that's pretty conclusive that a list is not a category, and that the intersection of "Chinese schools in the Philippines" still needs to be argued notable to remain. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 14:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
          • WP:NOTDIR states "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." WP:LISTN is at best incomplete; it does not represent full practice and consensus regarding all kinds of lists, particularly navigational ones. Does it really make sense to you that we would be forbidden from splitting a lengthy list of articles into subdivisions by country if we could not demonstrate that each -by country grouping was the subject as a group of significant coverage? Applying notability guidelines in that manner wouldn't accomplish anything constructive: it would force us to maintain lists that were far too large if we couldn't demonstrate "significant coverage" of very obvious indexing methods ("sorry, List of Finnish painters isn't notable, you'll have to merge those back into the whole list of painters by nationality"), or make the subdivisions incomplete if we could demonstrate that one grouping was notable but not another ("sorry, deaths in 2010 is notable, but not deaths in 2007"). So yes, the best and most reasonable approach, and the one most supported by consensus, and the one reflected by WP:CLN as a whole (which addresses lists as a method of grouping articles), is to treat lists of articles as a navigational system complementary to categories and templates. postdlf ( talk) 15:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
          • See also WP:SALAT: "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link." There is no indication that the ways in which we "limit the scope" must themselves be notable; it is instead encouraging us to apply reasonable subdivisions of the topic, first by subdividing a list into sections, and then by splitting those sections off into separate lists because of size concerns. postdlf ( talk) 15:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
            • ( edit conflict)I'm sure you can see the irony in pointing to a section titled "Wikipedia is not a directory" ...to say that Wikipedia is a directory. Anyway, I think I see where you're coming from more, although what seals it for me more then anything is realizing after a quick search that the unsourced "Chinese schools", one road of this intersection, is actually a decently covered topic in some outside sources. I think I'm gonna head over there and clean that one up... And I hope you didn't think I was just dragging this discussion out for its own sake - lists on non-notable topics has long been a pet peeve of mine and if I'm wrong, I want to make sure I'm wrong. :P Nolelover Talk· Contribs 15:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
            • (Upon reading the second part of your message) Okay, I'm sure now. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 15:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nil Burak. ( non-admin closure) jcgoble3 ( talk) 01:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Sen de Başını Alıp Gitme

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

Lyrics only with little content and no sources. Maybe someone can find some reliable information and save the article, but otherwise there's nothing here worth keeping. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 00:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 01:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Bruce Nolan (columnist)

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

This journalist does not seem to be notable. The story is mainly sourced by articles that he wrote himself. Borock ( talk) 00:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Tom Morris ( talk) 08:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 01:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Nintendo World Report

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

Notability and Refimprove tagged for sometime without much improvement. There are plenty of passing mentions but I have been unable to find any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Mattg82 ( talk) 00:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 00:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – (unsure on deletion) It does get referenced from other video gaming websites periodically, especially when new Nintendo titles are either released or being developed. However, it's hard to gauge direct coverage of the website itself. – MuZemike 02:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Quick question did the search for coverage also include the site's original name Planet GameCube? I am not sure if that would make a difference but that should be looked at if it was not checked.-- 199.91.207.3 ( talk) 18:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 01:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I acknowledge that sources substantiating the notability of news sources are generally more difficult to find. The above editors have mentioned that Nintendo World Report is referenced by other gaming websites. A quick search confirmed this [48] [49] [50] [51]. But, I wouldn't call these the most reliable of gaming websites. Searching under the prior name of the org (Planet Gamecube) did not prove fruitful for finding coverage of the organization. The subject does not seem to meet the standards of WP:ORG in that the content about the company that is available does not appear to be anything beyond typical coverage in the context of gaming releases. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Love Coming Down

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

Artist is notable, song is not. Fails WP:NSONGS. Till I Go Home ( talk) 08:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Tom Morris ( talk) 11:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Dino Bravo (original)

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

Fails WP:BIO: hasn't won significant titles, hasn't been the subject of multiple published secondary sources. Jarkeld ( talk) 00:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Jarkeld ( talk) 00:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Σ τ c. 00:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete Coverage of the individual seems to be limited, but I tried to keep in mind that this was a wrestler from the '60s and '70s, and so sources may be difficult to find. I did a search on Google, trying to limit the search to terms that would identify this older Dino Bravo (as opposed to the newer one) but searching for "Dino Bravo" + "The Italian Casanova". This brought up some repeats of Wikipedia articles [52] [53] and some user-generated content [54]. I found a few sources that provide profile-type info [55] info and others than do cover the subject in some detail [56] [57], the latter of which is already integrated into the article. However, the former appears to be someone's personal website compiled by a single individual, so it's not exactly a reliable source. Dino Bravo also appears in many, many Canadian newspapers, but all of it routine coverage that does not go in-depth on the individual. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

2013 V8 Supercar Championship Series

2013 V8 Supercar Championship Series (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CBALL series is still two years into the future. Contents of the article is nothing but unreferenced speculation. We are at least 12 months away from any kind of calendar. Rules mentioned have not been confirmed, again WP:Speculation Falcadore ( talk) 07:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now. I can't find significant coverage for the 2013 season. This is the only article that wasn't a passing mention. Not enough for an article now, but obviously now prejudice to recreation when actual sourcing is more abundant. -- Whpq ( talk) 18:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_November_30&oldid=1142636899"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 29 November 1 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 04:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Adyashanti

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

Delete, unreferenced BLP, no reliable sources, notability not established Yworo ( talk) 23:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Great, go ahead and source the article with those. Yworo ( talk) 22:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
On second thought, not all of those are reliable sources:
  1. Not independent, affiliated with subject "It was then that I met my teacher Adyashanti".
  2. This is an advert in Tricycle, not an article.
  3. Awake Publishing appears to be affiliated with the subject. See their website.
  4. This appears to be a valid source, though it's an interview.
  5. This source also looks good.
  6. AuthorHouse is a self-publishing service, not a reliable source.
  7. This source looks good.
  8. This source also looks good.
  9. Publisher is self-publisher eBookIt.com, not a reliable source.
Looks like not nine, but four usable sources: 4, 5, 7 & 8. Yworo ( talk) 22:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
My vote is the same. I also found this interview. I won't add the sources to the article because I am personally not interested in the subject and they shouldn't be all external links. I can try to save the article from deletion though. SL93 ( talk) 22:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Here is another interview in Tricycle. SL93 ( talk) 22:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Sun Magazine. SL93 ( talk) 22:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G6 by Fastily (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 06:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply

CategoryMedusozoan stubs

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

page created in error bondolo ( talk) 23:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete per G6. Tagged accordingly. I guess this AfD also means G7 applies. — KuyaBriBri Talk 23:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Excellent keep argument evidencing that the subject meets a SNG. I considers relisting as this is unsourced but there is no evidence in the nomination that a through search for sources failed to turn any up. If you nominate an article for deletion its best practise to look for sources before running the AFD, Spartaz Humbug! 04:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Arthur Iberall

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

No reliable sources. Notability unverified. Joja lozzo 23:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has an h-index of 14 based on a GS analysis, which itself would call for a keep. But most importantly, is a co-author on the 1978 article “Homeokinetics: A Physical Science for Complex Systems”, which seems like a seminal article on homeokinets; this may actually be the founding article on the topic. The term “homeokinetics” itself has over 7,500 citations on GS.-- Eric Yurken ( talk) 20:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, withdrawn, NAC.  Chzz   ►  01:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Melissa Monet

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

Non-notable porn actress and director. A few times nominated for awards, but she never won them. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the articles found appear to support the building's notability. ( non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Camden County Library

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

Non-notable library. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose Deletion/Keep I have added the information - with two references from two different news organizations - that it holds one of the largest book sales in South Jersey on a regular basis. Allens ( talk) 23:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Oppose Deletion Libraries, particularly groups of libraries such as this one, are pillars of their communities - I've just done a rudimentary Google search and found major articles like this one which show evidence of good coverage. Obviously, stuff like this needs to be added to the article quickly! Sionk ( talk) 00:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Done; thanks for finding the reference! Allens ( talk) 01:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Multiple published sources showing in footnotes, passes GNG. Libraries are civil centers of sorts and they are the sorts of community institutions about which Wikipedia users are likely to seek information. This article is weak, but it's a start. Carrite ( talk) 07:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    • The library still fails to make clear what makes in notable among other libraries. Having a book sale is not something special, I have seen that in several countries. Lending books and related materials is the core business, so that does not make them notable too. Libraries are very PR-sensitive, so you can probably find newsstories about every library in the world. Night of the Big Wind talk 10:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Umm... what about what Sionk found (and amplified in the article when I'd missed it)? That isn't simply a book sale (and people in South Jersey would probably like to have the book sale in Wikipedia for their reference!). Moreover, pretty much every college and university is considered notable for Wikipedia - it isn't necessary that a college or university be different than every college and university for it to be listed; the same is true of towns (try doing a few "Random article" clicks sometime and see how many tiny French communes you come across... down to 10 people!); so why not libraries? WP:GNG doesn't list relative notability as a requirement. Allens ( talk) 12:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
        • I agree with you that not every secondary school, seagoing vessel or university is automatically notable. Vested interests (Wikiprojects!!) declare the most strange non-notable subjects notable. I do not agree with that nasty habit and stick to the rule that every article/subject should be judged on its own merits. Based on that, and with working experience in the public library sector, I have found the library just an average library with nothing special and non-notable. Night of the Big Wind talk 13:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 04:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Volopt

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

non notable web portal/search engine. All non reliable sources except wired. Wired does not mention volopt Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply


Thank you everybody for your notes The website is newly born, how can we still inform about its existence without violating Wikipedia's rules? please advice to edit accordingly, thank you Ghoroob ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC). reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Subject meets criteria generally accepted notability standards for sports persons. ( non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Regina Mader

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

Disputed PROD ; "I see no coverage in WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE, google shows 5 hits, all passing mentions; can't see how we can have a separate article per WP:BIO, and presumption in favour of privacy." - removed with ES "per Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Notability_guidelines_on_sports_persons" which says, "An athlete is presumed notable if the person has actively participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics, and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (my bold)  Chzz   ►  21:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Keep firstly, a note on etiquette: if you are going to quote my edit summary, please either quote it in full or indicate that you have only taken a small part of it. When nominating an article for AfD, please also actually read the policies to which you refer, rather than just reading the nutshell, which is from where you grabbed the quote "An athlete is presumed notable if the person has actively participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics, and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I did not link you to the nutshell, I linked you to:
Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Notability guidelines on sports persons
Which clearly states that:

"Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they:

  1. have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics.
  2. meet any of the qualifications in one of the sports specific sections below."
Please note that skiers do not have a specific section. Since Regina Mader participated in the 2010 Olympics in the Ladies' Downhill Ski, as shown by the source ( webarchive) provided in the article, she therefore meets the first requirement of the policy regarding notability guidelines on sports persons. She is therefore notable under policy.
It should be noted that nutshells of policies are to give a brief idea of the gist of the policy and should not be relied upon for actual specific application. (e.g. AfD)
Regardless of this, she has received coverage in multiple sources. A google search for her name (in double quotes) returns many hits, some of which are more than passing mentions, such as [13] and [14]. I politely request that the filer, in the interest of the project, makes more of an effort to find sources (and read policy) when filing an AfD, especially if his PROD has already been contested. Saying that a google search only "returned 5 hits" is firstly an invalid deletion argument and secondly an invalid statement.
Spitfire Tally-ho! 21:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Apologies for not quoting the entirety of the edit-summary; I thought that the link would suffice. What I am quoting is, the "nutshell" of the SNG, which states, "An athlete is presumed notable if the person has actively participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics, and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (again, my bold) and GNG, Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. - sorry, I did truncate that, the full guideline is of course WP:GNG. - Hope that helps clarify.  Chzz   ►  22:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
I know you only quoted from the nutshell; I addressed this in my comment above, which I invite you to read. As I said above, the nutshell aims to merely give a brief idea of the gist of the policy and should not be relied upon for actual specific application. For application you should instead actually refer to the text of the policy, which makes it clear that sports figures are presumed notable if they have participated in the Olympics, as demonstrated by the link I gave you: Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Notability guidelines on sports persons and as demonstrated in my comment above. Furthermore, quoting policy without explaining its relevance does not support your argument: for instance, you quote the GNG, however, proving that something does not meet the GNG (which you haven't proved) does not prove that the topic is not notable: it may still be considered notable under other topic-specific polices such as WP:ATHLETE. Please try to actually address the points I am making, rather than just wildly quoting irrelevant policies without providing any reasoning. Best wishes, Spitfire Tally-ho! 22:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Participation in the Olympics is sufficient, as much so as playing in one Major League Baseball inning. Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Olympians are always notable per consensus. A downhill skiing competitor - who will usually have spent years competing in national and international competitions beforehand in order to qualify - is more likely to be truly notable than some guy who played one inning of major league ball. -- NellieBly ( talk) 23:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Could you please explain that in terms of WP:ATHLETE? Thanks.  Chzz   ►  01:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:ATHLETE#Generally acceptable standards. Look at all the bluelinked Swedes who finished out of the medals in the Tug of war at the 1908 Summer Olympics! Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - As having competed at the highest level of her sport with participation in the Olympics, FIS World Championships, and about 60 races on the World Cup circuit. And as for coverage, [15], [16], [17] are some examples. -- Whpq ( talk) 16:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    Aha, thanks for finding those. Google news-search often fails to show articles in other languages, unfortunately. I cannot speak the language, so can someone confirm if they're reliable sources? If they are, I'll happily withdraw this request; my concern was the lack of apparent coverage. (Of course, it would be even better if the sources could be added to the article)  Chzz   ►  17:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Olympic skier with 26 ISF Top 3 finishes from 2003 to 2011. Ref added to article at nom's request.  The Steve  02:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of schools in Charlotte, North Carolina#Private schools. ( non-admin closure) jcgoble3 ( talk) 00:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Trinity Episcopal School

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

Promotional article about a church-related independent elementary school. It teaches kindergarten through eighth grade, and such elementary schools are typically not kept in AFDs, getting deleted or merged or redirected to their parent organizations. It is not clear what that merge target would be. Found only directory listings at Google Books, and typical local coverage of open houses etc at the local paper, the Charlotte Observer. Someone with access might check if any of the news items behind paywall have any other coverage which would support notability. Edison ( talk) 21:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lenticel ( talk) 06:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Coke Zero Facial Profiler

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

This article appears to have been created - by a user account with no other edits - for the sole purpose of promoting a (relatively non-notable) Facebook application. It has limited content and no significant edits in well over a year. It thus appears to contravene Wikipedia's guidelines on spam and notability (specifically, recentism). Robin S ( talk) 21:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment: I've just noticed that the result of the previous AfD (two years ago) was delete, yet the article still exists. What? Robin S ( talk) 21:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep. It is completely irrelevant which editors created or contributed to the article or why they did it. Everyone here is anonymous anyway unless they voluntarily disclose their real-life identity. What does matter is notability WP:N, which requires reliable sources WP:RS: If the sources exist, the topic is notable, no matter how much you dislike it. And as Alessandra argues, sources don't get much better than the NY Times and The Wall Street Journal. Msnicki ( talk) 22:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: While reliable sources exist, this alone does not guarantee notability. I would argue that the cited coverage of this application falls under "routine reporting". The subject of the article fails pretty much every criterion for notability on the Notability (events) page: it was a temporary event, with limited if any long-term consequences, which received no news coverage beyond the immediate aftermath of release - and what coverage it did receive could hardly be called in-depth in the sense described on that page. Robin S ( talk) 03:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
When you make it into the WSJ and the NYT with stories having bylines by actual human being reporters, it's not routine coverage anymore. They weren't just reprinting press releases; they wrote their own stories. Under the guidelines, that's significant coverage. Msnicki ( talk) 03:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Software packages are not ordinarily considered to be events for notability purposes. Alternatively, we could consider the release as an event with a very significant enduring significance: the software was actively used by large numbers of people well after the "event". Most software, even packages we consider notable, will never receive significant coverage in extremely high-profile media, instead being relegated to computer-specific literature. When's the last time you read a detailed exposé about fsck in The New York Times? Being covered in sources such as The Wall Street Journal blows this software right out of the notability park. Alessandra Napolitano ( talk) 03:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Selena albums discography. Spartaz Humbug! 18:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Mis Primeras Grabaciones

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

Sources are a fansite, Yahoo, Amazon and answers.com. I couldn't find any non-trivial sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Tom Morris ( talk) 08:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose largely because it is notable. The album can be expanded similar to Selena Live!, I haven't gotten that far down the line with expanding as I'm currently working on Ven Conmigo. Furthermore, even though the album never impacted any music chart nor did RIAA issued a certification, her singles had extensive airplay in South Texas (while ineligible for the Hot 100) and were issued out as promotional singles. I support the mass redirect of her non-solo career singles but not her albums that helped shaped her in the Tejano market and to be noticed. Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 14:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
This source and these states that the album was one of the early milestones of her career, though its not enough to say that it is anywhere notable in Wikipedia as a stand-alone article. However, this source says that the album did not sell well and gives genres the band used to record the album. The album is mentioned in the book called The encyclopedia of popular music. It was given a three out of five star rating by Allmusic. If these are still not enough to save this article then I'll vote to redirect the article to Selena albums discography. Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 21:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
While it does have stars from Allmusic, that means bupkis since they didn't bother to write a review. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Then a redirect would be best in my opinion. Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 00:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Which is acceptable, since unlike one of her other albums, the existence of this one is verifiable if not its notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 04:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Cobra (programming language from Squeaky Duck)

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

Lack of notability. The tag of notability has existed since December 2009. I searched for sources but I found none. Previous nomination happened in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cobra (programming language) (the article has been moved). Ricvelozo ( talk) 20:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Zilch on the 3rd party front. Shame, as it sounds like an interesting language for a rather different market from usual, but without some coverage elsewhere, WP is not an appropriate location for first publishing. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 04:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Strictly Come Dancing Celebrity Averages

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

Completely redundant article; as far as I can see, it is only a restating of some of the information on the List of Strictly Come Dancing contestants. Cwmxii ( talk) 20:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Still_Game#Series_1_.282002.29. v/r - T P 04:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Cauld

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

Non notable individual episode, all plot, no references. If this goes through, I will likley nominate the other episodes being created. Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — AllyD ( talk) 23:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 02:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Charlie (Charles) Jones

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

fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu ( talk) 20:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A promising junior but does not meet inclusion at this time. Good luck on his career and no prejudice to recreation if he progresses to the point where inclusion is met. -- Whpq ( talk) 16:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Only some national level junior results. Has an empty player record on the ATP Tour site. Fails notability at this moment. MakeSense64 ( talk) 07:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The person creating the page is named Jonesy512... maybe the player in question? It's the only edit by this person so they may not realize the protocol at wikipedia. I can find nothing that would indicate notoriety for tennis at ATP or ITF sites. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 02:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

5 Hour Energy - Potential Health Risk

5 Hour Energy - Potential Health Risk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is overly specific for an encyclopedia topic and as a non-notable subject does not meet criteria in the guideline WP:GNG. Most of the content is either redundant to content in other articles (such as the articles for each ingredient listed) or the content would be better merged into those articles. Peacock ( talk) 19:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 by Fastily (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://letsbefamous.com/1160/difference-between-press-release-and-article/). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 21:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

What is difference between article submission and press release submission?

What is difference between article submission and press release submission? (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR WP:ESSAY Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Nation19

Nation19 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CSDed. Recreated. CSDed again . removed by anonymous user (sockpuppet based on history). Non notable. Advert. Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 02:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Motorized recliner incident

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

This article discussess a single incident and has no enduring enduring historical significance or a significant lasting effect. Coverage is not in-depth or of relevance outside where it occured. Incident was widely reported internationally as light news trivia. See also Wikipedia:EVENT and Wikipedia:WIDESPREAD#Don.27t_create_an_article_on_a_news_story_covered_in_109_newspapers Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 01:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Keep It had coverage in newspapers in countries all over the world, January through November of 2009. It went beyond a watercooler story which numerous paper covered in one news cycle. It is comparable to the story of Larry Walters flying to great heights in a lawnchair lifted by weather balloons. Edison ( talk) 02:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
comment There's no question of coverage, but enduring significance / notability is another issue. There is equivalent coverage on many similar incidents (google 'motorised drink driving') - including bar stools, beer coolers and wheelchairs. Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 02:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
If articles were determined to be non-notable because similar subjects with equivalent coverage in RS exist, we wouldn't have many left. Besides, nearly a year of international coverage in RS is enduring, by any reasonable definition of the term. Which of your similar incidents have achieved this level of notoriety'? Alessandra Napolitano ( talk) 04:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
While coverage appears to have lasted Nov-april, international coverage was limited to mentioning the incident. The article itself refers to an almost identical case (Kile Wygle). More noteworthy cases could (in terms of media and as legal test cases) can be found at [ [22]] (note title 'another') and [ [23]] Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 04:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Edison. Also, this incident was described in a law review article [24]. Alessandra Napolitano ( talk) 02:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT WP:EVENT twaddle, a stupid human-interest story one finds at the end of their local news alongside heartwarming stories of the dog that can bark Ode to Joy or the 90 year old farmer still on the job. Tarc ( talk) 05:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    Comment Maybe we should have articles on the other two topics you mentioned. Good suggestions. Edison ( talk) 16:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    Thankfully (for the project's sake) I made them up. Tarc ( talk) 16:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    You're effectively arguing that the article should be deleted because you find it to be "twaddle" and "a stupid human-interest story". This is a classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, festooned with irrelevant policies. Invoking WP:ONEEVENT is silly, since the article is about the event, not one of the participants. WP:NOTNEWS is a deprecated redirect, designed to draw attention to just this sort of misuse of a "potentially misleading shortcut". The actual policy title is "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". It allows "development of stand-alone articles on significant current events" but doesn't permit "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". Incidents receiving major international attention are seldom routine news reporting. Alessandra Napolitano ( talk) 17:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    Just because you have a bug up your backside against my position at WT:NOT doesn't mean you get to carry your snideness to other venues, so dial it back a bit, will you? As for WP:ONEEVENT, that was a mistake on my part, I meant to link to the main event notability guideline at WP:EVENT. There is not lasting effect of this incident, no wide-reaching effect. It is just one very ridiculous story that poppped into the news for a few days, everyone has a chuckle over it, and then it is swiftly forgotten. We get hundreds of these AfDs a year because some yahoo sees a funny headline and scrambles here to write an article about it, whether it is the woman who fell into a shopping mall fountain while texting or a news reporter seems to have a stroke while on-air. These sorts of things are always judged by WP:NOTNEWS standards and quickly deleted. My call to delete is based on a sound argument used many, many times in the past. If you disagree, fine, but try to contain your responses to the realm of the rational. Tarc ( talk) 17:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    So, your "sound argument" is to take a subject with months of coverage, as described by Edison, and counterfactually describe it as having "poppped into the news for a few days"? Your imploring me "to contain your responses to the realm of the rational" is deeply ironic. This AFD may ultimately involve a philosophically profound discussion of the nature of reality: is the chronological length of coverage an objective fact, or can it be transmuted according to one's desires, just by imagining it to be so? Alessandra Napolitano ( talk) 22:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    Amazing how many words you can use and not actually address what someone says. Recap; guy hooks up an engine to a la-z-boy, guy gets arrested, everyone enjoys the lulz. End of story. No lasting significance, no continued coverage. Just a dumb news blip and it is gone. Similarly trivial news-of-the-day junk has received far, far more coverage than this shit, and has been easily deleted. This one should be a no-brainer, but in the end it all depends on who shows up to weigh in. Tarc ( talk) 23:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I am not unsympathetic to the inclusionist position here, but I do not feel it is consistent with the notability guideline at hand. Because Edison mentioned Larry Walters in support of keeping this article, I think it's valuable to contrast the two situations. In both cases, someone converted a chair into something else (aircraft, car), got arrested, and had the story reported in a zillion newspapers. Walters' flight was "a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance" -- several plays, poems, songs, TV episodes, and a major studio motion picture were based off the event; the event under discussion has not been such a catalyst. Interest in and reporting on Walters' action was diverse and sustained, including requests for late-night talk show appearances, efforts by the Smithsonian to acquire his chair, an advertising campaign with Rolex, and follow-up reports years later including coverage of his eventual suicide in People; in contrast, coverage on this event has been much narrower -- the event happened, the chair was auctioned off, and La-Z-Boy objected to copyright dilution in the media. It is conceivable that this event will in time meet the expectations in the guidelines, but at this time it is more akin to one of the "and finally" stories deemed likely not notable by the guideline. As a separate response to one other supporting claim, the FindLaw Blotter blog entry linked by Alessandra Napolitano might be a reliable source (although I am uncertain), but it is certainly not what is normally contemplated as a law review article. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 20:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I am extremely unsympathetic to the inclusionist position here. Fleeting coverage, classic not a newspaper stuff. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 20:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This incident may have been newsworthy a couple of years ago, but it is not sufficiently notable to be a suitable encyclopedia topic. Peacock ( talk) 21:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The deletion argument here is blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Claims that topics have to have lasting historical significance are hand-waving prejudice because many/most topics are just not that important. Clicking random article a few times we have Travis Lee (wrestler), Oxnard Elementary School District, Izzy Lang. It's only after getting through mundane stuff like that that we come to a timeless topic like structural rigidity and such topics are a fraction of our content. So, to pick on the recliner incident just because it seems wacky is contrary to core policy. The incident has had international coverage and has made it into at least one book. Notability does not expire and so this topic passes the notability guideline. Warden ( talk) 23:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and that none of those listed articles have the same difficulties with the terms of the event notability guideline) aside, the linked book is published by well-known print-on-demand publisher PublishAmerica and thus does not constitute a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 23:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
"Other stuff exists" refers to the argument that because there are some articles that are equally problematic as the one at AFD, the latter should be retained. If accepted, this line of reasoning would obstruct the AFD process, since there are always bad articles that we haven't gotten around to disposing of yet. However, when someone proposes to delete an article in part for reasons that, if accepted, would eliminate about 95% of Wikipedia articles (no great historical significance), that's a problem, since any attempt to start a massive article burning would quickly be quashed by overwhelming consensus. The enduring significance test in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER may be crystal balling going forward, but it's an objective metric when evaluated retrospectively - either coverage of the event died out quickly, or it didn't. When reliable sources are still covering an event months later, we have enduring significance. Thus it is for the motorized recliner incident: significant coverage in reliable sources started in January 2009, and ended December 2009. Establishing notability has never required coverage of events to continue indefinitely. Arguments to the effect of "this is trivial crap, fsck it" aren't sufficient to show non-notability; AFD is not a venue in which to evaluate subjects against our own tastes. Alessandra Napolitano ( talk) 02:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • WP:Other stuff exists states that "a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain.". Historical significance is not a logical test for recent events because we are unable to predict what will be thought historically significant in years to come. Warden ( talk) 10:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The metrics I'm applying here don't apply to 95% of articles, nor my personal tastes, only to those discussed in WP:EVENT, under the Inclusion Criteria, where "lasting, historical significance" is cited explicitly as one of the criteria that should be evaluated to distinguish news stories from encyclopedic topics. As a matter of personal policy, I cleave especially tightly to the guideline's inclusion factors when considering events involving a single primary actor whose biographical article would be discourged by WP:BLP1E. On the subject of dates, I haven't had the chance to look into the conflict, but the October 2009 date given in the article lede seems in conflict with January 2009 sourcing. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 14:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I think that was a transcription error in that source: 23/01 rather than 23/10. It seems that the event occurred in August 2008. The story broke in October 2009 when the matter came to trial. It was still being reported the following April 2010 when police were trying to auction off the recliner again. It fetched $3700.

    It's moving me to address this issue over and over and I really would like this issue to be over with, because I have other things to take care of in the community

    — Chief Walter Wobig of the Proctor Police Department
    . Sounds like the chief felt that this matter dragged on for some time. Warden ( talk) 15:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 02:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

20 Avenue

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

Not a significant street in the borough of Brooklyn. There is absolutely no need to have this article. An IP user who lives in the area removed a speedy deletion template from the article for no apparent reason The Legendary Ranger ( talk) 00:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Well those pages will eventually become articles on here. Tinton5 ( talk) 21:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete: This street is not notable; it has no significant coverage to warrant an article. Acps110 ( talk • contribs) 21:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep. Notable street but could use expansion. Tinton5 ( talk) 21:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete - Just one of many numbered streets in Brooklyn. Dough 48 72 01:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Subways are not built on random streets, nor are subway stations so located. They're built where there's an important concentration of commerce (or sometimes, center of a residential area); if they are not so originally, they are consciously intended and planned to develop into one. Why does it happen that the most important cross streets in Manhattan have subway stops? Mere serendipity? Same goes for Brooklyn. The argument that we don't have articles on many of them is a good indication of our incompleteness--there's still plenty of scope for new editors. Such articles can all be developed beyond one or two lines: there's the subway planning--there's the subsequent development of the area. Most subway history includes discussion about individual stations. The nearest analogy is local rural railroad stations, which played exactly the same role in the previous century. Whether we want to go into streets in more detail than that I leave for further discussion, but it's odd to see an argument that we should seriously consider whether we want to make articles on something reasonably notable , because someone might want to make articles on something less notable of the same general type. As far as I can tell the evidence that "it was created by someone who just lives there and wanted his street in Wikipedia" is non-existent. (And the ip who removed the deletion tag removed a prod, not a speedy.) By the way, nobody notified the creator--I just did, belatedly, and I think that;s enough justification for a relisting. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Transnational progressivism

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

Really an attack page, but deserves full AfD discussion of this obscure ideological ax-grinding non-notable term, "sourced" (if we can call it that) to its coiner, a non-notable political writer, and a couple of science fiction writers who like to use a slang version of this term as an obscure pejorative. Orange Mike | Talk 21:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, I think. The current condition of the page notwithstanding, there do seem to be third-party authors discussing Forte's concept, including a fairly brief mention in this European Law Journal paper and somewhat more commentary here in Science and Society. There are also several books not authored by Forte that devote some space to the topic. Most, admittedly, are essay compilations that include Forte's work directly, but there are exceptions such as this one, where the section in question is authored by Ilya Prizel. There's also this book, but I suspect it's actually talking about something different. Someone more familiar with this material than I am may wish to ensure that this third-party commentary is independent of the Hudson Institute rather than simply written by someone other than Forte, but on its face, it looks like there could be an article here (although it wouldn't much look like the current one). Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 21:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Fonte's concept is notable, being covered in multiple sources. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden ( talk) 00:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, third party secondary sources discuss the subject. — Cirt ( talk) 03:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep good article with sources to back it up. Askadaleia ( talk) 09:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    • reply Really? Where? The only footnotes are to Fonte's own work (two works, one footnoted in two different editions, the other appearing in a publication of rather partisan reputation)! Where does the non-notable Fonte get to create his own diagnosis of an ideology, then smear it all over anybody he disagrees with, like rubbing your own feces in an enemy's face? -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Despite previous claims of "third party secondary sources", the only given sources are, as OrangeMike points out, from the works of the person who supposedly coined the term. How is that "third party" or "secondary"? The sources cited by Squeamish Ossifrage make only brief mention of the topic. There does not appear to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources.-- JayJasper ( talk) 19:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Prizel has a couple of pages on the topic (and could replace many of the direct citations to Fonte). Science and Society is a relatively weak journal, but Harris provides some comparative analysis there, which is important to article development. There's also some coverage in articles in Anthropoetics, the Australian Journal of Politics and History, the Journal of Social Sciences, the Journal of Studies in International Education, the Review of International Studies, the RUSI Journal, and Society. Many of these mentions are trivial; some are less so. Regardless, I think there are enough sources out there to rewrite the sad excuse for an article that we've got now into something with actual commentary and criticism. I'd rather not be the one to do it, as I have my own opinions about the quality of Fonte's scholarship and try to avoid editing in areas where I possess a recognizable bias. But there really is quite a bit of material out there. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 20:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Lee Kwang-sik

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

Formerly PRODded as "Unintelligible machine translation": PROD removed with no explanation, no appreciable improvement to quality of text. Pam D 18:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that sources found provide evidence of notability. ( non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

The American Monomyth

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

This article does not state notability. I did a quick Google search on the article to see if I could find any sources and I couldn't. I would contact the initial editor before tagging but they have no edits since 2007 and there is a notice on their userpage saying they have retired. I therfore think that this article should be deleted on notability grounds. Oddbodz ( talk) 17:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 00:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)*Keep but those supporting a rescue should actually provide inline citations, rather than telling the rest of us how it can be done. reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Phantom automation language

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

Software which exists and perhaps was important, but fails WP:N for lack of reliable sources. The article has always been unreferenced. The previous Afd produced some external links – which show it exists – but aren't usable as sources and shouldn't even be kept as links. Pnm ( talk) 05:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui ( talk) 17:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explorations in Afro-Cuban dance and drum

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Gabriel R. G. Benito

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Only thing marginally notable is his 2005 presidency of EIBA, but I intend to nominate that for deletion as well. Don't see it as a "prestigious scholarly ... association". Bbb23 ( talk) 02:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep co-editor of two books, and probably meets WP:AUTHOR as well as, WP:PROF. In particular , co-editor of Progress in international business research, a series co-published by OUP and Elsevier. Multinationals on the periphery was published by another major publisher, Palgrave/Macmillan/. (for WP:Author alone, reviews would be needed) But several dozen published papers, & a dozen working papers. The reason for keeping is not the count of papers, but the citations, which show notability the way it should be shown for academics, by the citing of his work by hundreds of other scholars which establishes him as an expert in his field. "The expansion of foreign direct investments: discrete rational location choices or a cultural learning process?" in Journal of International Business Studies, 1992 had 319 citation in G Scholar. "Foreign market servicing: beyond choice of entry mode" in Journal of International Marketing, 1994, had 160. After that the counts are 145, 118, 113, 67.... Normally, anyone who manages to publish even one peer-reviewed paper with 100 citations is notable; he has published 5. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui ( talk) 17:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 17:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Seapunk

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

A neologism that doesn't seem to have wide currency. No reliable sources to show this is a widespread term. Prod was contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse ( talk) 06:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Man i just started doing this and i have no idea how to do citations. This might not be a widespread term in your everyday use, but it is in mine and my community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinospartan117 ( talk • contribs)

This discussion runs for seven days, so you have time to find the citations. The best place to start is by reading through Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, guidelines on reliable sources and guidelines on citing sources. Best, Sparthorse ( talk) 07:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or userfy. This is a very, very recently coined term and as such, doesn't have anything that would be considered a reliable source. In response to Dinospartan117, a term, person, place, or item might be considered notable within a group of people, but that doesn't automatically mean it's notable enough to go onto Wikipedia. What's needed to prove notability are reliable sources. (See WP:RS for what's considered a reliable source.) Unfortunately I didn't find that when I did a search on this term. I found some blogs, youtube videos, and sources that would be considered trivial at best, but I didn't find anything reliable. A reliable source would be if Rolling Stone did an article on seapunk or if it was covered in a news article. That said, I think that it might be worth userfying ( WP:USERFY) until Dinospartan117 can find enough reliable sources to flesh the term out. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 07:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79 reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Jyotikalash

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

non notable neologism. Prod declined without explanation by the same ip who restored this lovely piece of fluff [30] Jac16888 Talk 18:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie ( talk) 14:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie ( talk) 14:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article but an essay on a Hindu or Sanskrit word or maybe name. The essay doesn't even explain what the word means ("light pot" doesn't really help), and I didn't manage to find out elsewhere. Delete without prejudice against recreation as a proper article in case someone knows more and wants to impart actual information about the topic. At that point we can still examine notability. Hans Adler 16:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I am no wiser after reading this article. Is this about a Hindi word? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If it's about something else, I cannot fathom what it may be. -- Whpq ( talk) 20:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - ~Laughs~ I am really stunned by the ingenuity of the Indians (pats himself) who are using the lack of familiarity of the westerners regarding Hindi to create an article about a so-called "Stress-remover and success provider website".Firstly it reeks of WP:PEACOCK.Secondly Jyoti-->means "Light"(of maybe knowledge or good action) & Kalash-->means "Pot".Now the point is that ancient sages/ Rishi/ऋषि had dedicated their lives in the search for ultimate knowledge,for which they traveled and meditated in the harsh sub-zero weather of the Himalayas(I dont have reliable source for this).Thus they were objects of general awe.These sages also carried a pot (of clay or metal) to carry water(for what I dont know).Now whenever a disciple bowed in front of them ,as a mark of blessing they used to sprinkle water from this pot on them.People assumed that this water enlightened them, brought peace to their life.This water is also known as "Shanti Jal" /(water of peace).It is from here the whole concept of neo-something and jyoti-kalash came into being.
    Now coming back to the article.This article is actually for a website of the same name and the main subtle need of this article is advertising.For me the lack of sources lead to failure of WP:VERIFY and particularly this article fails WP:GNG.P.S:Sorry for my long explanation ,but I just love drama. Vivekananda De --tAlK 10:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep : I have done major edits to page. Removed copyright text. Added cat. Please note that there is a Category:Given names by culture [31] and I have added Cat Category:Hindu given names accordingly to the article. So notability issue does not arise. Please see the article again to change your opinion. Jethwarp ( talk) 04:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: I still dont get it.If major edits has been done then what are these two references still doing there
  1. Name Jyoti Kalash
  2. Significance of name jyotikalash.net

Both these link to a website which claims to remove "stress and provide success" . Secondly,I beg to differ on the matter of notability regarding names.One of my arguments would be by picking up an archived debate --> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laimnesis (name) which says "No evidence that this name is borne by anybody notable" as a reason for deletion by the nominator.Similarly, my argument here would be we do not have any notable person having this name /surname.Thus there is no need for this article.If in the future somebody notable do come up then new article could be made.But, as the saying goes WP is not a crystal ball.If comparison is to be drawn then I would say Sunil and Parag as the examples for inclusion of names. There are two things that may assert notability for the same :-

  1. Line 1-->"Hindus light oil lamps near Kalasha for nine days in reverence to Durga. These are also known as Jyoti-Kalash"--This reference can be added to Navaratri
  2. Line 2-->"A song Jyoti Kalash Chhalke sung by Lata Mangeshkar in 1961 Hindi movie Bhabhi ki Chudiyan"--This can be added to the list of songs sung by Lata Mangeshkar.

Thus there is no need for a separate article. I will also say that other stuff also exist! Vivekananda De --tAlK 05:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment : rmvd external link. The link are given to cite that Jyotikalash comes from words jyoti & kalash. There is no mention of stress in article. It is a Sanskrit word and has other religious significance and meanings in religious rites of Hindus apart from being a name. I am surprised that you being from India are making such comments. You should be very much aware what at least a kalasha is!!! You have given a fine explanation earlier (above) what a jyotikalash is shanti jal (water of peace). Now when I have added ref explaining what a jyoti-kalash is you want to argue against it. Jethwarp ( talk) 08:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Reply: Firstly,I will take this "you being from India are making such comments" as a compliment and as a mark of my neutrality.I never mentioned the word stress in the article.I said the linked website says such words.I am also not refuting that "religious significance and meanings in religious rites" of the word.I am only saying that there is no need for a separate article.The significance of the word can be kept consolidated by adding separate sections / edits to Navaratri and Lata Mangeshkar,as I have said in my previous argument.But in between all these you did not mention so as to why you are adding this article to Hindu given names and why this particular article can have a stand alone status.The particular religious significance can be added to Navaratri and thus there is no need for a separate article.Now, your link says it all.The term Jyoti Kalash has the greatest significance in the puja or during the Navaratri.As an extension to previous argument regarding--> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laimnesis (name) I add that the "Laimnesis (name)" is "they are historical names dating back to pre-Christian times" and yet they are non-notable just because there is "No evidence that this name is borne by anybody notable".Let us only think about WP guidelines regarding this discussion and not think about other things.See the problem regarding hindu scriptures is the ability of anybody to interpret in his/her own terms.My earlier argument is just an argument and my own opinion just because I do not have any reliable source for it.Moreover please note I have not refuted anything that you have said.I am just saying it does not need a separate article .Thats all!!! Vivekananda De --tAlK 09:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment that is why I have added another Category : Sanskrit words and pharses and given explanation what a jyoti-kalash means in hindu religion, which has a great scope for expansion over the time. As for the name Jyoti Kalash can be found in google book search. Jethwarp ( talk) 09:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment :Can you please add those google book search results to this article.I am oblivious to the "great scope for expansion" argument.You are shifting from "name" (as in name Jyoti Kalash can be found in google book search) to "Sanskrit Word" argument.In which way do you want to keep this article?Cite the relevant guideline. Vivekananda De --tAlK 10:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment : It is not for me to decide how I want to keep the article. I am neither the creator of the original page nor do I own it. This is a debate going on if the article is worth keeping on Wiki and the votes and the closing Admin will decide the fate of article, after looking in to the status of article. Jethwarp ( talk) 11:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Reply: Good quality references, I must say.Lets quote the lines which talk about "Jyoti Kalash" from every source .
  1. Name Jyoti Kalash:Links to a website whose other pages claim to remove stress and so on.Thus for me its still spammy and not a reliable source.
  2. Akhand Manokaamna Navratra Jyoti Kalash:Navratras are the major festive occasions for Shri Mahamaya Devi Mandir. Navratras are observed twice every year, a period of nine days each......Special lamps called Kalash are lit in big halls surrounding the Mandir in the name of devotees. These Kalashas are kept akhand
  3. Adbhar Ashtbhuji Temple : This is an ancient temple of Goddess Devi with eight hands. The Jyoti Kalash are lit here on Navaratri: The Jyoti Kalash are lit here on Navaratri.
  4. Shitala Mandir:Its an image and not technically a source.
  5. Jyoti Kalash are lighted here on the occasion of Navratri:Jyoti Kalash are lighted here on the occasion of Navratri.
  6. Jyoti kalash chalke : One of the most outstanding songs sung by Lata Mangeshkar, this must go down as a very special song in her career as well as in the annals of Bollywood filmy music:Already described in my previous argument.

Now,4 out of 6 sources say "Jyoti Kalash" in the same breath as " Navaratri" and thus it simply supports my argument that there is no need for a separate article.It is a great addition to Navaratri.The same thing applies to Lata Mangeshkar song.Thus there is no need for a separate article.I will again say "In which way do you want to keep this article?Cite the relevant guideline",because I am asking the guideline for your argument.P.S:There was a talk about "the name Jyoti Kalash can be found in google book search",I still dont see any google reference. Vivekananda De --tAlK 12:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Reply : This is my last comment on this matter, as this is not a talk page. Let the Admin & other Wiki editors decide the outcome of debate. You have already covered a large section of AfD putting arguments like a lawyer putting forward your POV. Jethwarp ( talk) 15:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep : The article passes WP:N. Also explains its meaning and use as a name and in culture. Links to photos also help to understand what is a Jyotikalash to a person not familiar with Indian culture. Hardyraj ( talk) 15:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC) User blocked as sock of Jethwarp – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

NOTE:This AfD contains comments from users who are undergoing Sockpuppetry Investigations.See this for further use--> Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jethwarp.I have requested the above investigation and if required my comments can also be not considered if it leads to conflict of interest or leads to the question of neutrality of my comments. Vivekananda De --tAlK 04:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui ( talk) 17:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wouldn't it be nice to have reliable, relevant sources for this? But we don't. Alessandra Napolitano ( talk) 22:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I find Vivekananda De's comments convincing. There are really no references supporting any notability of "Jyotikalash" as a given name. They are mostly references to the Navaratri lamps of the same name, but that is an irrelevant context - that should be covered in Navaratri. And there's the words of one song, which are best covered elsewhere. To support an article about a given name, what we need is sources supporting its notability as a given name, not its use in different contexts -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 19:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by proposer; WP:NAC by Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 05:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Blood Feast 2: All U Can Eat

Blood Feast 2: All U Can Eat (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages because this second article is a duplicate article on the same film. The two pages have been tagged for merge.

Blood Feast 2 All You can Eat (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable film. Film not critically reviewed, and in fact an article on one of the film-maker's other works, mentions this film in passing as "little-seen". A complete dearth of mentions in legitimate media makes me question the notability of this one. Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 16:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
AKA :(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Jordan Lukaku

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Non-notable youth player who has yet to appear in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had been called up to the first team. This is insufficient to grant notability. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Eden World Builder

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

Seems to fail notability. A search of Google News for "Eden World Builder" only brings up 2 hits, both of which are trivial passing mentions. There may be other sources but I haven't found them. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Contains enough information to see what the article is, and is quite a popular game at the moment, in the top 100 at the app store.

silly billypiggy ¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE! 14:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 18:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

This article is important but is not well written. Someone needs to rewrite it. By no means should it be deleted. Cin316 ( talk) 02:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)— User:Cin316 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Comment - Cin316, simply stating that the article is important isn't sufficient. It has to be shown to be important - that is to say, the notability of the game must be shown. The above suggestions that the article be deleted are all based on a lack of evidence of notability. If you want to keep the article, you need to convince the community that it meets WP:GNG. Some good detailed coverage of the game in reliable sources would suffice, I suspect. I looked for that coverage before I commented above, and I couldn't find any - which is why I think it should be removed from wikipedia. Colon el Tom 03:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Week delete. Has a few reviews out there, but none from reliable video game reviewers. I don't really know the reliability of these such as [37] or [38], but they don't seem to be of high editorial oversight. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 09:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G2 by Fastily (G2: Test page). Nwlaw63 and I both guessed wrong on which speedy criterion would be the death of this one. Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 21:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

The Random Song lyrics

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

just lyrics. silly billypiggy ¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE! 14:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Axis for Peace

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

Apparently non-notable conference held once in 2005 which generated no press or scholarly interest. Article's single reference is to the conference's own website - tagged as unreferenced since April 2010. Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 14:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Admiral Markets

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

Removed prod. There have been some minor changes since the removal of the prod, but nothing so far has substantially corrected the problem, which is that the company does not appear to be notable. Given that I can't find any indepth (non-trivial) reliable sources, it appears that the subject isn't notable per WP:GNG. No amount of additional editing could cause such sources to come into existence, so the article should probably be deleted. Of course, if someone could produce such sources, I would withdraw my objections. But as they don't appear to exist now, I don't have much hope. Jayron 32 14:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

M.J Ajithkumar

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

No evidence of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Honey Singh

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

No independent indication of notability and mostly a puff piece. Sources are all personal or fan sites. Article has been repeatedly deleted. regentspark ( comment) 14:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep Article is a complete mess, but at least one of the sources currently there indicates that he has a #1 song on a respected music chart, which would be enough to keep the article as a worthwhile subject. The rest of the problems could be cleaned up by anyone so wishing to. -- Jayron 32 14:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    I'm not so sure. I'm no music expert so am happy to defer to you on this but, is a download chart really notable? (Also, the source doesn't seem reliable anyway. Though [39] indicates that it did hit #1 on that chart at least one week.) -- regentspark ( comment) 14:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply


  • Please Dont delete this page Honey Singh is best music directer and rapper in Punjab. Born in Delhi and raised in Punjab,This young music artist has taken the UK Punjabi hip-hop Music Industry by storm.Now based in the Uk,he studied music at the prestigious School Trinity College,A Music Director,rapper and mixer,he shot to fame after the release of his album like Peshi,Bollywood Rebirth.With Seven years in the music Industry,he has bagged the ETC award for the Best sound in 2006 for Glassi and the PTC award for the Best Folk Pop Award 2009 for Rebirth and PTC PUNJABI Best Music Director 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurjinder.romana ( talk • contribs) 02:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Nothing is systematical in article and every thing is messed up.Moreover one thing is repeated again and again.The language used is also informal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhanikataria ( talk • contribs)
  • Weak Keep - I don't think that having a #1 download represents topping a notable chart. On the other hand, he won multipel PTC Punjabi Music awards as covered here. He is the singer on the titel track from a movie [40], [41]. The article itself reads like a press release / fan site and needs a lot of work though. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply


  • now everything is systematical in article. the lines, from which it looks as a press release / fan site are removed . Please remove the artical deletation tag from the article Gurjinder Romana 15:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedied A9 by Boing! said Zebedee (A9: Non-notable music by artist with no Wikipedia article). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 20:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Raised in a Jungle (album)

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

If Heist (band) didn't pass the general notability guidelines, I doubt their second album meets the general notability guidelines. Shirt58 ( talk) 13:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Best Of Luck Nikki. v/r - T P 01:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Sheena Bajaj

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

Contested BLPPROD. This article cites no sources, and certainly doesn't establish notability. The subject has had small parts in a few films, but fails WP:NACTOR. St Anselm ( talk) 11:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Ryan Moore (American football)

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

Fails WP:Athlete. Never appeared in a professional game and didnt have a notable college career. Yankees10 03:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Players are deemed notable if they "gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." Being named to an All-American team is having gained national media attention as an individual.-- TM 13:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 08:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Disagree Paul. No one addressed either my concern or the numerous articles which help the article pass GNG. Judging by the number of articles specifically about Moore, it looks like he passes GNG as well as NCOLLATH.
  • Listing in a table doesn't do it for me on that alone. The other one at ESPN simply states that he might return and might not. A feature article, yes--but it just doesn't do it for me in this case. We still come back to a player that hasn't done anything but get arrested.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
'Moore' weapons for third ranked Miami is, despite the terrible pun in the title, an Associated Press article distinctly about the high level recruit. I rest my case. High school All-Americans who play at the highest level college football programs are usually going to have press coverage as well as passing NCOLLATH.-- TM 12:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:WABBITSEASON cheers!-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:DONTBEADICK-- TM 18:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Huh? Disagreeing with you is not personal.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 08:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Search2.net

AfDs for this article:
Search2.net (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP. CharlieEchoTango ( talk) 07:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I had nominated this page for speedy deletion for notability but that was declined with the note that there is a "credible claim of notability". I don't know what that credible claim might be. The only tenuous claim to notability is the site's size (5 million sites indexed), but this is a really thin claim to notability, and cannot be verified. If the site claimed 5 million users (which would represent a significant portion of its home country's (Israel) population), that would be something. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Recreated with no notability shown. SL93 ( talk) 22:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Starrfucker Magazine

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. CharlieEchoTango ( talk) 07:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Theodore Theodoropoulos

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

I am not sure whether this person is notable. Lot of WP:OR in article. May also be violating WP:BIO, WP:COI and WP:RS Veryhuman ( talk) 07:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Egg ghost

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

May be a WP:HOAX as there are no Reliable Sources. May not satisfy WP:N Veryhuman ( talk) 07:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Searching for "egg demon" and "egg ghost" brings up a few mentions so it's not a hoax, but I'm not seeing anything in depth in English. I've left a message at Wikiproject Korea asking for help from Korean editors who, if this is notable, will be able to find references in Korean. -- NellieBly ( talk) 07:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as copyvio by Fastily. Lenticel ( talk) 06:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

JoRob

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

I can't find any in-depth coverage for this artist outside of self-published and promotional articles. Reference to a "King of Zimbabwe" in the third paragraph makes me wary of the article's accuracy as well. Appears to be autobiographical, with the only non-trivial references being to unreliable sources - Facebook, Youtube, etc.

I decided against BLPPROD because there are references, no matter how poor, and I decided against nominating for speedy deletion because there is a credible assertion of significance: notability, on the other hand, I'm not sure about, especially since I'm unfamiliar with most modern American music. So I thought it best to bring the article here for discussion. NellieBly ( talk) 06:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Many reliable sources are present now. – sgeureka t• c 18:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Extraordinary Merry Christmas

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

The article/redirect was created without any reliable source or ability to verify the title of the episode, violating WP:RS and WP:V. The only place this name can be found is on the various Glee wiki and fan pages, which are deemed unreliable by Wikipedia standards. Hence, the article page should not yet exist, and ought to be deleted. BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment shouldn't this be listed at WP:RFD? The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

My vote is to keep the re-direct/article, especially if it is just going to be re-created a week from now. Given the number of sites using "Extraordinary Merry Christmas" as the title of the episode (TV.com, IMDB, YouTube, blogs, Glee forum, etc.) I think it is safe to assume accuracy. The article can always be moved if needed. I created the re-direct when I noticed refs for the episode here . I don't see the harm in having the re-direct and I think it is more beneficial to put energy into expanding the article than running through red tape then starting from scratch again. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
My vote, obviously, is to delete (see below for changed vote and reason for change). All the cited sites, including IMDb, TV.com, etc., are unreliable, and should never be used to start an article. Glee (season 3) has been temporarily protected just to prevent those unverifiable episode names and like edits from being added by IPs who don't understand how Wikipedia works. I don't understand why equally unsourced article titles should get special treatment. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC) (note: strikeout and parenthetical comment after added at 03:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC) for clarity) reply
Change to keep. With the early release of the press release today—normally, it might not be seen until next week sometime, this request has become moot as a reliable source is finally available, almost nine days after the redirect was created. Although it's still clearly wrong to be creating episode articles—even as redirects—before reliable sources are available with the title, events have overtaken this AfD. I ask that it be closed, as an actual article (as opposed to a redirect) will be posted shortly. Having the AfD notice remain on the page any longer is now counterproductive.
I was interested to note that posting an AfD on a redirect page as instructed prevents the redirect from functioning properly. Is that supposed to happen? BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment: The Rambling Man, my understanding from reading the various instructions is that Redirects are not eligible for RFDs. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to place it there instead. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
But how do I find and apply V RS for a redirect? In any case, neutral for the duration of this until, in a few days time, it becomes an obvious keep. Happy Thanksgiving to those of you for whom it matters. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
These rumored episode titles have been wrong, and right, before. The title usually originates with a single site and spreads to all the others. (I tracked one because I was curious; it appeared the afternoon of the day that particular episode started shooting.) My understanding of the way Wikipedia worked was that we simply didn't use rumored information, we waited for reliable source confirmation before posting. If those aren't the rules, or they are but we don't care, just let me know. Thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
keep. Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if the new sources added since the opening of the AfD are sufficiently reliable, as well as sufficient to meet WP:N.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwyrxian ( talk) 06:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure why this was relisted: I submitted the original AfD, and noted when it became moot. I would like to withdraw it at this time.
As for reliable sources on a Glee episode, we've never had any question about network press releases or articles from Entertainment Weekly or TV Line: they're professional organizations that report on the industry, and the show sometimes gives screener copies of episodes to the reporters at both. There are more sources for some of the facts in the article, but listing more than one seems excessive, given that the sources involved are all considered reliable. BlueMoonset ( talk) 11:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Individual episodes are rarely notable ... especially before they're released/shown. Nothing in the article suggests any notability. Maybe delete and redirect to the Season 3 article, but only if the title is actually the real title in the long run. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 11:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
In fact, the title was given in a Fox press release after the AfD was filed. To date, all the individual episodes for Glee have been notable, and widely reviewed and commented upon. BlueMoonset ( talk) 11:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Meh. Dr. Who Episodes ? I know, I know, WP:OSE. I live in a Glee-free household (glee-free, some would claim), & have no idea how this stacks up against The Doctor. - Sitush ( talk) 12:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Different in some ways from The Doctor, similar in others. More intense at the moment, I think. I just finished a Glee episode article for which I read twenty reviews in publications ranging from Time and The Wall Street Journal and The Atlantic to Rolling Stone and Billboard to various major city newspapers to the aftorementioned Entertainment Weekly and TV Line. That kind of coverage is standard with every episode that airs, and EW and TV Line, along with their peers, post several articles a week on forthcoming events. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 International Security Assistance Force. I think a redirect/merge best reflects the consensus: those on the keep side argue that an article on ISAF supply lines would have potential, but the keep side appears to accept that the article as drafted is a sub-par attempt with an imprecise title. I don't see the delete side as arguing there is no potential for an article on ISAF supply lines. So, for the time being, this article will be redirected to International Security Assistance Force into which editors can feel free to merge content. There is no prejudice against the creation of a new separate article about ISAF supply lines. If that happens, we may have to re-think the redirect target. Mkativerata ( talk) 20:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

NATO supply Line

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

This is not itself a discrete topic but rather a ubiquitous part of any broader operation. For example, the two articles provided talk about specific incidents that affected supply lines. The articles never are directly about a specific supply line or even the concept of an Afghanistan miltary supply line. Moreover the title is incredibly generic... NATO has undoubtedly had thousands of supply lines in its history.

The concept is explosive too. In theory every conflict in history has had discussion incidentally about its "supply lines." There may be specific supply lines, the Burma Road that warrant articles. But contrast that with what's here and the incidental versus focused nature is clear.

Last of all, there's almost no content here. We're not losing much. Shadowjams ( talk) 06:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia needs to have an article on the NATO supply route,its history and threats to it, thats one of the most discussed topic in the world these days, eventually people would contribute and it would be a great article. Earlyriser10 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC). reply

It is connected to Russia and war on terror. Earlyriser10 ( talk) 11:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This topic has its own timeline although depended on other topics, but those can be tagged at main article navigation links at relevant sections. May be the article should be renamed to a more descriptive title or one given by the media or official, like "NATO supply line through Pakistan". The topic is significantly notable and I expect this article will have a timeline like structure when developed. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 05:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Agree that this is too narrow a topic, and the title implies something different from the content. -- Whpq ( talk) 18:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While the article sucks at present and is probably miss-titled, this is a very notable topic. A huge amount has been written about the arrangements by which the US/NATO/ISAF forces in Afghanistan are supplied. Nick-D ( talk) 01:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article needs to be expanded and improved,probably the title too. But it is an important topic. Earlyriser10 ( talk) 07:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete any necessary material can be transferred to International Security Assistance Force. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep An important topic, especially since the Pakistan routes have been closed. This article needs expansion, categories, and talk page templates. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 01:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per TopGun and Nick-D. Article appears to have signficant coverage in reliable sources and as such is likely notable under WP:GNG. (As a starting point only please see the hundreds of news articles available through Google dating over a period of several years which discuss the topic and the numerous issues which have affected it and ongoing campaign in Afghanistan, not to mention Pakistan and US relations). While I agree with the nominator that the article is in terrible shape and that it would be no great loss if what we currently have was deleted, I would be surprised if this article cannot be developed with the material available (should editors with suitable knowledge be willing to work on it). It should probably be renamed too. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    • The only plausible keep rationale is of the type you're giving here... I agree that perhaps in some form there could be some article discussion NATO logistics... but my point is that article doesn't seem to exist. There is nothing here to even build upon in that sense, and even in cases where we have a title that's plausible, we don't even have that here. For instance everyone's focused on Afghanistan supply routes but that's a tiny part of NATO's history. A rename is one of the many fundamental changes that would be required. And so while I understand the rationale of your, and I think all of the Keep votes here, I just don't see how the article we're discussing is the one you're !voting on. Shadowjams ( talk) 23:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The article has one liners as sections currently. Strictly speaking you can shuffle it to anything, but the basis this article is pointing out is the stereotypical controversial supply route of NATO through Pakistan which has repeatedly been closed and has a history attached to it. This has notable coverage and the fact itself would let it build. The name being clear would help, but the current content of the article does give an indication, to those who are familiar, of what to build on it. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 23:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Edius

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

Spam Vandalism Crowbar1981 ( talk) 02:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Thanks everyone for the help I'm not familiar with Wiki language but I understand it is has no notability. I'm removing external links as suggested in one label in the article

Crowbar1981 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC). reply

  • Speedy keep. This is easily the silliest nomination for deletion that I've seen in a while. It took literally 10 minutes to find 3 sources, which I've added; I'm satisfied I could find as many more as anyone wants. If you click the books link, it's obvious this software is well-known and that many writers have published mentions of the product. This product easily clears the bar for notability as required by WP:GNG. Further, nom is simply wrong in labeling this article as "spam vandalism"; I don't believe he knows what the term vandalism means on WP. Msnicki ( talk) 18:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Msnicki. Alessandra Napolitano ( talk) 22:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Ulzii

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

Has been listed at WP:PNT for the required two weeks with no progress in translation Jac16888 Talk 02:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie ( talk) 20:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Note: I send a message to the Mongolian Wikipedia because I was unable to find any mongolian-english translation websites --> [47]. I unconventionally put it into the discussion section for their main page because that is where it would most likely get noticed.-- Coin945 ( talk) 06:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, from what I've been able to piece together "Ulzii"="Өлзий"=Blessing. I tried some of the words through a Mongolian to English dictionary and it has word like happiness (жаргал), empathizing with each other (биендээ зовлонг) and fond of living (гуниггүй амьдрах дуртай). When you look at the text in the editor it is broken into line with a quoted word in front of each line. (like a poem.) The comment on the discussion page says something about favorite prayer (хайртай маань). Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 21:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wars of Light and Shadow for now. No prejudice against an article being created when it receives significant coverage (i.e., not just announcing the title) in notable third party sources. fish& karate 15:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Destiny's Conflict

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

WP:CRYSTAL. No third party sources and, according to the article, the author won't even commence writing until after the publication of Initiate's Trial. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 07:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. v/r - T P 01:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

List of oldest Chinese schools in the Philippines

List of oldest Chinese schools in the Philippines (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP is not for " excessive listings of statistics". This seems like a perfect example of that. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 01:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Withdraw nomination, due to the discussion below. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 16:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete totally unsourced, doesn't seem to really establish the notability of this intersection (age and Chinese schools in the Philippines) Perhaps if there's a list of schools in the Philippines or something like that some of this might be useful and could be merged there, but it would need to be sourced. OSborn arf contribs. 02:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Merge/move/etc per below. OSborn arf contribs. 16:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I am not done yet with this page. Can you please give me more time for me to include sources or references for this page? Roadrunner272008 06:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner272008 ( talk • contribs)
  • References were now added. --Roadrunner272008 07:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner272008 ( talk • contribs)
    • Hi there Roadrunner. First off, I appreciate the work you've done to get the sources you added. Unfortunately, those aren't the kind of sources this article needs. You've added stuff that shows that these schools exists. OK, but why do we need a list of the oldest schools in the Philippines in the first place? Why are these types of schools notable enough for a list, when they don't even have their own article? Nolelover Talk· Contribs 14:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I think the nom is missing the forest for the trees. It is correct that a list organized by how old the school is would be unnecessary. However, we seem to have a lot of content on Category:Chinese schools in the Philippines (something like 46 articles in total), and this is apparently the only list on that subject (though it is not yet comprehensive of all of our articles). So what I'm going to do is what should have been done rather than start an AFD: remove the problem by moving it to List of Chinese schools in the Philippines, tag for expansion so the list can include all such notable entries, and request this be speedy closed. I leave it to the list's future editors to determine if there is some encyclopedic merit in including non-notable schools in the list, and to determine how to reorganize the table. postdlf ( talk) 03:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I had noticed that category (its the first result for a search of "chinese schools" & "Philippines"), and I'm not averse to an early closure, but I'll ask you the same question I asked the article's creator: why do we need a list when the overall topic isn't notable enough for its own article? FWIW, I have been treating this from the beginning as though the "oldest" wasn't there, because I don't think it makes that much of a difference. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 13:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
      • That's not a meaningful way of analyzing it. Chinese school has an article, Education in the Philippines has an article, and something like 46 of the Chinese schools in the Philippines have articles. This then is just an index of those schools subdivided by country of location, or, viewed another way, a list of schools in the Philippines subdivided by type, both of which are a standard and obvious way of organizing things when the lists would be too large if not subdivided. That particular indexing group doesn't have to be notable in its own right to justify the list any more than it does for a category, and if a category is appropriate for navigation and grouping, then per WP:CLN a list is as well unless there is something about the topic that makes it particularly inappropriate for a list format (which there isn't here). postdlf ( talk) 14:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
        • I'll go ahead and withdraw my nom, pending your reply, but I don't think you're looking at the notability of lists the right way. WP:CLN, and more specifically, WP:AOAL, only says that the list "...may include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles" (emphasis mine). It says nothing about allowing overall un-notable topics to remain. You say that the "particular indexing group doesn't have to be notable in its own right to justify the list", but WP:LISTN clearly says that "a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines" (link mine). I believe that's pretty conclusive that a list is not a category, and that the intersection of "Chinese schools in the Philippines" still needs to be argued notable to remain. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 14:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
          • WP:NOTDIR states "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." WP:LISTN is at best incomplete; it does not represent full practice and consensus regarding all kinds of lists, particularly navigational ones. Does it really make sense to you that we would be forbidden from splitting a lengthy list of articles into subdivisions by country if we could not demonstrate that each -by country grouping was the subject as a group of significant coverage? Applying notability guidelines in that manner wouldn't accomplish anything constructive: it would force us to maintain lists that were far too large if we couldn't demonstrate "significant coverage" of very obvious indexing methods ("sorry, List of Finnish painters isn't notable, you'll have to merge those back into the whole list of painters by nationality"), or make the subdivisions incomplete if we could demonstrate that one grouping was notable but not another ("sorry, deaths in 2010 is notable, but not deaths in 2007"). So yes, the best and most reasonable approach, and the one most supported by consensus, and the one reflected by WP:CLN as a whole (which addresses lists as a method of grouping articles), is to treat lists of articles as a navigational system complementary to categories and templates. postdlf ( talk) 15:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
          • See also WP:SALAT: "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link." There is no indication that the ways in which we "limit the scope" must themselves be notable; it is instead encouraging us to apply reasonable subdivisions of the topic, first by subdividing a list into sections, and then by splitting those sections off into separate lists because of size concerns. postdlf ( talk) 15:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
            • ( edit conflict)I'm sure you can see the irony in pointing to a section titled "Wikipedia is not a directory" ...to say that Wikipedia is a directory. Anyway, I think I see where you're coming from more, although what seals it for me more then anything is realizing after a quick search that the unsourced "Chinese schools", one road of this intersection, is actually a decently covered topic in some outside sources. I think I'm gonna head over there and clean that one up... And I hope you didn't think I was just dragging this discussion out for its own sake - lists on non-notable topics has long been a pet peeve of mine and if I'm wrong, I want to make sure I'm wrong. :P Nolelover Talk· Contribs 15:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
            • (Upon reading the second part of your message) Okay, I'm sure now. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 15:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nil Burak. ( non-admin closure) jcgoble3 ( talk) 01:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Sen de Başını Alıp Gitme

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

Lyrics only with little content and no sources. Maybe someone can find some reliable information and save the article, but otherwise there's nothing here worth keeping. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 00:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 01:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Bruce Nolan (columnist)

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

This journalist does not seem to be notable. The story is mainly sourced by articles that he wrote himself. Borock ( talk) 00:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Tom Morris ( talk) 08:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 01:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Nintendo World Report

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

Notability and Refimprove tagged for sometime without much improvement. There are plenty of passing mentions but I have been unable to find any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Mattg82 ( talk) 00:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 00:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – (unsure on deletion) It does get referenced from other video gaming websites periodically, especially when new Nintendo titles are either released or being developed. However, it's hard to gauge direct coverage of the website itself. – MuZemike 02:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Quick question did the search for coverage also include the site's original name Planet GameCube? I am not sure if that would make a difference but that should be looked at if it was not checked.-- 199.91.207.3 ( talk) 18:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 01:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I acknowledge that sources substantiating the notability of news sources are generally more difficult to find. The above editors have mentioned that Nintendo World Report is referenced by other gaming websites. A quick search confirmed this [48] [49] [50] [51]. But, I wouldn't call these the most reliable of gaming websites. Searching under the prior name of the org (Planet Gamecube) did not prove fruitful for finding coverage of the organization. The subject does not seem to meet the standards of WP:ORG in that the content about the company that is available does not appear to be anything beyond typical coverage in the context of gaming releases. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Love Coming Down

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

Artist is notable, song is not. Fails WP:NSONGS. Till I Go Home ( talk) 08:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Tom Morris ( talk) 11:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 01:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Dino Bravo (original)

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

Fails WP:BIO: hasn't won significant titles, hasn't been the subject of multiple published secondary sources. Jarkeld ( talk) 00:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Jarkeld ( talk) 00:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Σ τ c. 00:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete Coverage of the individual seems to be limited, but I tried to keep in mind that this was a wrestler from the '60s and '70s, and so sources may be difficult to find. I did a search on Google, trying to limit the search to terms that would identify this older Dino Bravo (as opposed to the newer one) but searching for "Dino Bravo" + "The Italian Casanova". This brought up some repeats of Wikipedia articles [52] [53] and some user-generated content [54]. I found a few sources that provide profile-type info [55] info and others than do cover the subject in some detail [56] [57], the latter of which is already integrated into the article. However, the former appears to be someone's personal website compiled by a single individual, so it's not exactly a reliable source. Dino Bravo also appears in many, many Canadian newspapers, but all of it routine coverage that does not go in-depth on the individual. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

2013 V8 Supercar Championship Series

2013 V8 Supercar Championship Series (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CBALL series is still two years into the future. Contents of the article is nothing but unreferenced speculation. We are at least 12 months away from any kind of calendar. Rules mentioned have not been confirmed, again WP:Speculation Falcadore ( talk) 07:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now. I can't find significant coverage for the 2013 season. This is the only article that wasn't a passing mention. Not enough for an article now, but obviously now prejudice to recreation when actual sourcing is more abundant. -- Whpq ( talk) 18:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_November_30&oldid=1142636899"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE