WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2012 JANUARY 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 January	6 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Abertay University Labour Society

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

Not notable. Small student society in minor university Kodabar ( talk) 23:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete per the nomination. There does not seem to be discussion of this society in independent reliable sources. They are less than a year old. The link for their shortlisting for an award for "Best New labour Club" is broken, as least today (8 January 2012). The award is probably not notable either. -- Bejnar ( talk) 23:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete - a university club with no indication of notability and no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq ( talk) 23:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Ehsan Sehgal

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

Subject of the article ( User:Justice007) requests deletion. See here, his talk page and LadyofShalott's talk. I am respecting his wishes by creating this AfD, but this nomination should not be taken as a !vote either way. In the first diff and his message on Lady's talk, Justice is referring to this AfD and discussion which went on before, in which he was accused of bad-faith editing because of his "COI" related to Pakistani stubs. Nolelover ^Talk^· ^Contribs 22:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ladyof Shalott 23:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Ladyof Shalott 23:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep I can see no rationale for deletion. Subject appears notable as per previous discussions. I note the subject's desire for deletion, but I'm unclear what influence (any?) this should have on our decision. Please clarify one thing, if anyone can: what is the connection between Ehsan Sehgal and Ehsan Mehmood Khan. -- gråb whåt you cån ( talk) 00:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- None that has been revealed, other then the possibility that they come from the same area. They are both Pakistani, but I can't be more specific then that - and neither can the IP. Nolelover ^Talk^· ^Contribs 00:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep Topic meets the notability guidelines per sources. Just as we do not create articles about people or companies because the article subject wishes to have a Wikipedia entry, so should we avoid deleting articles at the whim of the subject. Wikipedia is not censored - notability is what counts, and Ehsan Sehgal is notable. Yunshui 雲‍ 水 13:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep, per Yunshui, no reason to delete. Though we should be respectful of both editors and BLP subjects, that doesn't mean they have control over their pages. Though the page may have been started by a COI account, there has since been sufficient scrutiny by independent editors to produce an adequate page. Though the process to arrive at this version was less than ideal, the current version is adequate in my opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 13:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep: Article is well sourced and no COI is visible on the article. It is written in a neutral way as well. -- 121.52.144.104 ( talk) 01:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep: per WP:Notability.He is notable. MJ84 ( talk) 16:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Zephyr Winds

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

The only links in the article is a dead link and the homepage. I am also unable to find significant coverage. This music group fails WP:BAND. SL93 ( talk) 22:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete. Lacks requisite RS coverage.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete per Epeefleche. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 19:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete - I managed to dig up this article, but aside from that, there's no other coverage that I can find. -- Whpq ( talk) 23:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No remaining deletion !votes, nomination was procedural. Fences& Windows 03:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Old Town Canoe

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

So as to avoid the article being speedily deleted. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 22:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete one minor reference in a small-city local newspaper does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Contrary to the author's belief, an article at AfD can be subject to speedy deletion, although this one does not meet any of the CSD criteria. However as it is about a non-notable company, this article should be deleted Since the author has now added sufficient sources to show notablity. Sparthorse ( talk) 22:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

*Delete per Sparthorse. Keep per sources cited below. NawlinWiki ( talk) 22:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete lacking depth of coverage and the newspapers relied upon for referencing are not sufficiently 'major' to assert notability. Fails the WP:GNG Pol430 talk to me 23:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- Switched to keep in light of additional sources Pol430 talk to me 19:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep Has anybody actually looked for sources? A quick search using Google news uncovered over 600 hits, mostly from New England-based newspapers (not just Bangor, Maine) with a few from other areas. It's also been profiled on national media such as NPR and the Discovery Channel. The company is over 100 years old, and I consistently see it referred to as one of the "iconic companies" of Maine ( example here). Clearly, it meets WP:CORP], and I'm surprised that it was nominated for deletion at all. Zeng8r ( talk) 00:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- Note: It was nominated by the author in an attempt to avoid potential speedy deletion. -- Onorem ♠ Dil 02:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  - True, which was even more egregious, imo. Zeng8r ( talk) 20:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep. The current article may lack sufficient references, but this is an established and well-known company that easily passes WP:CORP. In particular, note this from WP:CORP policy: "A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." In the case of Old Towne Canoe, consider these published works:

Book about the history of Old Towne Canoe Company, published in 2003

They Still Make Canoes Like They Used To, New York Times 1981 These two alone should be sufficient. -- Crunch ( talk) 01:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep. Crunch and Zeng8r beat me to it. The one source that's referenced in the article itself discusses the historical nature of the facility. Built in the late 19th century, it appears to have tremendous importance to the reason - primarily in a historical light. This meets the standard discussed above of "independent" verification. Additionally, even if this were not to meet that standard under some light, the fact that so many people in that region find the place important, as confirmed by the many articles discussing it, should be enough reason to include the article. Lord Roem ( talk) 01:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep. Per Crunch. This company passes WP:CORP because it is old and well-mentioned in both newspaper and books. In additions, the referenced phrase "Old Town is the largest and best known American canoe manufacturer" alone should be more than enough for establishing this article's notability.-- AM ^(
talk) 01:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep per GNG and CORP. Covered in a non-trivial manner by a wide range of independent sources.-- TM 07:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep Extremely well-known company at least in New England. Collect ( talk) 11:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep. Very well-known company. Plenty of independent, reliably sourced coverage. -- Orlady ( talk) 16:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep Very well-established company, with many RS.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment Ok, I don't like to get on my soapbox and lecture adults, but I feel this needs to be said. Cases like this point out a serious problem in the deletion discussion process, whether it's an article or an image or whatever. There are a group of users who are very concerned with notability and/or fair use issues. While I don't personally worry about these things so much, I understand that they're making a good faith effort to improve the project. However, sometimes these users are so concerned about furthering the cleaning process that they'll automatically support pretty much any deletion proposal without bothering to do any research or even read the arguments of other users who disagree.

In this case, I have to commend several users for changing their opinion when more sources were discovered, as I've been involved in several deletion discussions in which very reasonable objections were ignored, and the item was (unjustly, imo) killed by a metaphorical angry mob. On the other hand, why was this article nominated for speedy deletion in the first place? And why did the first few contributors rubber-stamp approve the deletion proposal w/o doing any research? And they obviously didn't do any research, because I'd never heard of Old Town Canoes and it literally took me under a minute to discover that the company most definitely meets notability guidelines. Let's be careful out there, people; these articles' lives are in our hands... Zeng8r ( talk) 20:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep This is the prima donna of canoe makers. (No refs--"I just know." :-) I really do.) Yopienso ( talk) 00:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep. "The world's largest and oldest manufacturer of canoes and kayaks, Old Town ..." [1] Certainly notable. Rmhermen ( talk) 02:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment As an admin I would only delete copyright violation and attack/BLP violations (legal issues) if the article was already at AfD. Why the author thought they would be instantly deleted if an issue that should be pursued. Rmhermen ( talk) 02:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

The Orange Illusion

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

Non-notable band. Claims of notability cannot be verified. Google search on name "The Orange Illusion" returns only sites controlled by the band itself (myspace, facebook, youtube, etc). No independent sources to be found. Londonclanger ( talk) 13:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note. Nomination was incomplete. Listed and tagged in article 5 January.-- Michig ( talk) 22:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete. Article about a band that played at a school and youth clubs, never released any records, with apparently no independent coverage. Largely unsourced (other than a citation of a book by one of the band members), the band is already mentioned in the Darryl Read and Michael Des Barres articles. The band is simply not notable. Michig ( talk) 22:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete How can this even be on Wikipedia? Trongphu ( talk) 04:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Notability established ( WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:NEO) ( non-admin closure) Bryce ( talk | contribs) 14:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I would rather cry in a BMW

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

This article may not be notable and could be merged somewhere. The author continues to take down maintenance tags on this article without offering reasons or fixing the problems. This article was tagged PROD but author removed it without reason. Zzaffuto118 ( talk) 21:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

delete I prodded it, and the deprodder did give reasons on the talk page. But it still falls far short of a notable topic to my eyes. The phrase arose on the show Fei Cheng Wu Rao and the related controversy already has a section there. This just reproduces and expands on that section and is still largely about the show, while all the references are about the show or the contestant. There is no discussion of this phrase or it's impact, no mention of it independent of the show.-- JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
keep The page is a work in progress, and is by no means perfect. But the symbolic value of the phrase has led to mass discussions in Chinese media, both television and online. Columns have been written specifically about the phrase by a large number of Chinese newspapers, delving into much deep analysis about the phrase, such as seen here: [2], here: [3], and here: [4] (a clever rebuttal saying "I would rather laugh on a bicycle"). I concede that judging by English-language media alone this topic may not be notable per se. But once I will have more time to translate Chinese-language analysis into English, which will give the article a more 'notable' feel. So I will offer the option of a 'temporary deletion' if most other users feel the deletion must go ahead, and I will try to re-create the article on a temp page first on my userspace to better establish its notability.
Given due consideration to both Chinese and English-language media, I would still vouch that the phrase's notability clearly extends beyond the realm of the show alone - it has spurred discussions about a wide range of social issues, and as mentioned in the article, is an emblematic, symbolic representation of much larger issues. Isolating the content to the show itself would not do justice to such symbolism, nor would it be appropriate to flood the show's article on analysis that is tangential. It is analogous to merging Tear down this wall! with Berlin Wall. That is my case for keeping this article where it is. Colipon+( Talk) 17:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- comment a poor analogy, as I think you will need to do a little more to establish the notability of an off-the-cuff comment by a game show contestant than a challenge to communism from the then US president! But certainly do what you can to improve it and if you run out of time get it userfied to finish the job. The references above look borderline but that's mostly as apart from Yahoo I can't tell if they are reliable sources (and even Yahoo China carries a lot of poor quality content).-- JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

keep:This phrase has become a well-known meme in Chinese popular culture over the last two years, and has been regularly examined in the Western media. It meets the minimum requirements for inclusion, as per WP:N, due to the wide availability (in English and Chinese media) of reliable secondary sources giving significant coverage to the history of the phrase, and analyzing the phrase and its implications for modern Chinese society. A good-faith gsearch returns a number of articles on this meme: ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 , 6, etc).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferox Seneca ( talk · contribs)
- comment The above, unsigned, comment points to WP:N but one point that is mentioned in that policy is notability over time. Most meme's are short lived and a relatively obscure non English phrase really isn't notable in English Wikipedia. Other users have brought up the point that other articles give weight to this comment which further devalues the individual notability of this article. — -Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzaffuto118 ( talk • contribs) 01:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  - comment In that case it is at least as notable as " Grass Mud Horse", or " River Crab". Colipon+( Talk) 02:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  - comment:Sorry that I forgot to sign that comment. The suggestion that subjects lose notability by having their origin in non-Anglophone countries is systematic bias. Ferox Seneca ( talk) 19:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep the current page has sufficient reliable sources are enough to establish notability. Francis Bond ( talk) 01:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- comment but none of the sources are about the topic, or even discuss it. They are all on the show or the contestant turned lingerie model that said the phrase.-- JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep as above. social phenomenon in Chinese-internet, even if relatively unknown to english speakers. - WikiSkeptic ( talk) 03:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep. Enough reliable secondary sources establish neologism notability. Lagrange 613 18:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was No consensus, and I see none forthcoming right now. I suspect that a more general policy needs to be enacted. The strongest argument in favor of deletion is that it violates WP:FORK; the strongest argument to keep is the fact that she is # 14 in number of # 1 hits. Bearian ( talk) 20:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

List of Katy Perry songs

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

Unneeded WP:CFORK list. This is basically a rehash of a discography and this is not something to be merged into a WP:FL. Further, there are WP:OR issues with all of the "unreleased" tracks. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Strong delete No need for this list - she's not the Beatles, she's a young performer with a handful of "hits". A list of all of her recorded songs is not-notable whatsoever at this point. At some point when her catalogue meets that of Michael Jackson, Dire Straits, Garth Brooks ... maybe, this this is merely a list of any and all tracks whether notable or not ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- She's not the Beatles, but she's pretty big. She's had six US main chart #1 hits. That's more than the Beach Boys. More than Brittney Spears. Twice the Black-Eyed Peas, 75% of the Rolling Stones. It's more than ABBA, Chuck Berry, Bob Dylan, The Police, Van Halen, and Guns N' Roses -- combined. It's more than a handful of artists have achieved. She's also topped the chart in the UK and many other countries, usually more than once. And that's not considering the singles that made the top ten but not #1. And she's new. It's probably only going to get better (or, if you don't like her, worse) and the article, if deleted, is likely only have to be re-created later. (Also, not sure what you mean by "hits". They're not "hits", they're hits. They're main-chart #1's, and she's already got half as many as Michael Jackson had, and of course a lot more than Dire Straits or Garth Brooks.) Herostratus ( talk) 03:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep. Since you listing artists, Christina Aguilera, Talib Kweli, Kasabian, The White Stripes, Owl City, and Jonas Brothers. Yes, I know "Other things exist" isn't a reason, but rather that someone with the number of awards and nominations she has, would have the song list rise to the level of notability. Naraht ( talk) 21:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment - This builds out of a discussion at the help desk. At that discussion there was talk about whether such a merge should happen. I looked and thought that it was, at the least, worth a discussion, so I tagged the articles. That all said, I do not have a strong opinion one way or the other on this AFD. Other than to say it would likely be about as neat and clear of a solution to the situation as a merge would be. (Obviously, some think the merge idea is not itself neat and clean.) - TexasAndroid ( talk) 22:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- Not only is a merge inappropriate, it is in direct violation of FL and Discography guidelines: a discography is not a listing of songs, it is a listing of released/charted albums and singles. A discography is: "A table-based list of official releases, in chronological order from earliest to latest." This list being merged into a discography is in a direct violation of Wikipedia:DISCOGSTYLE#What_should_not_be_included - "Unofficial releases of any kind", "Leaked material", "Releases by other artists as a tribute or cover" ect ect.. So again, a merge is not valid. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete - Moving myself to the Delete column from the Neutral column. The two articles are highly duplicative of each other. And this one appears to me to be the inferior one, for the reasons detailed above by (CK)Lakeshade and Bwilkins. My ultimate concern is handling the double-article situation, and deletion of this one works towards that end just as well as a merge would. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 22:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Many of the songs in the List of Katy Perry songs article are not present in the Katy Perry article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep seems like a reasonable list and is, by necessity, more complete than either the category or discography article would be. Since the category only includes songs which have Wikipedia articles and the Discogs article would only contain released albums and singles, I can't find any reason to oppose the existance of a list of all Katy Perry songs. Any issues with referencing and OR for unreleased songs can be handled via normal editing, the subject seems like a perfectly reasonable list. -- Jayron 32 01:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep. She's highly notable. According to my count, 13 artists have more US #1's than Perry (that's covering the last 57 years) and most of those don't have a lot more. She's had more US #1's than The Eagles, the Beach Boys, Lady GaGa, Jennifer Lopez, The Monkees, Eminem, Diddy, Simon & Garfunkle/Paul Simon, Britney Spears, Donna Summer, yadda yadda. Granted US #1's aren't everything (but she also has hit #1 in the UK, Germany, and many other countries), but it's a pretty big something for starters. So if musicians rate "List of songs by XYZ" (and there are many such articles) she probably would be one of them. So if we want to delete all the "List of songs by XYZ" as a class, that'd be OK (and this should be recast as a multiple nom), but if not, then keep this one. Also, nom, come on: there is one unreleased song on the list, and it should probably be removed, but that's a lot different that deleting the article. Herostratus ( talk) 03:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep - A reasonable content fork, that is well-referenced at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep per Jayron32's reasoning in particular. If we are to have "Lists of ______ songs", this one seems notable enough, is fairly well-referenced, and contains songs not covered in the artist's discography or category. That said, I agree with the idea that unsourced (or, more accurately, unsourceable) "unreleased" tracks are probably best removed. Gongshow ^Talk 08:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Kanpur Metropolitan Region

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

Doubt whether such a region is defined by the city. Can't even find a single official source — Commander _{(Ping me)} 15:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply

delete Unsourced. If a region is genuinely recognised, sourcing should be trivial. If unsourceable, that casts doubt on whether the term has any real currency. Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular ^talk 20:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

delete In addition to the above arguments: The only reference that can be found in the "external links" section of the article cites wikipedia as its source. ("copyright info ... see original wikipedia article") -- Austrian ( talk) 21:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete as an unverifiable administrative division. Pol430 talk to me 21:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete Unless suitable references are added.- Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 06:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete No proper reference were found! No official records for its existence. -- C h i n n Z ^{(
talk |
Contrib)} 06:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete. No verifiable references, no article. Lynch 7 06:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete - not an admin division. If any proposals exist, that can be covered in the city article-- Sodabottle ( talk) 07:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete - as per the above, I can find nothing to suggest that this exists as a formal entity. - Sitush ( talk) 10:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Don't Delete - as per the above, I think that if this article give some references, than it shouldn't be deleted, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete - I don't know if Kanpur has a defined metropolitan area, but even if it does, the content of the metro should be a part of the Kanpur article and not in a separate one like this. All Indian metro cities follow a similar pattern. X.One ^SOS 15:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Village palra District jhansi

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

Not notable

Zzaffuto118 (
talk) 20:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep and move to Palra, Jhansi. All villages are notable per editor consensus and this one is easily verifiable with a Google search. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep villages are notable. Eeekster ( talk) 02:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep: I understand that an encyclopedia must have articles on all places. I suggest that we should keep this village stub. -- Bhadani ( talk) 11:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep - Per the arguments to keep above, and also because the nomination doesn't qualify specific rationale of the topic as being "not notable." Change the title to Palra, Jhansi (village). Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note - I've moved this article, changing its title to Palra, Jhansi (village). Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Appears to be a notable concept within Sikhism. The article already links to a reliable source that suggests several avenues for expanding this beyond a dictionary definition. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Sehajdhari

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

article is a complete mess without any credible sources Steinhfer ( talk) 20:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep and close – AfD is not cleanup. Nomination doesn't present a valid rationale for deletion, per criterion listed at WP:DEL-REASON. The nomination's basis appears to be upon content within the article, rather than upon the availability of reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment - Nominator, please refer to WP:BEFORE procedures for source searching prior to nominating articles for deletion. Reliable sources are readily available for this topic, here's one I added to the article:

"Who is a 'sehajdhari'?". The Times Of India. September 2, 2011. Retrieved January 07, 2012. {{ cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= ( help); External link in |publisher= ( help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= ( help)

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Move to Wiktionary. I don't see how this article can be anything more than a dictionary definition, see WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. -- Ifnord ( talk) 15:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 15:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Amdukias (dubstep musician)

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

Living person with poor sources/references May not be notable Author removed PROD tag w.o valid reason Zzaffuto118 ( talk) 20:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Everything on this page is true with true reference ... so where is the problem or big deal? than you ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.141.204.250 ( talk) 20:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Sounds also really too hard technically to contribute here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanclaudeduss ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't doubt what you did was in WP:AGF, the problem is that you need to prove this person's notability, which I don;t think is done because 1) the sources you cite are not valid 2) this is a living person w.o sources. No one has deleted your article and no one will until a few more people weight in. This is not an attack on you, I simply patrol the new pages and tag them with what I think is appropriate. The first tag was less serious then this tag but you removed it without cause. Removing that tag prevents people from discussing concerns about the notability of this article. This tag can't be removed but if enough people support your article then it will be saved. I hope I can help you with anything in the future. Please don't hesitate to ask. Zzaffuto118 ( talk) 21:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete, does not appear to be notable, also copypaste (see logs). Hairhorn ( talk) 23:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't understand all the technical thing in this wikilabirynth, So i'm sorry, but it is dubstep musician, so if you know anything in dubstep, check Amdukias site, that's free, and then you can decide or not if this page is legit or at least you'll know what is dubstep.thanks http://soundcloud.com/amdukias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.141.204.250 ( talk) 21:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete, non-notable as per WP:MUSIC, references not WP:RS. Also the article claims involvement in A Public Disservice Announcement, which has an article already with no mention of the artist. Kaini ( talk) 20:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY0PDKoE33o amdukias review by scott humphrey (metallica, rob zombie, motley crue, tommy lee) and tommy lee during methods of mayhem part selection — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.141.143.230 ( talk) 19:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete. Dubstep is notable, this person is non. No one here is doubting his existence, there just isn't enough to justify an encyclopedia article. -- Ifnord ( talk) 14:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk} _{about my edits?} 10:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Alauddin Sabir Kaliyari

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

some copyright violations fixed, likely more in the current article, removing all proven and possible copyright violations from the history would be very messy Steinhfer ( talk) 20:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep. Clearly a notable figure. Much needs to be stripped out, but a worthy subject for an article as a stub at least. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep. A person whose grave is one of the most revered shrines for Muslims in India is notable. Off-line references accepted in good faith. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Bruno Mondi

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

Not notable No sources Zzaffuto118 ( talk) 20:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep - Notable German cameraman on over 100 films. See German film encyclopedia entry here. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 20:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- That's a good site to know... Zzaffuto118 ( talk) 21:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
~~Delete~~, being a cameramen is not notable, by doing a quick google search shows that he has not done anything to allow him to qualify for an article. Gsingh ( talk) 23:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Note that the subject is also a director of photography, and the sources I have added to the article listed below in my !vote. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The article now appears to have enough references, and User:Northamerica1000 has made the article notable for inclusion. I am withdrawing my vote. Gsingh ( talk) 00:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete not notable. Eeekster ( talk) 02:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Is this based upon a search for reliable sources, or just an opinion? Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep - Mondi was a camera-person and a director of photography, and appears to have achieved notability, meeting WP:GNG. This article would benefit from improvements, per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, rather than deletion. The article could use more sourcing and inline citations. Here are sources currently in the article, the second and third ones I recently added:

Bock, Hans-Michael; Bergfelder, Tim (30 December 2009). The concise Cinegraph: encyclopaedia of German cinema. Berghahn Books. p. 326. ISBN 978-1-57181-655-9. Retrieved 5 January 2012.
"Bruno Mondi behind the camera". Filmreporter.de. Retrieved January 6, 2012. {{ cite web}}: External link in |publisher= ( help)
"Bruno Mondi (Biography)". Filmreporter.de. Retrieved January 6, 2012. {{ cite web}}: External link in |publisher= ( help)

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:NTEMP. We have a cinematographer whose verifiable career follows right alongside the very birth and growth of the German film industry... working from 1921 through 1965... beginning in Weimar Republic, surviving the Third Reich's Nazi Germany, and continuing after WWII in the then East Germany. His winning a major award as a cinematographer at the 1951 Karlovy Vary International Film Festival (then under a Communist regime) is also a consideration. User:Northamerica1000's work is laudable in showing this man as making it into the enduring historical record. Books are what we have and can accept... specially considering the difficulties faced in finding harcopy news sources from the Weimar, Reich, and East German periods of German cinematic history. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep. Per NA and Schmidt.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 12:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep. This nom lacks of WP:BEFORE, as it claims that there are "no sources" and just considering Google Books the subject has 2440 entries. - Cavarrone ( talk) 13:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
'Keep Reliable sources have been found covering this person. Others make some good points also. Dream Focus 22:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 21:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

PoppaZoppa

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

No sources, game fails WP:GNG and cites are very thin on the ground making it fairly unlikely to be notable even if it is attached to a popular service. tutterMouse ( talk) 20:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 01:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 ( talk) 02:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete as non-notable. WP is not a games directory. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedly delete per G4 by Fastily. ( NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? |
Wanna talk about it?} 08:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Callum Driver

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

Previously deleted at AFD. Recreated today, but there is no evidence to suggest that the reasons to delete last time (fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG) no longer apply. Redrose64 ( talk) 20:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete: The subject is not notable, could be added to a list of players on the team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzaffuto118 ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 5 January 2012‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#G4. An article on the same subject was just deleted two months ago. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 02:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion, and G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement.) JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Immigrant Movement International

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

Seems to be a non-notable movement. All of the references that were provided we self-published; I found one (which I added to the article), the reliability of which I think is uncertain and which I'm not sure established notability. ItsZippy ^{(
talk •
contributions)} 20:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to contact me (or another administrator) for userfication Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 15:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

List of Old Skool Dance and Club Classics

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

Clear original research - this is just someone's list of personal favorite tunes. The author claimed "anyone can add their personal favorites to the list" which is true, but that still makes it the original research of multiple editors. There is no reliable source for this list and no criteria for inclusion, so this is inherently a personal point of view. Prod contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse ( talk) 19:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Original research no matter how you slice it. 76.248.147.199 ( talk) 20:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment Have you guys seen List_of_Old_Skool_Dance_and_Club_Classics#References? There is a clear attempt at a scholarly encyclopedia article here. Compare the methodology behind the Featured List of important operas. 86.44.31.213 ( talk) 22:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep Although I hate house music, this article looks properly sourced Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately while it looks that way, it isn't. None of those are sources for this list. There is no neutral selection criteria for the list, just a lot of music charts from which the one editor has selected the ones (s)he considers to be "Old Skool Dance and Club Classics". They don't even define what "Old Skool Dance" is, let alone why these particular tunes are considered "classic" and not any of the hundreds of thousands of other songs that charted around the world during this time period. To quote from the article "Included on this list are examples from the most popular genres of the modern Club Scene, like disco, dance, eurodance, nu-disco, house, dance-pop, techno, trance, post-disco, reggae, freestyle music, dubstep, new jack swing, hip-hop, new wave and eurobeat.". Why these genres? What's "Old Skool" about dubstep or new wave"? Why are only UK chart singles considered viable? There is nothing to justify this particular selection, other than the author's personal opinions: in other words its pure synthesis and thus not allowed on Wikipedia. Sparthorse ( talk) 19:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep - Answer to Sparthorse: The reason I choose to include different styles of the clubscene like disco, dance, eurodance, nu-disco, house, dance-pop, techno, trance, post-disco, reggae, freestyle music, dubstep, new jack swing, hip-hop, new wave and eurobeat is because they all belong to and are played in clubs. It is the evolution of clubmusic from disco in the 70's, dance-pop, hip-hop and house in the 80's, eurodance, techno and trance in the 90's etc that the list shows. Those names that are in this list have been heavily played in clubs, and the uk chart-perfomances indicate how popular the tune was at the time. I also have in mind including the US chart perfomances later. Old Skool Dance often refers to the clubscene of the 80's and the 90's. If you look at Music Charts, Music Television, CD Compilations, DVD Compilations and several articles on wikipedia about "disco", "house", "dance", "techno", "trance", "hip-hop", "post-disco", "new wave" etc., then you'll find those names and songs often mentioned as I have included on the list. They stands out as the biggest names and songs of the clubscene at the actual time. It's my intention to make a complete (as possibly) and neutral (as possibly) list over the Old Disco, Dance and Club classics from the beginning in 70's until today. I don't like all the songs on the list myself, but i include them because they deserve their place on the list because they were and are popular (no matter what my own personal opinion is). Others are welcome to fill in names/songs that are missing. And then in time we'll get a more complete list of/about the biggest names and songs that has been important and defining in the evolution of modern clubmusic. Maybe we should change the headline to "List of Old Skool Dance, Disco and (other) Club Classics"? Or "List of Disco, Dance, House and Club Music"? And more references can be added later. User:Wherelovelives ( talk) 00:50, 13 January 2012
Delete. Per the discussion above, it really isn't sourced. If this is a category of interest, there should be a (sourced) article Old Skool Dance and Club Music defining and describing it, but since the term isn't really defined, and there doesn't seem to be criteria for what is and isn't on the list, this article seems opinion. Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 16:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete with a heavy heart. Lots of work went into this list but, in the end, it's just a personal music playlist. This should be on someone's blog not Wikipedia. WP:INDISCRIMINATE
Userfy in order that definition and further sources can be included. -- Trevj ( talk) 10:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 21:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Chapel of St. Urban, Košaki

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

Delete: non notable, not sourced U5K0'sTalk_{Make
WikiLove not
WikiWar} 19:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete. Can't find anything notable about it. -- Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete, totally trivial, indiscriminate info of a local chapel. There are be 1000s of those everywhere. If this one is somewhat special to the area, then just add the info to Košaki. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula ( talk) 03:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Liveclicker

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

The subject appears to be a non-notable software company. The article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete, and I don't see where this makes a minimal claim to importance. Another software company in the Video Commerce software industry. Note how they capitalized "Video Commerce" so you can tell it's important. They have a "flagship product". They're sure to make friends with a video e-mail solution that allows the embedding of video into e-mail marketing campaigns. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
'Keep', I am the creator of this article and I have already cited in the article several independent 3rd party articles that have pertained to Liveclicker. This Internet Retailer Article cites Liveclicker's work with Advance Auto Parts - a Fortune 500 Company. This article cites our work with Kiddicare.com (owned by Morrisons) as does this one. This article cites our work with Beauty.com and Drugstore.com. We are featured in this article by Website Magazine. We are mentioned multiple times in this analyst report by Forrester (a top research firm). Liveclicker's video email capabilities are discussed here on EmailResponsibly.com. And here is one more mention of Liveclicker on MediaPost. I hope this provides sufficent 3rd party references to classify Liveclicker as "notable" but I am happy to provide additional references if needed. - Nick Wheatley —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC). reply

Neither analyst reports, nor coverage in small, trade-only readership blogs like "Internet Retailer" or "Website Magazine" really count towards notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Internet Retailer is not just a blog. It operates a monthly magazine, two web sites, two e-mail newsletters, three annual conferences and trade shows, and five research guides. It is essentially the Fortune 500 of the e-commerce world. - Nick Wheatley —Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC). reply

Delete as non-notable and as per Smerdis. The references are rehashed press releases that at most prove existence, not notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete, existence doesn't imply notability. -- Ifnord ( talk) 15:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Japan Airlines Flight 472 (1972)

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

Not a notable incident. The plane was a write off. At most it merits a mention in the airport or aircraft article. William 19:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. - William 19:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - William 19:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. - William 19:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Meets WP:AIRCRASH; not only was the aircraft written off, it was at the wrong airport! Mjroots ( talk) 21:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep Since the aircraft was written off, the article meets WP:AIRCRASH. -- Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 22:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep - The nom has given no rationale as to why they think this topic is non-notable, except to stipulate that the plane was a write off, which in fact indicates notability. Nothing has changed since the unanimous keep two years ago. -- Oakshade ( talk) 06:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- Comment- Write off doesn't mean a incident automatically qualifies for an article. Here's an example of a incident where the article was merged into the incidents section of the aircraft involved. A writeoff must still meet WP:GNG.- William 16:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was KEEP ' Snow KEEP' Toddst1 ( talk) 01:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Maksut Narikbaev

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

Not notable Zzaffuto118 ( talk) 19:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Snow Keep: as a justice or "chairman" of a supreme court of a nation, in this case Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, this individual passes WP:POLITICIAN, explicitly on point 1. I wonder if the nominator read the article or doesn't know what Kazakhstan is. Toddst1 ( talk) 22:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Agreed completely. If this article passes WP:POLITICIAN, why does this have to be considered for deletion? Abhijay ( ☎ Talk) ( ✐ Deeds) 03:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. A more general RfC on more such articles might be usefull, but that is beyond the scope of Articles for Deletion. There is not enough discussion here to close as keep, though the discussion does lean in that direction. Relisting when there is a preference to solve the broader issue trough an RfC is not of any use either. For now, there is no consensus on how to handle these kind of articles in general, nor is there consensus in this particular case. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 15:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Milton Keynes Council election, 2012

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

Not notable Future event No sources Zzaffuto118 ( talk) 19:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

There was a discussion about 2012 council election articles at the wikiproject here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 3#Future election articles and an AFD of a very similar article last month here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crawley Council election, 2012. Davewild ( talk) 20:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- Note: that AfD last month was closed as no consensus (or some moral equivalent of that). My opinion notwithstanding, it's unlikely that this AfD will result in deleting since the arguments for keeping are increasingly pertinent as the election nears. Also I fully agree with DGG who wrote in that previous AfD: "this needs an rfc , not a debate on an isolated article". Pichpich ( talk) 23:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. I don't think it makes sense to delete an article on a future election when 1) we know for certain that it's going to happen, and 2) it's less than a year away. I personally think stats this detailed are better placed in Wikisource, but for some reason that data is expressly excluded from Wikisource. Whilst Wikipedia's not a great place to put info on very local election results, I'm hesitant to advocate deleting what is possibly the only online source of the information. Chris Neville-Smith ( talk) 20:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Close until an RfC about all these type of articles has been concluded. This should be a keep based on a notable upcoming event that is easily referenced. Easily passes WP:CRYSTAL. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Alien Defense(Short film)

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

Not notable Possible Ad No sources Zzaffuto118 ( talk) 18:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete - No assertion of notability, no sources. A quick search on google shows no hits for this film. Rorshacma ( talk) 20:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:NF. "Funmiproductions" appears to be a young filmmaker who creates stop motion projects using Legos. [5] In good faith, it is conceivable that he created this film and submitted it to a festival. But lacking sourcability, we lack verifiability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Omnivore. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 14:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Polyvore

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

Is this necessary? Couldn't this be merged with another article. Also the reference is wikipedia Zzaffuto118 ( talk) 18:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment. AfD is not for merger proposals. James500 ( talk) 23:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm not proposing a merger, I proposing deletion on the grounds that other articles probably already cover this Zzaffuto118 ( talk) 01:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

That is a merger unless Polyvore is not a plausible redirect. James500 ( talk) 02:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. Plausible redirect to Omnivore if nothing else. See Kirk C. Kelsing. Comparative Avian Nutrition. Cab international. 1998. Page 1. Google books. Annales Zoologici. 1975. Volume 32. Page 315.
Comment "Polyvore" is just an unusual and archaic synonym for "omnivore." Pseudofusulina ( talk) 00:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- Then redirect it to Omnivore. James500 ( talk) 03:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment I haven't been able to find this word in any dictionaries or webs searches. Probably not a plausible redirect. . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Redirect to omnivore as per [6]. If this was a real biological concept, we should be able to find a serious in-depth discussion about it. But all but 2 searches on Google Scholar are about a fashion company. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Redirect to omnivore History2007 ( talk) 15:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Redirect to omnivore. -- Ifnord ( talk) 15:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Suggestion. Try searching for "polyvorous" and "polyvores" (plural). The first comes up with significantly more results (57 in Google Books), such as page 201 of a book called "Fundamental and applied aspects of invertebrate pathology" (1986) which says that in 1888 someone called Thaxter defined it as "omnivorous". Most of the results seem to be about microbes. I have no idea whether that is the same thing. I suggest trying "monovore", "monovores" and "monovorous" as well, though I haven't looked for those. James500 ( talk) 18:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC) I also think that it is a straightfoward application of English (or perhaps Latin) that something that is an omni-vore ("eater of everything") is also going to be a poly-vore ("eater of multiple things") by definition (hyphens added for emphasis). James500 ( talk) 19:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Userfy per WP:DONTBITE, in order that further refs be found and included. -- Trevj ( talk) 10:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Redirect to " Omnivore", per P199. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. With all due respect, this article does not demonstrate that it meets WP:GNG, and keep !votes do not address it properly except for Ammodramus's one - and even he admits that he found no serious coverage. Max Semenik ( talk) 23:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Stanley J. Jaworski

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

Mainly, the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. It also lacks proper sources. Sabre ball ( talk) 18:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete, although army generals are all notable, I don't think the same applies to National Guard generals. NawlinWiki ( talk) 20:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete - National Guard general officers are not notable by any standard I've ever seen. -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep. I would say that generals in the reserve forces are every bit as notable as generals in the regular forces. They still hold their ranks in the forces of that country. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- reply - why? They seldom if ever actually command troops, they get minimal or non-existent coverage in the press; they merely hold a nominal title. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  - With all due respect, if you think rank in the reserve forces is "nominal" and they do not command troops you should probably do a little more research. Officers in the reserve forces hold full rank and command units just like regular officers. A general in the National Guard holds the same rank as a general in the regular army and has exactly the same authority. National Guard units serve overseas in wars on exactly the same basis as regular troops and their officers have the same status as regular officers of the same rank. They therefore meet the criteria of WP:MILPEOPLE (and yes, I'm aware that it's not an accepted guideline, but it is widely accepted). -- Necrothesp ( talk) 17:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- ~~Delete~~ - I have to agree that in terms of notability there should be no difference between a solider from the National Guard or the regular army, but on the same hand though I think Wikipedia's overarching policies have to outweigh the policies of individual projects. Given that, Stanley Jaworski just isn't notable. -- Sabre ball ( talk) 20:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  - What policy would that be then? Notability is purely subjective. Can't possibly be anything else. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 00:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  - WP:GNG. Which part of WP:GNG does the article in question meet? -- Sabre ball ( talk) 18:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  - I unbolded & struck yr delete, Sabre: the nom suffices. 86.44.40.0 ( talk) 20:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep; per WP:SOLDIER. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- reply; Seeing as how it would appear the rules have invalidated my request for removal I'll instead ask why you would want an article for every flag officer. In the discussion leading up to notability rules for military biographies someone stated that including every recipient of certain medals would flood Wikipedia with biographies no one cared about or were insignificant. How is including every flag officer any different? Surely that thought occurred to someone else... -- Sabre ball ( talk) 16:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  - WP:WHOCARES is not a reason to delete (or, for that matter, not create) artcles. Wikipedia is not paper. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  - Simply because if they've reached that rank they are, in the opinion of many of us, by definition notable. We have endless biographies of minor "celebrities" (in the loosest possible sense of the word) and sportspeople who have played one professional game. Many editors here consider that civil servants and military officers who have reached very senior positions after years of service are far more notable. They may not be as "glamorous" or as well-covered by the shallow, celebrity-obsessed media, but that doesn't mean they're not notable. That's actually the advantage of an honours system like the British one - it's hard for even the deletionists to argue that someone who has been recognised by their country and received a high national honour like a knighthood or CBE (which most generals receive) isn't notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 00:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- In that case I must throw the WP:JUSTAPOLICY flag. -- Sabre ball ( talk) 20:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  - Which also appears to be your argument for deletion, although with no policy or guideline actually quoted! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  - The article does not have "Significant coverage" nor any secondary "Sources" as listed in the WP:GNG. -- Sabre ball ( talk) 18:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Neutral - the National Guard isn't a reserve force anymore, for better or for worse. They're routinely deployed, on the front line and in the first wave, and the chief of the National Guard is even on the Joint Cheifs of Staff now. They're a full-fledged military service, and a one-star general passes WP:SOLDIER. That said, though, I think more evidence is needed here to see if there's a reasonable expectation of passing the WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete as non-notable, failing WP:GNG. No "significant coverage" by sources "independent of the subject". -- Ifnord ( talk) 16:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Weak keep. WP:SOLDIER suggests that officers reaching the rank of general will usually attract sufficient independent coverage to be notable. My Google search seemed to indicate otherwise. However, it showed that Jaworski sat on the Commission to Address Gun Violence, convened by the governor of Penna. in 2005 ( source), and that he's presented at a couple of university conferences: at Duke's Triangle Institute for Security Studies ( source) and at Chapel Hill's "Curriculum in Peace, War, and Defense" in 2003 ( source). This might be enough to nudge him up into notability.

Incidentally, Jaworski has retired ( source); if the article's kept, that fact should be incorporated into it. Ammodramus ( talk) 15:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 15:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

James Gill (actor)

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

Not notable Zzaffuto118 ( talk) 18:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete I agree with the original nomination -- this actor is not notable. I don't know why the nominator tried to retract the nomination -- the original nomination is entirely valid. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment I was not able to find any reliable sources about this actor. Although the IMDb implies he is mentioned in two Fangoria articles, it seems likely these mentions even if not trivial would be at two, insufficient to meet the inclusion standards here. His roles appear to be gaining in significance and an upcoming role may make him notable but without sources which may become available at that time notability cannot currently be established. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 19:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete: non-notable. IMDb ain't a reliable source Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete as non-notable. He may be notable in the future but we're not a crystal ball. -- Ifnord ( talk) 15:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as an R3 implausible redirect. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Collins Press

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

Redirect created in error: Collins Press and HarperCollins are not related organisations or articles. Fattonyni ( talk) 18:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Marked as R3 speedy deletion as redirect is non-controversial and in error by above nominator. This can be closed, and in the future, redirects should be taken to WP:RFD if there is some issue with deletion. Nate • ( chatter) 18:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk} _{about my edits?} 10:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Dokapon MillenniumQuest

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

Also included in this nomination:

Dokapon DX: Wataru Sekai wa Oni Darake

Dokapon Journey

Dokapon

Non-notable video games. Article are totally unreferenced. Few if any of the articles in the corresponding navbox appear notable either. Has early editing history of user bearing same name. Stedrick ( talk) 17:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 19:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep - Taken from one of the articles:The Wii version was nominated for Best RPG for the Wii by IGN in its 2008 video game awards. -- http://bestof.ign.com/2008/wii/7.html -- Sure, these articles are in terrible shape, but surely the coverage exists out there if the game was nominated for such an award on such a major gaming website/ reliable source. Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- Comment - That being said, I'd support merging the articles together into one "series" type article though. Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep - Video games commercially released on mainstream home/handheld consoles through physical media on an international basis should have articles; even more so when the developer/publisher is a commercially successful company. I agree the state of the articles is rather dismal, but AfD is not clean-up. There is no doubt in my mind that there are sources for at least two of those articles. Salvidrim! 20:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep all I would not object to merging the Japan only games into a List of Dokapon games, properly formatted with relevant data (IE like this) with similar details for the Dokapon games released in the west. That's not a !vote for that to happen right now, though. The ones released in the States and Europe - Dokapon and Dokapon Journey - are clearly notable. [7], [8] for Dokapon, [9] for Dokapon Journey. Full-price console games are expensive, and the vast majority are covered by multiple sources, often magazines which are not available to view online easily, the only stumbling block is Japanese-only games which few editors are equipped to do anything with unless the West's journalists get interested for some reason. Someone another 02:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

The Upstairs Club

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

Non-notable organization. Does not fit WP:N. Simply someone trying to make themselves seem important via WP. Clubwiki ( talk) 17:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: There don't seem to be a lot of sources but since it was only created yesterday, I wonder if we should give the creator and any others some time to find and add reliable sources and content. If this does not happen, then I would support deletion. GrainyMagazine ( talk) 23:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Strong delete: This is not notable. It's not even really a gentlemen's club. See this article: [10]. It's a room above a bar that some guy made for his friends to hang out. Doesn't remotely meet the criteria for a WP article. Wikophile ( talk) 22:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete- agree with Wikophile after seeing the source. GrainyMagazine ( talk) 01:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 21:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

ERichards Consulting

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

Non-notable, unreferenced, company. Fails WP:CORP. Stedrick ( talk) 17:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete. Lacks sources, none to be found on Google, fails to state a reason this company even might be notable. Completely fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Msnicki ( talk) 19:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete. : WP:NOTDIR - the only link is to the firm's website. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete as per nom and Kudpung. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Dark Signs (video game)

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

Unremarkable video game of questionable notability. No claims or signs of notability, no references. Little significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. Google news search on "Dark Signs" "Vectra Media" shows no results. MikeWazowski ( talk) 17:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete. No assertion of notability, no evidence of notability. Can it be speedy deleted? Note that it was speedied twice yesterday, and deleted after an expired PROD last week. Dawn Bard ( talk) 17:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I am the author of the page and I am still working on it. I have added external links now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George.Trimm ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC) — George.Trimm ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Delete. No sign of any notability, nor any reliable thid party sources. The article was already created and deleted multiple times in the past, and it shows no improvement in its current incarnation that would justify not deleting it yet again. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 19:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Look at the external links! — Preceding unsigned comment added by George.Trimm ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

The only external links provided in the article are only to the project's own pages. That does not fulfil the requirements of having reliable third party sources to support the game's notability. Rorshacma ( talk) 20:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Exactly, what is needed are independent reliable sources and neither of the two external links qualify. I also checked sites such as Gamerankings and Metacritic to see if I could find any reviews but neither site had an entry for the game. That means that no mainstream gaming site ever reviewed this game. That does not necessaly mean that the subject is not notable but it is a bad sign especially since the game came out in 2006.-- 70.24.207.225 ( talk) 03:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Strong delete - no coverage among the sources that are considered to be reliable by WikiProject Video games. Chris the Paleontologist ( talk | contribs) 22:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete I can find no reliable sources in a web search to demonstrate notabiliy or verify article expansion. The archived official webpage mentions the possibility of it being featured in a Portuguese gaming mag (thought doesn't follow it up with a confitmation that I can see). Someone another 16:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

DHWANI CET

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

Non-notable festival, no reliable sources, no significant coverage found via Google. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Was prodded, prod removed by anon without improvement. Huon ( talk) 17:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Strong delete Non-notable event; fails WP:GNG. HIghly promotional, non- sourced - not applicable for an encyclopedia ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete - as spam per G11, so tagged. ukexpat ( talk) 21:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete, nonnotable event at one college. NawlinWiki ( talk) 13:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

DHWANI is most popular and largest social and cultural festival (started in 2001 -in 60^th anniversary of Starting of technical education in Kerala) in kerela which brings almost 50,000 students of different engineering collages across the state/country.So don't delete the page

dhwani cet can found via Google.offical website can be found by searching Dhwani 2012,since title of web-page has been recently changed due to upcoming Dhwani version "Dhwani 2012".

Abilngeorge ( talk) 17:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

keep- DHWANI is popular and largest among cultural festivals conducted by Engineering colleges of Kerala Deepak 1805 ( talk) 06:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC) — Deepak 1805 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula ( talk) 04:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Joseph Crisalli

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

Self-published author of questionable notability. Little significant coverage from independent sources, no major claims of notability. Google search on "Joseph Crisalli" "Stalking the Belle Époque" (his website) shows only 12 unique results, none from independent reliable sources. A search on "Joseph Crisalli" "The Garnet Red" (his book) shows only 73 unique, nearly all sales links - no significant coverage or reviews. MikeWazowski ( talk) 16:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.103.67 ( talk) 01:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

New citation and information supporting notability have been added. While this author is not a household name, he appears to be well-regarded in the field of antiques and Victoriana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.103.67 ( talk) 22:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC) — 76.183.103.67 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Delete. Searching Google News reveals no reliable coverage. As per nom his books also do not receive this coverage. "Well-regarded" from the above comment seems to be unsourced. A412 ( Talk * C) 00:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete, fails WP:GNG. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete - Couldn't find anything that would show he is notable. Fails every relevant notability guideline. Nolelover ^Talk^· ^Contribs 14:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:ANYBIO plus everything else it's failed above. -- Ifnord ( talk) 17:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Sai Ying Pun#Schools. Looking over the discussion, only the merge !votes have policy on their side. A long history does not convery notability. No additional sources were offered in this discussion to strenghten the idea that this primary school is notable under the GNG. Guerillero | My Talk 22:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Li Sing Primary School

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

Primary school. Convention with such schools is (I understand) to delete and/or redirect. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche ( talk) 16:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep. It is a government school named after a business man and charitarian in the early years of Hong Kong (1860s). -- minghong ( talk) 03:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Minghong. I understand that you are the creator of the article, and thank you for your contributions. However, our general convention is not to have stand-alone articles on primary schools. The fact that the school is a government school, or that it was named after a person who lived a long time ago, or that he was a businessman or philanthropist, does not confer notability on the school. Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: WRONG! and deceptive comment. There is no such "general convention": there have been endless talks about the topic but no consensus has been reached. The mass deletion is the statistical result of people like you conducting a mass deletion campaign, not the result of any Wikipedia guideline or convention. Your "thanking" the article's creator appears as plain inadequate to me. olivier ( talk) 11:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I indicated above that "our general convention is not to have stand-alone articles on primary schools". I based that on my observation of closes of AFDs of primary schools -- they have from what I've seen not been to keep stand-alone articles for primary schools, unless there is a special showing of notability, which in the articles I've seen brought to AfD has generally not been the case. Either they have been redirected (as Kud, for example, indicates has been the case in 100s of AfD closures), or they have been deleted. In fact, some editors have indicated that the convention to redirect such articles is so great that they should be redirected without any discussion if an editor believes that a redirect is in order.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 11:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

According to Merriam-Webster online: "convention d : a general agreement about basic principles or procedures; also : a principle or procedure accepted as true or correct by convention." That's very close to what we call "consensus", here on Wikipedia.

There is no such agreement or consensus. There may be several active and vocal users in favor of deletion, but many others object it, therefore talking of "our general convention" is inappropriate. olivier ( talk) 12:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I had used the phrase to refer to " a practice ... widely observed in a group ... a custom". Which, along with "General agreement on or acceptance of certain practices or attitudes" is what the Free Dictionary defines the phrase as. Apologies if you thought it meant anything other. And, as you see above, I didn't say the practice was (as I understood it) to delete -- but rather to delete and/or redirect. Said another way -- the general practice that I have seen of such primary schools, which only state claims such as "named after a businessman" who lived a long time ago, is that they are not sufficiently notable to Keep, but rather the practice with them has been to not keep them as stand-alone articles (whether by redirect, delete, or in some cases where appropriate RS-supported material exists, by merge).-- Epeefleche ( talk) 12:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

All right, the term "convention" was ambiguous in this context. A redirect is practically very close to a deletion, as the content becomes only visible in the article's history, making it invisible to most Wikipedia readers. The article as it stands today gives valuable insights into the history and current situation of primary education in Hong Kong, and for this reason the material is worth being kept. A pure blanking+redirect to Sai Ying Pun would remove this from Wikipedia, and I don't see it as an improvement. olivier ( talk) 13:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

The convention only exists with regards to non-notable schools. This is not the case here. ˜ danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete does not meet WP:GNG or current school guidelines. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) tper nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
~~Redirect/Merge~~Keep to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜ danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Olivier's arguments are compelling below regarding the historical value of this school. ˜ danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{ R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep and strongly object to the deceptive wording of the nomination. There is no "convention" to delete such articles. Also note that User:Epeefleche is engaged in a mass AfD'ing of primary schools across Wikipedia, resulting in unassuming and sincere editors fighting a deletionist (see User talk:Kudpung for some details). This has resulted in articles blanking and turned into a redirect without any part of the article being merged into the redirect target. Moreover, this article's creator User:minghong lacks English language fluency, as self-described on his user page and there is a risk of this being taken advantage of in this discussion. Finally, this specific school is one of the few early schools of Hong Kong still in operation and it has substantial historical value. Also, in its early days, education received in such a primary school was the only education many of the students would receive in their life. Finally, good references in Chinese language can certainly be found. Deleting the article will just prevent this from happening. olivier ( talk) 11:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment Let's keep in mind when doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself where you can. Be civil and follow dispute resolution processes, rather than attacking other editors. Stubble boy 04:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Merge and redirect - As is usually the case with primary schools, per what is basically an established consensus. None of the arguments that have been made seem to describe this school as more notable than other primary schools, beyond "it's old".-- Yaksar (let's chat) 10:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep. I concur with Olivier's sentiments about the mass deletions. As per Olivier this is a very old school with a long history. The sources are all in Chinese, and the links need fixing. Specialist help is required not deletion. Note too that there is already an article on this school in the Chinese-language Wikipedia. There is no requirement that sources have to be in the English language. As no Chinese-speaking contributors have contributed to this debate no one has been able to verify the sources or translate the content of Chinese Wikipedia article. Dahliarose ( talk) 23:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Have you linked to and read the Chinese sources and checked for others? I have. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Merge and redirect to Sai_Ying_Pun#Schools. -- Ifnord ( talk) 17:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

There is actually no ref-supported, non-challenged text to consider merging.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 17:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Redirect Blank the page and merge any useful content as suggested by Epeefleche and Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. Stubble boy 03:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk} _{about my edits?} 10:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Murari Sharma

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of this person; one trivial mention and a bunch of unrelated people with the same name. I'd love it if someone could check in Hindi, though. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

KEEP, I started this article on 1 December 2011 after that I could not give it more time as I was out of station (busy in Wikiconference India at Mumbai). Today I have edited it and given the relevent references. If any body wants to see the cuttings of "Abhyuday" (dated 4 May 1929) he may see it in the Hindi Article on Ram Prasad Bismil. With this note ed referendom I urge not to delete this article. With regards, Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma ^{(talk•
Email)} Krantmlverma ( talk) 08:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 16:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep - The article appears to be well-sourced at this time, with many improvements and reference additions performed by User:Krantmlverma, although the sources aren't linked to web pages. Assuming good faith that these are reliable tertiary sources, keep. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Quietus (short story)

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

Not notable. Although the author is notable for other works, the article gives no reason to think that this particular short story is particularly notable, and the article consists only of a plot summary. I put a notability tag on it in March of last year, and in the intervening nine months nobody has put forth any arguments saying that the story is notable (for that matter, nobody made any changes to the article at all). So I propose that the article should be deleted as not notable; if an editor wanted to add content about the story, it could easily be added to the article on the short story collection of which it is a part. Guy who reads a lot ( talk) 14:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 5. Snotbot t • c » 14:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment- August 1979 short story in Omni magazine means reviews are most likely offline. This would put a hole in the Maps in a Mirror template, but I can't fault the nomination since I'm unable to find anything substantive to object with. Dru of Id ( talk) 15:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Merge to Unaccompanied Sonata and Other Stories is also an option, but there's nothing to merge except for that single-sentence plot. GregorB ( talk) 16:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Concept is unverified and no citations are given to indicate the notability of the term (1 hit on Gbooks, 1 real one in GNews), so a redirect isn't even in the cards. Plus, there is no verified content worth merging from this personal essay. Drmies ( talk) 17:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Superfly lifestyle

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

Dubious notability; article consists entirely of personal view on the subject. Zzarch ( talk) 23:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Delete. I could find mention of this term, but it's only on blogs; so as of right now it violates WP:NEO. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? |
Wanna talk about it?} 01:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep This is a distinct fashion which is documented in sources such as Men of color: fashion, history, fundamentals, Cutting a figure: fashioning Black portraiture and Encyclopedia of clothing and fashion. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. The worst case is that we'd merge into our article about the movie: Super Fly (film). Warden ( talk) 09:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply
- Merge I would support merging this article with Super Fly (film), per the above rationale. Zzarch ( talk) 22:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  - If those sources are actually found and added to the article, Warden, I can change my !vote. But I Gsearched and couldn't find anything reliable that proved the style was even referred to as "superfly lifestyle". Erpert ^{Who is this guy? |
    Wanna talk about it?} 08:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    - There's a much bigger article to be written on black male fashion history. For example, see the source Slaves to fashion and Encyclopedia of African American Popular Culture. Warden ( talk) 08:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The following note is moved from the talk page by Zzarch ( talk) 22:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply
- I should make one thing very clear. if they are trying to find reason to delete its simply a narrow mindness on their part. i thought wikipedia embraced all sorts of beliefs and lifestyles. i do not and will not bow to pressure of being politically correct for any reason. i believe in being truthful and honest which is why i posted the article. this was a style of dress for men of color in the 70s. plain and simple. its not meant to offend anyone in the least but meant to educate others about different lifestyles. i hope that wikipedia can be the great encyclopedia that it is by having many avenues of learning. thanks and have a great day/ Sparkles76 ( talk) 21:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete: This would pass as a Wiktionary definition, not as a Wikipedia entry Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Relisting comment: It would be helpful if the claims about inclusion in reliable sources could be specifically verified prior to making a decision on this AfD.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwyrxian ( talk) 14:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 11:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

DeHavilland – Political Intelligence & Parliamentary Monitoring

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

While the company's website confirms they exist, I can't find any independent discussion of them to indicate that they are notable (either WP:GNG or WP:CORP). Article was Prodded, but prod was removed by IP editor with no explanation. Qwyrxian ( talk) 13:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete No multiple independent RS discussion of the co over time. The recently added Zetter book Lobbying: The Art of Political Persuasion includes DeHavilland's name four times, plus once in the index, but has no discussion of the company. -- Lexein ( talk) 17:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete as per nom. Seems like a promotional article to me. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete - agree with nom - fails WP:CORP. Nolelover ^Talk^· ^Contribs 13:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Article creator agrees with deletion ( WP:CSD#g7). Can be re-created when the journal meets inclusion criteria -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Journal of Global Health

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

Article was PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal, not listed in any selective major databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." De-PRODded by article creator because: "I have removed the proposed deletion notice as this journal runs for one year now, it has applied for PubMed indexing this week and is run by one of the biggest research teams. Soon it will receive an impact factor as well." That the journal has been in existence for 1 year (and has published 2 issues) is irrelevant. As an open-access journal, it will certainly be listed in PubMed, but whether it will be included in the selective part ( MEDLINE) is another matter. At this point, there is no indication either that the journal is going to be included in Thomson-Reuters databases (and hence receive an impact factor). See WP:CRYSTAL. At this point, the PROD rationale stands, hence: delete (without prejudice for re-creation at a later time if the journal gets included in selective databases or independent sources about the journal become available). Guillaume2303 ( talk) 11:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I have no objections to Guillaume2303's comments. I think the rationale is correct. I will re-submit the article when the journal fullfills the criteria. Ekorakakis ( talk) 12:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

As the preceding comment is from the article creator, I move for a speedy closure as CSD G7. -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 13:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete Per nom. Eeekster ( talk) 02:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Keep. Nobody other than the nominator advocated for deletion, and the nomination was withdrawn by the nominator. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Palringo

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted non-notable software. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 11:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 11:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep. Has a cnet Editor's Review here which I've seen qualify as WP:RS in other articles. Note this review also post-dates the previous AfD. -- Ritchie333 (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- Could You please draw examples of any review in Download section of CNET attributed as WP:RS? To date download sites didn't qualify. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 13:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CDBurnerXP was kept partly because of the cnet Editor's review. It was the specifically the fact an Editor reviewed it that qualified it as reliable - user reviews don't count. -- Ritchie333 (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
    - Actually this example suggests that CNET ref wasn't enough to keep. The nominator withdraw the entry only after new references appeared (though I still wouldn't, as none of them seems reliable). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 13:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
    - Also note, that this review is a clear advertisement, and the reviewer has an interest in advertising this software (thus advertising CNET Downloads usage), so I would completely discard it. The only [semi-]reliable source to date is the article in The Inquire, which is not enough, especially given The Inquire's reputation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 13:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
      - I disagree. The review mentions self-registration as a drawback and suggests Palringo's competitors are better, which wouldn't appear on an advert. Also there is a MacWorld Editor review here which concludes "either program is worth a shot, but [not] a program I’m likely to continue using on my iPhone." -- Ritchie333 (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
        This one seems to be yet less reliable, as the Mac Publishing Community Standards indicate that they have no editorial control at all and the author of review is a "regular contributor". Also note, that the site features 2115 reviews (as of this writing). Do you think there are 2115 notable iPhone apps out there? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 15:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep: Most CNET download pages do not have a review by the staff. Normally it is just a product description from the company. Macworld appears to be reliable. What do you even mean by "regular contributor"? His profile page does not say that and the article does not say that. I am confused about what you mean because he is a staff member, not any regular editor. The issue is not whether all of them are notable. The issue is whether other sources covered those thousands also. I also found book coverage - [11], [12], and [13]. SL93 ( talk) 00:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- PC World Australia review - [14]. SL93 ( talk) 00:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  - These references really seem convincing. I withdraw nomination. Am I entitled to close discussion as withdrawn? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 09:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. It is clear the article will be kept, and there is no point wasting more time on this. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Kiangsu and Chekiang Primary School

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

Primary schools are not considered notable by default, and no reason is given to regard this as an exception. Also, the article is unsourced. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep as notable school. Reason was given when it was deprodded. Now sourced. -- Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: Since I started this AfD and said that the article was unsourced, eight references have been added. I have looked at all of them. Unfortunately the little amount of Chinese I learnt many years ago and subsequently largely forgot is of no use in following them, so I am relying on Google translations. One of the references is a photocopy of a newspaper, so Google translation is not possible, and I can make no comment on its content. (Incidentally, it is almost certainly a copyright infringement, and so should not be linked to from Wikipedia, which is why I am not adding a link here.) http://www.chsc.hk/psp/psp_sch_list.php?lang_id=1&search_mode=&frmMode=pagebreak&district_id=2&page=3 is a mere list of schools, and does nothing towards establishing notability. http://kcs.edu.hk/history.htm is promotional in character, and the Google translation includes the notice "Copyright by Kiangsu & Chekiang School (Nursery, Kindergarten, Primary & Int'l Section) 2000", so it is clearly not an independent source. http://lifein.hk/Education/PrimarySchDet.aspx?id=491&name=Kiangsu%20&%20Chekiang%20Primary%20School%20%28W.D.%29 is a bare list of facts about the school, such as the school's address, the name of the principal, the year of foundation, the school hours, etc, so it does nothing to establish notability. http://www.wxjy.com.cn/xwzx/readnews.asp?newsid=17648 gives one passing mention of the school. http://life.mingpao.com/htm/primary2006/cfm/content.cfm?Path=sch_pri/sch_pri7.htm does give more significant coverage to the school. The page is written in glowing terms, so much so as to cause me to wonder how much of an independent source it is. I have looked round the site to try to determine its nature. The site has various pages giving glowing praise to various private schools, and also at least one page generously praising private education in general. I am open to correction by anyone with a knowledge of Chinese, but it seems to me that the site is a promotional vehicle for schools. http://www.webcitation.org/64T4KyNk4 also gives glowing praise to the school, but is not very substantial: certainly not enough so to establish notability. http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/TC/Content_6605/KiangsuChekiang.pdf is a report of an appraisal by the Education Bureau of Hong Kong. The fact that such an appraisal has been carried out does nothing to establish notability: millions of schools undergo inspections and appraisals. Unfortunately, although the author of the article has evidently put some effort into providing references, the sum total of them comes nowhere near to the substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that we need. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- There is no requirement that all citations be independent of the subject. I would add that for a school that has had the same principal for 48 years, their histories are inevitably intimately intertwined, and it is wholly appropriate to rely on it as a substantial source. In addition, the key source for this article is the Ming Pao article (news clipping), and while the web page itself may be copyright violation (although it may not), it does indicate such an article's existence can be verified. -- Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  - I agree w/Oh that independent sources are appropriate (within limits) to use to source an article, but also believe that they do not count towards notability. Oh -- we have a convention of not keeping primary schools as stand-alone article, absent unusual circumstances. Can you clarify for us the full breadth of the circumstances here that you feel warrant an exception to the usual approach of redirecting or deleting or merging such an article? Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
    - I would argue that despite the convention for not keeping primary school articles, that does not mean that all PS articles have to be deleted. I live in Hong Kong, and know for a fact that the school is extremely notable. You stop anybody in the street – and I mean any Hong Kong resident, and they will tell you exactly what this school is notable for (as clearly stated in the lead section). I will try to find more independent sources to further develop the article. As web archives of Chinese newspapers are somewhat inadequate, I will have to look at printed sources. It's clearly inappropriate to merge or redirect, for I can see no suitable candidate target. -- Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
      - I certainly agree both that a) the convention appears to exist; and b) the convention does not mean that all PS articles have to be deleted. What I am trying to get at is what the verifiable circumstances are that put this PS into the "exception" category. It may be that some would suggest a redirect/merge -- if that were the course -- to the municipality, but hopefully we won't need to go that route. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 02:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
        "Hope" is not relevant here: in many cases, mergers or redirects are fine. But in this case, as Ohconfucius mentioned, it would be a challenge to find an existing appropriate target. North Point would be a redirect/merge target candidate, but the material would fit rather poorly in the article. Maybe an alternative would be to create the Kiangsu & Chekiang Residents (HK) Association article, and include the material in an "education" section, as it is also related to Kiangsu-Chekiang College (Shatin) and Kiangsu-Chekiang College (Kwai Chung). In any case, establishing the first Mandarin speaking school in Cantonese and English speaking Hong Kong in 1953 (then a British Colony) had major political significance in a tense context, both locally ( Hong Kong 1956 riots), in China ( Three-anti and Five-anti Campaigns) and in the region ( Korean War). I therefore believe that noone here would disagree with the fact that this school is notable, or is at least very probably notable. What is lacking are sources accepted as reliable to support some of the key information in the article. I am sure that we all have already seen this situation many times and we all know that such sources will eventually be found. Some ways to improve the article could be to give more context: 1) about the significance of Mandarin teaching at that time in Hong Kong and 2) give some information about the Kiangsu & Chekiang Residents (HK) Association itself. olivier ( talk) 10:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep: an important part of the history of North Point and Hong Kong in general. This is a good reason to regard this primary school as an exception. Plus, the article is now sourced, even if the sources are not perfect at the moment. As a consequence, I cannot agree with the nomination. olivier ( talk) 16:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep. The article demonstrates the notability of the school through notable alumni, references etc. ˜ danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep although this may be a minority viewpoint I believe that the deletionists are being foolhardy in their blind opposition to schools articles. Every school office I have been to has dozens of newspaper articles about the school framed on the wall. This clearly meets GNG as they are multiple non-trivial sources. Therefore based on NRVE the only decision should be keep. Some schools are lucky enough to have these sources on google news but many older and in fact more historically notable ones do not and that is a shame. Microfilm is just as important. Based on this experience it should be clear that all schools are notable. Also at the very least this school should be merged into the relevant diocesan article, not deleted outright. This preserves the edit history for when sources are found. It should also be noted that this is part of a mass nomination and that should be frowned upon by the community as it shows there was unlikely a committed effort to find proper sources before nomination. I don't think even a PROD was tried first here. =( This school in particular seems to have a size to it showing obvious notability. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 18:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep Ok so the sources are not Time (magazine) but they aren't terrible either, and there are a reasonable number of them. As for 'why is this school notable': most are the sources are consistent in their coverage of this school as a pioneer of Mandarin teaching in Hong Kong. Pol430 talk to me 21:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 00:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Spaceseed

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

No evidence of notability from the current content or a search on the Internet Peteinterpol ( talk) 11:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete - Virtually no news coverage, apparent lack of chart success, fails WP:MUSIC. Peteinterpol ( talk) 13:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. The article is virtually identical to the one discussed at the previous AfD. JamesBWatson ( talk) 21:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Imo.im

AfDs for this article:

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

Once deleted web service/software, that fails WP:N. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 11:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 11:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 5. Snotbot t • c » 11:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete and salt as a re-creation of previously deleted content. The version deleted after discussion last time was very similar to this text. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- It is out there since August 2011. I thought WP:SPEEDY only qualifies for articles which were recently created. But I agree on the general idea. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 17:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
- I have tagged the article for G4 speedy deletion. Chris the Paleontologist ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 00:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Jose Villarreal (soccer)

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

Contested PROD, no reason given. Association football player fails WP:NFOOTY as he has yet to play at a fully-professional level of football - has only just signed with a pro-team. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. -- Jimbo^[online] 10:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. -- Jimbo^[online] 10:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom - non-notable until he plays for LA Galaxy or any other fully-professional team. – Kosm 1 fent 10:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete - per nom. The subject has not received significant coverage to merit keeping the article under WP:GNG, and until Mr. Villareal makes his debut, the article fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, No prejudice to recreation if and when he makes LA Galaxy debut. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite ( talk) 01:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 20:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 00:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Hollow corporation

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

The term of "hollow corporation" as it is used in this article is a neologism coined by HotwirePR. The article was added into Wikipedia by a user that shares the same name as the marketing executive for Hotwire PR and a search does not bring up anything to show that this is a notable term or idea. What does come up under this term does not describe what the article describes. I believe it to be PR for HotwirePR, but not to the point where it could be speedied. The page's only two sources are for a journal entry that doesn't seem to use the term "hollow corporation" at all and a link to an article that does not appear to be a reliable source. Previously PRODed for being a neologism. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 08:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79 reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete. Whatever else this is, it's content that is only apparently meaningful, but too confused to get any sense out of: A hollow corporation is a corporation which fails to consider its stakeholders, recognisable by a tendency to ignore the wider influencer network. Hollow corporations consistently fail to map their stakeholders, leaving them both unaware of who their wider stakeholder network consists of and unable to gauge the influence that each member of that network might yield. Map their stakeholders? What the hell? At any rate, redirect to shell corporation might be a possibility. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete, lack of notability. Don't redirect to shell corporation; while the terms sound similar, certainly as defined here they are not the same thing. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 00:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

David Tsiskarishvili

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

Article about a footballer who has not played in a fully pro league. Edgars2007 ( Talk/ Contributions) 08:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 01:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 01:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep - It appears that the league in which the subject plays, Latvian Higher League, is a fully professional first-division, with the league champion continuing to the UEFA Champions League. League does not appear in the official list for some reason. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - can you prove that with reliable sources? Giant Snowman 10:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 00:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete. The Latvian Higher League is not fully professional. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm 1 fent 11:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Only the delete !votes use policy to support their arguments ( WP:NOTDIR). The keep votes seem to follow this vote, "Could be very useful if it is cleaned up." I can't see how this is poicy based. Guerillero | My Talk 23:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

List of weather websites in the Philippines

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

List article without reliable 3rd party sources. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY MakeSense64 ( talk) 07:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

~~Keep~~ Weak Keep - This list article has promise, and is discriminate, focused and useful to Wikipedia. The article needs more references (I've already added one) and some light copy editing. Adding rescue tag.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment While you have added three references, these are not "independent third party sources" needed to establish notability. Source #1 and #3 are primary sources taken directly from the website in question, and source #2 can hardly be called reliable and is barely a mention. MakeSense64 ( talk) 22:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments –
I moved the second link you mention to external links. The other two are to verify information. Still needs more work. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I changed my !vote to weak keep. I initially agree with the general idea of merging information from this article to a new article titled, " List of weather services", or something to that effect. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
This article does not fail WP:NOTDIR, the topic range is narrow and discriminate; the article does not read like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" or "A complete exposition of all possible details", etc. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Added more content to the article, including information from a reliable source – English news website of the Taiwan-based China Times News Group. The second source listed below (article title: "Launching of Automated Weather Station") is a primary source that verifies information; not to establish notability.

In 2011, Taiwan donated fifteen weather stations to the Philippines' Department of Science and Technology, and it has been reported that "The Philippines weather bureau will also share information from the new weather stations with Taiwan's Central Weather Bureau, helping expand the range of Taiwan's weather forecasts."^[1] PAGASA and the Philippines Department of Science and Technology work jointly in the implementation of weather stations.^[2]

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Expanded the article, including verification from a reliable source – City Government of Naga; added:

The city of Naga uses information from Typhoon2000 in its iTyphoon application, which is used to on various mobile devices to provide weather updates.^[3]

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Be bold: The article has been renamed to " List of weather agencies and websites in the Philippines, per rationale that this title is more accurate per the content in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep If there is a Wikipedia article for the entity that has its website listed there, then it should be on the list. Also if it is a government organization or part of a major educational or research facility. If its just some guy's blog, then you have to ask, is this blog notable, do news sites ever link to it, where do they get their information from, etc. If they just look up information online and post it on their blog, they probably aren't notable. Who belongs on or off the list can be discussed on the talk page and worked out there. Dream Focus 07:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep and rename - Most of the notable organisations who forecast for the Philippines also forecast for the Western Pacific ocean in general (180-100E roughly) so i would like to propose a rename to List of weather websites in the western pacific ocean. Notable organisations include Typhoon 2000, the JMA, JTWC PAGASA etc and not Visayas Typhoon Center which is just some guys blog. Jason Rees ( talk) 00:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment Then I would rather see it renamed to "List of weather services in...". A "List of websites...." type article is going too much in the direction of a directory page, and encourages other editors to add their "websites" (~ blogs ..) to it. MakeSense64 ( talk) 08:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep – Could be very useful if it is cleaned up. Could use a little more sources too. – TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk) 00:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete. WP:NOTDIR#4 fully applies to this list. The list would be acceptable if it would only contain notable entries, that is, web sites covered by their own Wikipedia articles. Makes three entries... not really an informative list then. Nageh ( talk) 04:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Exactly, and out of these three only one is really Philippine, the others being from Japan and Hawai, USA. A global list of weather services would make sense, but on a per country basis it becomes a useless list with only a few notable entries. MakeSense64 ( talk) 07:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

The article has been expanded and improved. In my opinion this article (at this time) does not read like a directory or a resource for conducting business, and does not have a promotional tone. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment. There does not appear to be a List of weather websites (or List of online weather services, or whatever), so maybe this could be repurposed in scope to make it global and the non-notable entries removed, thus obviating any NOTDIR concerns (which are almost always a matter of normal editing, not deletion). postdlf ( talk) 05:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I would support the creation of a List of weather services, and then any useful entries from this article can be selectively merged into it. "List of weather websites" is a name I would avoid. Most weather services have websites, but their activity/service is usually not limited to online reporting. MakeSense64 ( talk) 07:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:NOTDIR. Mt king ^(edits) 04:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete. As fails WP:NOTDIR. Unsalvageable, but postdlf has a good point about making a global list. -- Ifnord ( talk) 17:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete This is exactly the kind of article that WP:NOTDIR is talking about. - DJSasso ( talk) 21:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Which of the eight points listed in WP:NOTDIR are these three above delete !votes referring to? A clarification would be helpful toward this discussion. Please view the current version of this article prior to replying, as the article has received significant changes. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Diqdaqah. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk} _{about my edits?} 10:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Degdaga

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

Zero refs. Zero gnews hits. Zero non-trivial gbooks hits. Lacks substantial rs coverage. Tagged for lack of refs for well over 2 years. Epeefleche ( talk) 07:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Diqdaqah. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Diqdaqah. Appears to be the same. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator withdrew, sole delete opinion reconsidered. ( non-admin closure) Goodvac ( talk) 05:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Piran Coastal Galleries

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

While this gallery exists, I could not find substantial non-trivial RS coverage. Zero refs, for which it has been tagged for over 2 years. Epeefleche ( talk) 06:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep, I can find some non-trivial coverage using google search, however, most is in Slovene. The article, regretfully, is in an awful shape. -- Tone 16:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete zero google news hits, limited google book hits (and those are only directory entries), google search brings up unremarkable directory entries as well. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan ( talk) 16:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep sufficient reliable sources have been located to adequately source this article, I'm changing my !vote to keep with the assumption that those who have found those sources will improve this article with them.-- RadioFan ( talk) 14:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment The site of Slovenia's Ministry of Culture has this text "Since their founding a range of well-received exhibitions prepared by the Coastal Galleries have had a major influence on the visual arts scene, not only in the coastal region but also in the rest of Slovenia" [15] which is at least some claim to notability. AllyD ( talk) 17:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep, Culture.si is a reliable source and, in my opinion, sufficient for the claim of notability. Slovene sources could also help, there's no obstacle to adding those. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment I'm still not clear what the claim of notability is here. -- RadioFan ( talk) 21:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

The galleries have hosted exhibitions of top artists, such as Zoran Mušič. The A+A Gallery, one of the Galleries, participates at the Venice Biennale. I think those two reasons should suffice. -- Tone 22:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

How does that meet either our general notability criteria as reflected in GNG, or any other accepted wp notability criteria? Tx.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 00:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

It generates a significant coverage, the first point of the GNG. As said, sources exist, they just need to be incorporated into the article. -- Tone 08:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

We need substantial, non-trivial coverage/discussion of the galleries themselves in RSs. Mentions of gallery exhibitions that are passing in nature, for example, will not confer notability. Furthermore, notability is not inherited -- An organization is not notable merely because a notable person was associated with it -- if the organization itself did not receive notice, then the organization is not notable. And I'm not sure about what the participation is of the A+A Gallery at the Venice Bienielle ... I could not find mention of it when I did a search on the VB site.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

This is a substantial, non-trivial coverage/discussion of the galleries themselves in an RS. The reference has been included in the article and was mentioned in the AllyD's comment just before mine. Do you disagree with that? A quick internet search also reveals a museums.si entry, and the coverage of an award presented by this institution in a national newspaper. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

being a govt resource gives culture.si some credibility but the link above is essentially a directory entry and doesn't cover the subject in much detail. Official sites which are there to promote tourism are great for verifying details in the articles, but they aren't that helpful in determining notability as they tend to be indiscriminate in their inclusion policies.

Keep - notable enough. -- Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment can you elaborate on how you feel this subject meets notability guidelines? WP:JUSTAVOTE !votes tend to get passed over by closing admins, especially when other voters (on both sides of the issue) have detailed arguments, most with links.-- RadioFan ( talk) 15:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

The topic has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", listed above and elsewhere. For example, this article describes the institution as being among the four most recognizable galleries in Slovenia and being the only such institution in Slovenia that has an outpost abroad. Istrian Encyclopedia also contains an article on the institution, [16], describing it as the central gallery institution in the Slovenian Littoral. Its notability is also explained in this article (pg. 30). -- Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment – Note that many websites have this gallery listed as "Obalne Galerije Piran". Reference searches under this name may yield more reliable sources. Also note that, per the article, there are galleries in Koper, Slovenia and Venice, Italy. Searches for Italian sources under the name "Gallerie Costiere Pirano" may be fruitful. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment, this could be good info. Instead of leaving it for others, could you go ahead and share what you found when you used these as searchs and how you think they might help this article meet notability guidelines?-- RadioFan ( talk) 22:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Wikipedia is volunteer driven, perhaps you could try some searches yourself, rather than suggesting what others should do to counter your !vote to delete this article. Instead of taking time to type suggestions about what other users should do, perhaps consider using that time instead to do some source searching! Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi NA -- you are, as usual, doing an exemplary job here. Which is appreciated. You are of course correct that wp is volunteer-driven, and that you didn't have to help by responding to RF's request. You could have simply left it with your indication of the alternate names we weren't aware of, which was a great help. I thank you for taking it even a step further. At the same time, I'm guessing that RF wasn't trying to tweak you, or to irritate you, or to suggest that you were required to do anything ... but just making a good faith request, which you were free to satisfy or ignore. I've seem my share of rudeness by an editor or two this week, but I at least didn't read into RF's request what you may have. Best, and thanks once more.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 11:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

RadioFan's comment wasn't interpreted by me as rude whatsoever. My replying comment was simply a suggestion. Happy editing! Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Ahah -- sorry for the misunderstanding. It can happen at times, when one reads the words, but can't see the writer's expression (or the implied smiley face). RF, from what I've seen, and even from his comments in his !vote above, does do a good job searching for sources as a general matter, and I respect both of you greatly, and just wanted to make sure there wasn't any disconnect. Happy new year. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 12:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep – Topic passes WP:GNG, per significant coverage in reliable sources:

"Obalne galerije - Coastal Galleries". Republic of Slovenia Ministry of Culture. Retrieved 5 January 2012.
(Slovenian) Šuligoj, Boris (September 18, 2011). "Coastal outdoor gallery". Delo.si. Retrieved January 6, 2012. {{ cite web}}: External link in |publisher= ( help)
(Slovenian) Šuligoj, Boris (December 23, 2011). "Coastal galleries take your money: The decision of the Koper municipality: The Gallery Lodge will have to cut the program or close the door". Delo.si. Retrieved January 8, 2012. {{ cite web}}: External link in |publisher= ( help)
"Seven Book Treasures of Piran". Civic Library of Piran. 2010. Retrieved January 8, 2012.
"Coastal Galleries Piran". Istarska Encyclopedia – Institute Miroslav. 2008. Retrieved January 8, 2012.

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Withdraw. Per new spelling, and new sources under it, found by NA.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 17:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 00:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Makan Dembélé

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, a football player that has never played at a notable level (Malian first division and Irani 2nd division are not notable) .. article can be restored when he makes his debut with JS Kabylie TonyStarks ( talk) 06:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. TonyStarks ( talk) 06:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage. As such, he fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. No prejudice to recreation if and when he makes his debut in Algeria. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite ( talk) 01:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 20:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Goodvac ( talk) 07:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Al-Harm

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

I am having trouble finding RS substantial coverage of these people. The article is no help, as despite its length it has zero refs. Tagged for zero refs for close to 4 years. Created by an SPA named Harem. Epeefleche ( talk) 06:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Mmm, the Sacred Mosque in Mecca is called the Masjid al-Haram so perhaps the people are the Al-Haram (and maybe so is the SPA). There could be many variant spellings here including الحرام. Article is pretty much OR (or CV perhaps) but I'll take a look at sources. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep - have found 2 books and map, and rewritten the article. The Al Haram were listed on the Huwala article so I've linked it in both directions. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
~~Keep~~ Speedy Keep - Per the work of User:Chiswick Chap above. Topic appears to be notable for Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Changed !vote to Speedy Keep, as nominator has withdrawn the nomination. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Withdraw. Based on the off-line sources found by CC; nice work.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 06:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 00:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Kelly Gaines

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

A non notable character without any reliable sources to assert notability therefore it should be deleted. Dwanyewest ( talk) 06:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete - agree with nomination - minor character, no references. PK T(alk) 14:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete. I don't recall any non-primary sources significantly covering this character at all. No news or books that are independent of Cheers cover this. -- George Ho ( talk) 09:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 00:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Loretta Tortelli

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

A minor character in the show without sources to assert notability therefore it should be deleted. Dwanyewest ( talk) 06:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep Sources are not required in articles to "assert notability" - there is no policy to that effect. If the nominator wants some more sources then he should add them himself. He might then understand the topic better. In this case the character was not only a recurring character in Cheers but also had a starring role in a separate show, The Tortellis. This is documented in detail in sources such as The American Family on Television. Warden ( talk) 17:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. Warden is correct that the sources need not be reflected in the wp article, for purposes of withstanding an AfD. The key question is whether RS sourcing that is both substantial and independent exists. Here, we have articles such as this one, devoted to the subject of the article.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment - Added to the article, (from User:Epeefleche's comment above):

Buck, Jerry (February 4, 1987). "Loretta Tortelli Isn't Stereotypical Dumb Blonde". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Retrieved January 6, 2012. {{ cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= ( help)

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Added: Bjorklund, Dennis A. (1997). Toasting Cheers: An Episode Guide To the 1982-1993 Comedy Series With Cast Biographies and Character Profiles. Praetorian Publishing. p. 17. ISBN 0-899-50962-2.

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep - Per the availability of reliable sources that address the topic significantly. Topic passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep Based on the coverage found by those who actually went to look for it. Dream Focus 21:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 00:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Madha Airport

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

I'm not even sure this place exists. Zero gnews hits. Zero gbooks hits. The url in the article infobox does not relate to any airport by this name. Epeefleche ( talk) 06:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete I checked for either an IATA or ICAO code, which is the international registry of airports, and was unable to find anything. This suggests it either doesn't exist, or is so small it might as well not exists (e.g. it will never have references) Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 06:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Hmmm. You seem expert in this area. Do you feel the same about some of the other airports listed here?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

There seems to be some sort of runway there, but other than that there seems to be little more than wiki mirrors - no evidence of whether it is used or of any sort of notability - therefore delete. Nigel Ish ( talk) 20:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom and Funnyfarmofdoom's findings.-- Lenticel ^(
talk) 06:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(
talk) 06:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete -- My guess is that it is more a landing ground than an airport. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 11:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Seeb Basketball League

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

Zero refs. Zero gnews hits. Zero gbooks hits. Tagged for lack of refs since March. Dearth of substantial RS coverage. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 05:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage in independent sources.— Bagumba ( talk) 16:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete per snowball's chance in hell of this being kept. Jrcla2 ( talk) 17:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Bahauddin Zakariya University. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk} _{about my edits?} 10:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Bahauddin Zakariya University Sub-Campus, Layyah

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

While the university is notable, its sub-campus does not appear notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Zero refs. Tagged for notability for nearly a year. Epeefleche ( talk) 05:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Merge or redirect to the main university article. No point in having a seperate article for this when there's already a main article on the university itself. Mar4d ( talk) 16:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Merge: The university article is enough per notability, nothing special about the sub campus has been mentioned in a reliable source which would get it its own article. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 01:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Merge to Bahauddin Zakariya University. Stand-alone article really not needed. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Goodvac ( talk) 07:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Chicken patty

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Zero refs, very little content, and dearth of rs coverage. Tagged for notability, and lack of refs, for well over a year. Epeefleche ( talk) 05:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep - About 20 minutes of googling found hundreds of references regarding Pakistani chicken patties. I've added a few to the article. As it stands now, this article doesn't seem to match any of the WP:DEL#REASON.-- Stvfetterly ( talk) 15:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete - Recipes do not establish notability, and that is all the majority of those sources are. The last is simply a guide to the culture that only lists the thing in passing mention. So based on those provided sources we have WP:V and that's it, there is no shown notability. -- Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 15:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep - Much improved. -- Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 19:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep – This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Here are three articles:

"KFC Targets Macca's Chicken Patties". B&T Magazine. December 13, 2011. Retrieved January 6, 2012. {{ cite web}}: External link in |publisher= ( help)

"New frozen chicken patty just part of Trader Joe's grilling obsession". Perishablesbuyer.com (News). July 1, 2010. Retrieved January 6, 2012. {{ cite web}}: External link in |publisher= ( help)

Eaton, Lorraine (April 12, 2010). "KFC's Double Down = Double Thumbs Down". Hampton Roads. Retrieved January 6, 2012. {{ cite web}}: External link in |publisher= ( help)

Here's another article, less about chicken patties, but has some interesting information:

"Chick-Fil-A Banned At Indiana University South Bend". Huffington Post. January 28, 2011. Retrieved January 6, 2012. {{ cite web}}: External link in |publisher= ( help)

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Nice work by NA. The article focus has been expanded, but since it has a broad title that is fine, and NA did nice work here. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Now that the other delete !voter has changed to keep based on the improvements, I can do the same (and do), so this can be considered withdrawn. Kudos to NA.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment – Added to the article, "The USDA considers chicken patties as a food commodity.":

(October 2006). Announcement PY-316: Purchase Of Chicken Nuggets and Chicken Patties For Distribution To Eligible Outlets – USDA, Poultry Programs announcement.

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep this one is a no brainer, we have precedent for the most common gastronomic and alcoholic items to have articles here and a chicken patty is nearly as common as a hamburger, notwithstanding multiple non trivial coverage in reliable sources. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note - The nominator has withdrawn their nomination to delete this article (see above). Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Withdrawn - Did not realise that such games were seen as "inherently notable", will take it up at WT:NSPORTS and renominate at a later date. Mt king ^(edits) 06:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

1993 Fiesta Bowl

1993 Fiesta Bowl ( | 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:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER article does not demonstrate "enduring historical significance" of this game. Mt king ^(edits) 04:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:SPORTSEVENT: "College bowl games" are "inherently notable". Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 00:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

UltraMon

UltraMon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

A Google search reveals almost no sources that would incur notability to this piece of software (in fact, only one Lifehacker article). Jasper Deng (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep. It's all about sources and it looks like they exist. The vendor's reviews page has a lot of broken or unhelpful links but it does list reviews by PC World, InformationWeek that appear to satisfy WP:GNG. Msnicki ( talk) 16:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep: the article looks promotional, but the topic may happen to pass WP:GNG: at least I found several sources, though I'm not sure about reliability: review (unsure about WP:SPS, see the notice at the bottom of the article),^[4] blog of Microsoft employee (he should have an expertise excluding him from WP:SPS; or no?),^[5] Microsoft itself,^[6] review at TechRepublic (by editor called "Guest Contributor"!!!, but deep and well-written),^[7] Maximum PC's review,^[8] and some news site alike (but who knows?).^[9] — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 17:54, 5 January 2012‎ (UTC) reply

View AfD to see references

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 14:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comparison of multi-monitor software

Comparison of multi-monitor software ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

First of all, Windows is the most common, but not the only OS. Second, Wikipedia is not a directory or a software repository. Third, this is not an encylopedic comparison. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete, as current content only makes it harder to write an appropriate comparison (if needed at all). P.S.: it seems that the current implied consensus is to include only the contestants that have their own articles, but in this case it renders the comparison senseless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 16:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

°Don't be rediculous, this is an incredibly useful article. If you don't you Windows then why not improve it with other OS's instead of proposing to delete something I found on Google and helped me alot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.43.77 ( talk) 18:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia's purpose is not this. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I found this article useful - but I think adding info on additional OS would be even more useful. I'd like to see info on Unix, Linux, Mac, and whether Windows emulation programs could run the software on different OS. Gramery ( talk) 21:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
On that note, most likely not since display drivers are below what emulators can give in OS architecture. The article as it stands is a violation of WP:NOTDIR; we'd like to see other articles on software besides the one piece that has an article already. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

The current version of the article is too Windows-centric, it can't be amended with other platforms. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 00:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete, Wikipedia is not a tech blog. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 11:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC). reply

Delete, ASAP. History2007 ( talk) 15:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete, per nomination. Stubble boy 18:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Don't Delete, this was the only useful google result on this matter Kosmologie ( talk) 10:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. With no prejudice to an early repeat AfD in case notability is not proven then too. Wifione ^Message 09:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks

Articles for deletion/2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks (3rd nomination)

2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Clearly as a news story this has got coverage in the US, however there does not appear to be any "enduring historical significance" to this crime and the coverage that it is getting is just the sort of routine coverage of breaking news especially as it took place during the traditional post Christmas- pre New Year period when news is thin on the ground.
Fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NEVENTS. Mt king ^(edits) 02:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Redirects:
2011 Los Angeles arson spree

2011 Southern California fires

Harry Burkhart

Dorothee Burkhart

Los Angeles arson attacks

Delete as initial prod'er. Dori ☾ Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

To elaborate on my !vote:
Wikipedia does not keep articles around in the hope that the topic may someday become notable. If we did, every high school drama student and prep school athlete would have articles. The process is first, notability, and then—and only then—article creation. If the event does happen to someday become notable, then it's no big deal to undelete it or to move a userfied version into mainspace. Keeping this around because it might someday be notable is simply against policy.

Those claiming that the first AFD has bearing on this one are incorrect. The result of that was not a speedy keep, it was a speedy close. That's because (as the page says) the nominator should have started a merge discussion, not an AFD. Dori ☾ Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment This might be of use. Magister Scienta ^talk 02:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾ Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Userfy. Too early to tell whether it is notable (see WP:EVENT/ WP:NOTNEWS: a flurry of coverage on the day of the attacks and a few days after, even if international, doesn't demonstrate lasting encyclopedic significance), but if it does turn out to be notable due to historical impact or discussion in longer-term works such as academic books (I phrase it this way to avoid suggesting that I believe it might become notable due to what will be another short flurry of coverage around trial and sentencing before the event is never heard of again), it would be a shame to lose the work. To Magister Scienta: please be aware that the previous speedy keep is not an endorsement of the article, it's just what tends to happen when the nominator isn't actually proposing deletion. Also re your comments on the article talk page, you misunderstand the relationship of WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS - the whole point of the latter is that not every event covered in the newspaper is encyclopedic, which is why we have WP:EVENT. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep - for now, to early to speak about sustained notability in the long run.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 15:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Like the way we keep all those High School Soccer players because it is to early to tall if they will end up playing for FC Barcelona ? I agree with Roscelese above that Userfy is the best way to do preserve any work pending a clear indication of any "enduring historical significance". Mt king ^(edits) 19:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep - He will be known for years as an infamous L.A. arsonist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMexTex ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC) — NMexTex ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Keep for now. My reasoning from the previous AFD remains unchanged. Umbralcorax ( talk) 16:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Speedy KeepIt was speedy kept before, has an enormous amount of information and more is coming, is being improved, is viewed about 1000 times a day and is very notable. It should probably be in the ITN section when the verdict of the trial happens. It should have been already even more for the event , but think it is too late for that.-- YummyDonutsmmm ( talk) 19:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC) — YummyDonutsmmm ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

— Note to closing admin: YummyDonutsmmm ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ☾ Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 19:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

— Note: User:YummyDonutsmmm is now blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Daniel L. Barth. Dori ☾ Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 19:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
That does not address the policy issue here, this is an Encyclopedia and not a news service. Mt king ^(edits) 19:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
What makes it encyclopedic is that 100 years from now people will still look this up to study about, unless prevented by the 2012 phenomenon or whatever.-- YummyDonutsmmm ( talk) 21:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Unlikely, more likely than not it will be forgotten, and if it does come to pass then it can be undeleted. As it stands it is just a news reports no in-depth analysis it is just one of the countless crimes committed globally every day, what makes this any more worthy of an Encyclopedia entry than all the rest. Mt king ^(edits) 21:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep Per WP:N/CA "...media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." Since this event is undeniably high-profile (that fact has been stipulated by pretty much every editor involved) and since the article's sources are reliable, non-trivial, and intellectually independent, it seems to me that this policy is a valid justification of the article's notability. Magister Scienta ^talk 23:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

But the coverage is only routine coverage of the crime exacerbated by the timing of the act, no "enduring historical significance" has even been suggested, let alone cited. Mt king ^(edits) 00:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
There are two issues with your line of thought. 1) You keep on quoting the above line but please remember it's full context, "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance." Having an enduring historical significance is not an absolute requirement for an article but simply one way (albeit a common way) to establish notability for an event. 2) Even if this was a required criterion (which again I really believe it is not), the event is too recent to effectively be measured by this criterion. It's commonsense that when something can not be logically applied, it should not be logically applied. Magister Scienta ^talk 00:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment User:Magister Scienta, you're quoting WP:N/CA, but (imo) you're leaving out the most important part: "provided such coverage meets the above guidelines"—which of the above guidelines do you believe it has met? To me, it doesn't appear that this topic meets WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, and/or WP:PERSISTENCE. It may meet WP:DIVERSE but I don't believe that that alone is sufficient. Dori ☾ Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep This is an excellent resource and should be kept for future reference. This is a serial arsonist who could have killed a bunch of people. He's a hated public figure. His existence should be noted on here. 75.34.84.43 ( talk) 23:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC) — 75.34.84.43 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

This is not a policy based reason and will likely be discounted by the closing admin. Mt king ^(edits) 00:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep This is not a one off crime but a series of crimes that has attracted mainstream media coverage in at least four countries. At present there is the possibility this series of events will be connected to arson sprees in Vancouver and in Germany. Re "analysis" there has been media analysis, at least in Canada, of the immigration issues raised by the case.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 00:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep NOT "just one of the countless crimes committed globally every day". This arson spree was a high-profile terror campaign waged against a major U.S. metropolis. Grwzrbzezin ( talk) 00:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Grwzrbzezin ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Comment Those interested in this may also be interested in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/YummyDonutsmmm. Dori ☾ Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - for clarification, the participating users under investigation are NMexTex, 75.34.84.43, and Grwzrbzezin. Chris the Paleontologist ( talk | contribs) 00:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete no indication of historical significance – will this really be a big deal in 10 years? HurricaneFan 25 — 02:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

You'd be surprised; we had the Beltway sniper attacks back in 2002 and another D.C. sniper the following year. -- MuZemike 22:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Beltway sniper attacks: three weeks, ten deaths. 2003 West Virginia sniper: five days, three deaths. These attacks: four days, no deaths. I'm not seeing how the sniper attacks are relevant here. Dori ☾ Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep Give the deletion requests a rest. It is notable, as there are reliable sources available on the topic, a lower threshold than most editors are aware of. Renew the deletion discussion in a month or two.
-- Yellowdesk ( talk) 03:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep this has multiple non trivial coverage in reliable sources and is also a unique disaster. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 18:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Have you ever read the relevant guideline, at WP:KEEP? Are you going to argue, for instance, that "the nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption"? Or is this what I think it is, a hollow cry not based on any knowledge at all about our policies and guidelines, starting with WP:AGF? Drmies ( talk) 02:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I really don't appreciate your unprofessional and inaccurate response, and I am going to disengage from further direct communication with you on any and all matters. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 05:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Well, I don't appreciate your incorrect use of WP:KEEP and your suggestion (just read it) that the nomination was an act of vandalism or that the nominator was banned. If you don't know what you're talking about, it's maybe best to keep it shut. And if you are called on a pretty grievous error, you could try apologizing instead of whining about "unprofessional" stuff. In fact, as everyone knows, you were incorrect. Read up, kid, before you start throwing policy around. You're not on the playground anymore, and you have made a pretty serious accusation against the nominator. Or you're just ignorant. Drmies ( talk) 04:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Drmies, I understand that you feel passionately about this article's deletion (and you have made many good arguments supporting your position) but I urge you to be a little more civil in your remarks. By the way, as of now no one has countered my keep argument (specifically my rebuttal) found above, perhaps you would give your opinion on the logic of my argument and the rebuttal I made defending it. Thanks and I await your comments, Magister Scienta ^talk 05:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I guess you'll be refactoring this soon, since I haven't commented on whether this should be kept or not. And if you would read WP:KEEP, you would see that calling for a speedy keep means the person calling for it is claiming that the nominator is disruptive and/or a vandal. Shall we take a quick stroll through that guideline? 1. The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted. This is not the case here. 2. The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and (since bad motivations of the nominator don't have direct bearing on the validity of the nomination) nobody unrelated recommends deleting it. Well. 3. The nominator is banned, so they are not supposed to edit. The nominator is not banned. 4. The page is a policy or guideline. Not applicable. 5. The article is currently linked from the Main Page. Not applicable. So, the only conclusion I can draw is that LuciferWildcat is claiming that the nomination is vandalism or disruption, and that, in this case, suggests a lack of good faith. Drmies ( talk) 05:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

How about taking a breath here, Drmies, before firing accusations of bad faith. An editor who apparently joined less than two months ago said "Speedy Keep" when he or she should have said "Strong Keep." Is this error really such an outrage? Who did this editor seriously inconvenience with this error? In contrast with, say, the sponsor of this deletion request, who, to take one example, requested a Speedy Delete of Alexey Pivovarov within less than 10 minutes of that article's creation last week. Instead of being able to build that article, editors had to deal with with Mtking's multiple deletion demands. Look at the article now that it's had a few days to develop and it's unquestionably notable, with the implication being that Mtking's attacks on the page right out of the gate amounted to editor harassment. In terms of the formal rules, he's within his rights, of course, but in terms of the project in my view it's unhelpful. All this to say that let's be pragmatic here and focus our fire on those who are interfering with Wikipedia's development, which LuciferWildcat doesn't seem to be doing since the "Speedy" of his "Speedy Keep" opinion can be readily ignored or discounted. Closing admins know, or should know, the rules for Speedy Keep anyway such that I don't think there is any serious danger of a "speedy keep" being applied here. The same can't be said of the deletionists since their AfD requests cannot be ignored, they essentially demand a response.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 12:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't think people who have a clue should start throwing terms around they don't understand. The above user doesn't know what "speedy keep" means or what user talk pages are for~~, and the first person who jumps to their defense claims I have made good arguments to delete this article--which of course I haven't~~. So if you want to tell me to take a deep breath, you may; if you tell other editors here to start reading before they type, that might be more helpful. I suggest you also have a look at Lucifer's talk pages and interactions with seasoned editors: I am not the only one who has remarked on their word choice and lack of knowledge of policies and guidelines. Being a newbie is one thing, but it should come with a certain amount of modesty and a willingness to know the rules. Frankly, I'm tired of these AfD discussions dominated by people who can't tell GNG, for instance, from a hole in the ground. Can I exhale now? Drmies ( talk) 15:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
As I clarified on my talkpage, I accidentally mixed up Dori and Drmies (I was very tired) in my earlier comment. I apologize for the confusion but I don't think my mistake has any gravity on the outcome of this discussion. Magister Scienta ^talk 16:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I agree. Thank you Magister. I'm keeping my arguments out of this--I think we have a case of WP:NOTNEWS here, but the amount of coverage (and the recentism so popular among Wikipedia editors) will probably ensure that this is kept. Drmies ( talk) 17:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Well for my part I'm "tired of these AfD discussions" that include so much repetition, if the AfD is even necessary in the first place. Mtking keeps repeating "historical significance" when one mention should not only be enough, but would allow for others to make a single response to that view. It would allow for a shorter and more representative discussion. In this case, you made your point with your first response when you pointed to WP:KEEP. Your second response just repeated the argument and accordingly added nothing substantive to this AfD discussion, in my view, such that this response could have and should have gone to the user's personal page. What's previously been posted to user talk pages is frankly off topic, what would be on topic is the arguments you say you are "keeping... out of this." re the "rules", these are meant to avoid repeated arguments over the same issues in AfDs, they were not brought down to us by the gods, such that intimate familiarity with them makes one some sort of Wikipedia ayatollah.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 18:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Too soon to tell: That's honestly the only conclusion I can come to. There are compelling arguments on each side which can only be decided until after the trial. Essentially along the same lines as Roscelese Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep. Lead news item on the national news for several days, was mentioned in the international news. The only reason for deletion is that it happened in the US. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 20:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

As nominator I can assure you that it happened in the US was not relevant, what is of relevance is the total lack of sourcing to demonstrate any historical significance to this event, it is a news story about a crime in which there was no deaths and no injuries, it got hyped up coverage only due to the slow news window between Christmas and New Year and the ever so sexy (as far as the media are concerned) illegal immigration issues. Mt king ^(edits) 06:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Could you explain, to me at least, what "the only reason for deletion is that it happened in the US" means? I have to admit that I found this statement baffling. Dori ☾ Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Typical Wikipedia anti-Americanism. If it happened in the US, it doesn't matter, only if it happened in some other country. I've already mentioned the wildfires in Chile being significant, with little in the way of damages, and yet there's no question about that staying around. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 21:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Speedy incubate WP:IAR is a policy. Unscintillating ( talk) 23:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Forgive my ignorance, I don't totally understand what you're saying. Is this a strong keep? Magister Scienta ^talk 01:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
No, it's "use WP:BOLD and WP:IAR to get this drama-instigator out of main space immediately so that editors will stop using AfD to debate something for which it is too soon after the event to determine enduring notability" How long an article like this should be incubated is a different issue, but one suggestion is two weeks, based on allowing time for the weekly news magazines to weigh in. Unscintillating ( talk) 04:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep These were the worst arson attacks since the 1992 Los Angeles riots. That to me shows some more impact beyond just being a routine news story, even if there were no deaths/injuries from the attacks, and the news cycle was slow. hbdragon88 ( talk) 08:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep. It is definitely notable to every firefighter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/us/los-angeles-car-firebombings-set-city-on-edge.html
...Los Angeles is enduring its worst fires since the riots of 1992.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/01/la-arson-fires-most-since-1992-riots.html
...the wave of intentional blazes that started in Hollywood on Friday is the worst since the 1992 riots, officials said.
Enema For All ( talk) 05:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC) — Enema For All ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 09:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

32830

32830 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

This page is currently a disambiguation page. However, there are no ambiguous article titles in Wikipedia for 32830. It is, however, a valid ZIP code for Lake Buena Vista, Florida, and these pages link to 32380. Senator2029 ( talk) 02:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not a useful disambiguation. We don't have a page for the number, nor do we have a page for the zip code, and usually we don't even want to have pages for zip codes. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete as non-useful dab. Any entries can be unlinked once this Afd is closed as a delete.-- Lenticel ^(
talk) 03:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete or redirect to Lake Buena Vista, Florida Per Metropolitan90. Magister Scienta ^talk 03:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete as the number is non-notable. Redirecting 5 digit numbers to U.S. cities as if those numbers should be considered ZIP codes is a bad idea, in my opinion. Many 5 digit numbers are notable for other reasons, many ZIP codes cover more than one small town, and this ought not to be a US-centric encyclopedia. It it an encyclopedia of the whole world (and universe). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(
talk) 06:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete. Neither of the entries has any notability. Arbitrary numbers aren't notable just by being numbers, and while Lake Buena Vista, Florida is notable, its zip code is not. JIP | Talk 06:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete, when converted to a WP:MOSDAB compliant dab page, there's one entry. I've redirected to same entry. Not a helpful redirect. Josh Parris 08:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete, not a useful disambiguation nor a useful redirect. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 22:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Don't leave a redirect behind: We don't need to have a redirect for 99.9% of zipcodes. There is one notable ZIP code. That is 90210, not 32830 Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 06:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Spice Networks. — Tom Morris ( talk) 21:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Private Spice

Private Spice ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

The only links in the article are the official website and an unreliable source. I also can't find any significant coverage. SL93 ( talk) 02:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete:Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Mattg82 ( talk) 02:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Spice Networks. I'd say "merge and redirect", but there isn't too much to merge. - Cavarrone ( talk) 21:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Damascus. Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 00:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Al-Shami

Al-Shami ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Zero refs. Tagged for that for well over three years. Also an orphan. Appears to be OR. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 08:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Damascus. According to the article the name means "from the area currently known as Damascus". If it was referring to a country I could see there being a case for a stand-alone article, but as it is, I think we should redirect for the same reason we have the article Americans but not, say, the article Texan people. (Or Texans or Texan.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Redirect: per above, unless sources are forthcoming. Mattg82 ( talk) 02:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 09:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Bangalu

Bangalu ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for notability since June. Also tagged as an orphan. Epeefleche ( talk) 18:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete: WP is not a dictionary. Mattg82 ( talk) 02:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete as unverifiable. Since this isn't a dicdef, WP:NOTDIC doesn't apply. Angr ( talk) 21:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy close no reason given for taking this to AfD. Will restore BLP prod tag on article. Safiel ( talk) 02:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Kenny Wilkerson

Kenny Wilkerson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Zzaffuto118 ( talk) 02:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 11:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Glenn Frazier

Glenn Frazier ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Is this person notable? Zzaffuto118 ( talk) 01:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete. Apparently he was talked about in Ken Burns' miniseries The War, but his biography at PBS doesn't show anything particularly encyclopedic. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Philippine Department. Subject does not appear to be independently notable per WP:SOLDIER, WP:AUTHOR, & WP:GNG; that being said he is a member of a notable military unit and if his name was searched, it can lead to the unit he was part of. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete as per RightCowLeftCoast, but no need to redirect: target article makes no mention of him. Article is created by SPA, likely as tribute/memorial, so also fails WP:MEMORIAL to me. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Midseason replacement. Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 00:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

List of shows that started as midseason replacements

List of shows that started as midseason replacements ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Not notable Could be merged Zzaffuto118 ( talk) 01:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment:The article was split from Midseason replacement (see prv versions), I don't know why. Mattg82 ( talk) 01:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete Lack of sources in the article, and no specific timeline of where "midseason" is defined (which could easily be interpreted as a replacement for a one-and-done dud which was followed by a new show replacing it in November like Rock Center for The Playboy Club). Also this is confined to only the last few years; imagine the list nightmare if we went back to 1947 on this. Nate • ( chatter) 05:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Merge with Midseason replacement. Concept seems to be notable. Of course recent years of TV are going to be much more extensively covered than earlier ones. But that really has nothing to do with keeping this article or not. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 20:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Merge it back into Midseason replacement, currently a stub that could use some "beefing up". There are a few sources in the article, and I am sure more can be found. The term "midseason replacement" has a discrete definition in the industry (specifically defined in the article Midseason replacement). The fact that a list is impossible to complete or open-ended is an argument to avoid, I'm sure of it, I just can't find the policy or (more likely) essay that mentions it. And if it's not a policy or essay, then I'll go write an essay about it. :) Livit⇑ ^Eh?/ _What? 03:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Merge back per above; there's no need to split such a short definition from this list. That a show started as a midseason replacement is something often mentioned and compared in TV criticism and analysis. [17], [18], [19] If reliable sources identify it as such, then it qualifies, contra Nate's concern about a lack of definition (people really need to do research to understand an unfamiliar topic instead of assuming that their personal lack of knowledge reflects anything more than just that). [20] The nom should also be admonished for bringing this here instead of merging himself, per WP:ATD. postdlf ( talk) 20:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 09:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Sporting News All-America quarterbacks

Sporting News All-America quarterbacks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Abandoned article ( WP:KITTENS) that has questionable notability to begin with ( WP:GNG). Furthermore, this is a redundant list because these players are listed on every article here. Breaking down yearly All-Americans by position articles is a slippery slope. Jrcla2 ( talk) 21:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Delete totally incomplete, to the point of making Wikipedia look ridiculous. Does more harm than good to stay.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 01:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce ( talk | contribs) 01:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete Notability not established. Serves no useful purpose I can see Tigerboy1966 ( talk) 01:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. — Tom Morris ( talk) 21:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC) reply

How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

Articles for deletion/How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? (2nd nomination)

How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

aprock ( talk) suggests [21] that this article should be deleted because of issues related to notability and because it is a POV fork. Yfever ( talk) 00:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep. I nominated this article at Aprock's suggestion, but my personal opinion is that this article should be kept. (Full disclosure: I have added a majority of the content to the article.) Aprock raises two issues: Notability and POV fork. With regard to notability, I have (after Aprock's comment) added a reliable source to the article which notes, correctly in my view, that the article is "the most controversial article in the history of American psychology." As the many references that I have added substantiate, there is no doubt that this was a hugely controversial article. (My personal opinion is that the article was flawed as well, but I don't think that truth/falseness enters into a judgment about notability.) With regard to a POV fork, I don't really understand that complaint. I can see that the topic of race/IQ/Jensen is a contentious topic at Wikipedia. But my purpose in creating this article is simply to create this article. I don't see it as a fork from anything else. And I would certainly love it if other people would contribute to the article as well! If anyone has any suggestions for how to improve the article, assuming it is kept, please let me know on the talk page. Yfever ( talk) 21:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment—At a superficial level, based on the references, this article appears to satisfy the notability requirements. If this is a PoV fork, where is it a fork from? It looks to be an orphan. Regards, RJH ( talk) 21:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Redirect/Delete per the previous AfD. I suggest that anyone interested in commenting at this AfD review the previous AfD discussion, as the discussion there is entirely relevant to this version of the article. The forking issues here amount to replicating content already covered extensively and in fuller context at Arthur Jensen#IQ_and_academic_achievement and History of the race and intelligence controversy#1960-1980. Standalone articles such as these are ripe for presenting the work without sufficient context. Already, despite the fact that the work is called "most controversial", there is no substantive discussion of this controvery. Better to just point to the articles which have the content instead of creating a useless stub. aprock ( talk) 04:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment "replicating content"? At least 9 of the 15 citations in the article do not appear in those other two article sections. Those are all new reliable sources that I found and added. Assuming that the article is kept, I am happy to add more "substantive discussion of this controversy" but the lack of such a discussion currently does not strike me as a reason to delete. (But, to be clear, I don't have any experience with this process.) Yfever ( talk) 06:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I guess this comes down to how you feel about the previous AfD. If you disagree with it, I can see why you might want to rehash the entire discussion again. As it stands, there is no need to fork this content off into a separate article. The coverage of the book in the main articles is more complete and in a better context. aprock ( talk) 16:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree with you that feelings about the previous AfD might play a big part here. I read through it, but then got lost in some of the related (endless) fighting/sniping on various other pages. Quite a battle! So, I can't say that I really agree or disagree with the previous discussion. I don't really care about it. I just want to write a good article. One other comment: isn't it a sign that we need a separate article that this topic has extensive coverage in (at least) two other places, as your links demonstrate? That is, it makes sense (to me) to create a single good article and then provide links to it from anywhere that makes sense. That is how I see articles like Flynn Effect working, but maybe I don't understand the reasoning here. In any event, I appreciate your comments. Yfever ( talk) 17:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep I tend to agree with Yfever that because this piece of writing itself is controversial in nature in the field that it merits its own article. It sounds like Yfever is committed to working on this. I am not terribly familiar with the topic, but if it can in any way be claimed that the article is "the most controversial article in the history of American psychology" readers would only be served by there being a comprehensive wikipedia article about it. -- MLKLewis ( talk) 23:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Arthur Jensen#IQ and academic achievement. No need to fork information about this to a separate article, and the treatment in the Jensen article is fuller than that in this article. Only if the information in Arthur Jensen becomes so extensive as to overwhelm that article should a split be necessary. (Note that I can't see the previous article deleted via AfD.) Deor ( talk) 23:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce ( talk | contribs) 01:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Redirect seems like the obvious solution. I would not have a problem with a "keep". It's a page that seems unnecessary more than anything. Tigerboy1966 ( talk) 01:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep Famous article, not merely notable. Hundreds of papers discussing it. Can't see why it's unnecessary--sometimes a scientific paper by itself is notable. It's more than the most controversial paper in the history of American psychology--it's the most controversial one in psychology ever. When something is famous enough, it gets a separate article. Isn't that what the entire principle of Notability is about? Merging this into Jensen is like merging Hamlet into Shakespeare. It could be done, but it shows an unawareness of appropriate emphasis. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep per all -- Bryce ( talk | contribs) 13:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. For the record, the person recreating the article was informed of both this discussion and the incubated article some time ago. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

C-Real (band)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/C-Real (band)

Articles for deletion/C-Real (band) (2nd nomination)

C-Real (band) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Re-creation of a page incubated on 11 December 2011. This version has much less content and fewer refs than the deleted version. No new claims to notability and fails WP:BAND Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment - can't this article be speedily deleted using reason A10? Personally I was unaware until now that articles can be incubated and I expect the author of this duplicate is also ignorant of the incubation procedure. They could be pointed towards the incubated article and asked to expand it. Sionk ( talk) 17:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD ( talk) 02:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Delete or userfy. Article creator is a new WP editor and should be directed to improve the existing, incubated article here--> WP:Article_Incubator/C-Real_(band). This article was just incubated for lack of notability. If and when substantial existing or future evidence of notability is added, this article should be promoted back to the main namespace. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 02:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment - At this point, more refs seem to have been added, but the vast majority of them support only the same couple of statements. The incubated article does seem more in-depth, and I would think that this page still qualifies for speedy deletion (criterion A10), as pointed out by Sionk. If speedily deleted, the creator should be informed of the incubated version. Chris the Paleontologist ( talk | contribs) 16:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce ( talk | contribs) 01:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Is it not possible for an editor to delete the article, as per general consensus above, and notify the author of the incubated article? Sionk ( talk) 14:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - The author hasn't been active since December 17 but the original author of the incubated version is. Notify the original author. Jae ₩on ( Deposit) 17:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete as non-notable, allow the incubated article to bake. -- Ifnord ( talk) 15:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete A recently created article that duplicates an existing topic should have been criteria for WP:SPEEDY. Stubble boy 17:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Userfy, per WP:DONTBITE. -- Trevj ( talk) 10:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Wifione ^Message 09:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Redemption (Useless ID album)

Redemption (Useless ID album) ( | 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 notability shown for this album. lacks coverage in reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme ( talk) 05:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. Not a notable album per WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Mattg82 ( talk) 16:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 03:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce ( talk | contribs) 01:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 09:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Chunk! No, Captain Chunk

Chunk! No, Captain Chunk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

no notability shown for this band. touring lacks coverage. releases fall short of two albums on an important label. sourced by facebook, lastfm and passing mentions. band lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme ( talk) 05:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. -- Legis ( talk - contribs) 08:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 03:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce ( talk | contribs) 01:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete:Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Mattg82 ( talk) 01:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Nikola Dobrečić

Nikola Dobrečić ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

machine translation of sr WP article (CSD A2 plus bad machine translation) Steinhfer ( talk) 01:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: Is this a reason for deletion? If so, why wasn't is speedily deleted? But the subject is obviously notable. St Anselm ( talk) 01:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Copying a foreign language WP article to the en WP is speedy. Running a foreign language WP article through Google translate and copy it then to the en WP is not speedy deletion, but equally useless. -- Steinhfer ( talk) 02:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep but reduce to stub. An archbishop is clearly notable enough for an article, but the machine-translated rubbish which forms the bulk of the article should be deleted. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep It does need clean up and citation to sources, but those are available, I've provided one citation. There is no reason why, with work, it cannot become a reasonable article. Sadly, I can't work on it today. -- Bejnar ( talk) 23:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 09:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Proprioceptive language learning method

Proprioceptive language learning method ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

This doesn't look like a real language-learning method. I have never heard of it outside Wikipedia, and I can only find mirror sites and self-published books that mention it. Of the references in the article, only one makes the claim that the proprioceptive language-learning method is actually a language-learning method, and that is a self-published book by Lundquist. You can find the text of it here - note that much space is spent promoting Lundquist's English lessons. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete as probable WP:OR. Most of the cited sources relate to speech pathology or to language learning generally, not to this method. Lundquist, Learning Spoken English, appears to be an exception. I wonder whether the undated "public domain" work is un-reviewed, possibly student work. Not that such work is necessarily suspect, but it should be supported by additional, reliable sources. Cnilep ( talk) 05:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete. I can't find any evidence that this topic, under any of its names, meets our notability criteria. -- Lambiam 16:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted as G7 ( non-admin closure) Pol430 talk to me 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

JSHint

JSHint ( | 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 fails the general notability criteria. It has twenty-five references, but none of them are reliable - they're all blogs, links to Github, and so on. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 08:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

MyFavoriteReview

MyFavoriteReview ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Run of the mill review website, non-notable. Buggie111 ( talk) 00:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete – In addition to being non-notable, the references listed (such as they are) are of the "general interest/personal opinion blog" genre and not proper sources to substantiate anything. Senator2029 ( talk) 02:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom GabrielF ( talk) 02:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment from the talk page copied here for inclusion in the record. Senator2029 ( talk) 03:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete. There's just nothing out there to show that this is a notable site. There's no reliable sources proving notability. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and we cannot keep a page just to "stick it" to the bigger review sites. Believe it or not, Rotten Tomatoes started off as a project by one person and was a "little guy" at one point in time. The only reason they got big was because they got lucky when someone reported on them. Wikipedia is not to be used as a way to promote your site. There is no personal vendetta against your site and we're not here to promote anyone. The site just does not have notability. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 05:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79 reply

Delete Wikipedia is not a place for promoting site. (and a note for whoever wrote that article: you made a valid point right there but unfortunately Wikipedia is not a cross section of society. Yep you are right, it is basically only for famous or in other words notable subjects). Trongphu ( talk) 04:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Deletion concerns have been addressed. ( non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Manoj Tiwari

Manoj Tiwari ( | 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 contains potentially libelous *and* exaggerated information in all sections. Noopur28 ( talk) 21:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep - that is not a reason to delete. Fix the information that you consider to be inappropriate. Without having trawled through all the citations yet, I note that there are plenty of them. - Sitush ( talk) 21:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC) reply
That is precisely the problem, rewrite it. However, this page has been lying around like this for a long time. I may have been harsh and am probably not the best person to write this article but it does present an extremely skewed picture. Fix it if you are contesting it. Noopur28 ( talk) 21:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Please go to the article talk page and explain what you perceived to be skewed and I will fix it for you. Right now, after a quick run-through, it does appear that the statements are supported by the sources. - Sitush ( talk) 22:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep. The article has been cleaned up a lot by Sitush. Libelious and exaggerated information is no reason to delete an article anyway -- you can simply be bold and remove it. utcursch | talk 06:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep per improvements made which have addressed the nominator's concerns. Kudos to User:Sitush, for showing that addressable issues are rarely a cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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

^ "Philippines activates 15 weather stations donated by Taiwan". Wantchinatimes.com (English news website of the Taiwan based China Times News Group). September 17, 2011. Retrieved January 16, 2012. {{ cite web}}: External link in |publisher= ( help)

^ "Launching of Automated Weather Station". Philippines Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration. June 30, 2011. Retrieved January 16, 2012. {{ cite web}}: External link in |publisher= ( help)

^ Barrameda, Shiena M. "Naga City's iTyphoon launched". City Government of Naga (Philippines). Retrieved January 16, 2012. {{ cite web}}: External link in |publisher= ( help)

^ Taylor, Chris. "UltraMon 2.1". Product Review. Ottawa PC Users' Group. Retrieved 2012-01-05.

^ Hanselman, Scott (2009-12-31). "The (Near) Final Word on Multi-Monitor Taskbars for Windows 7 - Ultramon vs. DisplayFusion". Retrieved 2012-01-05.

^ Steen, Greg (April 2008). "Toolbox". TechNet. Microsoft. Retrieved 2012-01-05.

^ "SolutionBase: Add invaluable functionality to a multiple monitor setup with UltraMon". TechRepublic. 2004-06-22. Retrieved 2012-01-05.

^ Castle, Alex (2008-10-20). "Beyond Ultramon: Free Software Solutions for Multiple Monitors". Maximum PC. Retrieved 2012-01-05.

^ Bhatnagar, Abhishek (2009-04-28). "UltraMon – The Best Smart Application For Multi Monitor Setup". technixupdate. Retrieved 2012-01-05.

[1] "Philippines activates 15 weather stations donated by Taiwan". Wantchinatimes.com (English news website of the Taiwan based China Times News Group). September 17, 2011. Retrieved January 16, 2012. {{ cite web}}: External link in |publisher= ( help)

[2] "Launching of Automated Weather Station". Philippines Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration. June 30, 2011. Retrieved January 16, 2012. {{ cite web}}: External link in |publisher= ( help)

[3] Barrameda, Shiena M. "Naga City's iTyphoon launched". City Government of Naga (Philippines). Retrieved January 16, 2012. {{ cite web}}: External link in |publisher= ( help)

[4] Taylor, Chris. "UltraMon 2.1". Product Review. Ottawa PC Users' Group. Retrieved 2012-01-05.

[5] Hanselman, Scott (2009-12-31). "The (Near) Final Word on Multi-Monitor Taskbars for Windows 7 - Ultramon vs. DisplayFusion". Retrieved 2012-01-05.

[6] Steen, Greg (April 2008). "Toolbox". TechNet. Microsoft. Retrieved 2012-01-05.

[7] "SolutionBase: Add invaluable functionality to a multiple monitor setup with UltraMon". TechRepublic. 2004-06-22. Retrieved 2012-01-05.

[8] Castle, Alex (2008-10-20). "Beyond Ultramon: Free Software Solutions for Multiple Monitors". Maximum PC. Retrieved 2012-01-05.

[9] Bhatnagar, Abhishek (2009-04-28). "UltraMon – The Best Smart Application For Multi Monitor Setup". technixupdate. Retrieved 2012-01-05.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]