< 22 February	24 February >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 08:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cross generation ship[edit]

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

This is a non-notable topic with the article apparently consisting of the speculations of the main contributors from the 11th of May 2004. There are no references and I found no reliable sources. Fartherred (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, and none can be found with a search. A pretty clear case of WP:OR. Rorshacma (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's so obscure and ORy, I can't even think of any science fiction stories that employ the concept. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't remember ever reading of this scheme, which doesn't work because of the velocity matching requirements. There have been a few stories where a society has found and "rescued" a multi-generation ship's crew but that's not the proposal here. htom (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding coverage of this topic in reliable sources whatsoever. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Unreferenced, and no references can be found with a search. -- 202.124.74.17 (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Cross-generation by its definition is the same thing as a Generation Ship as its occupants will never reach the destination. And the term cross-generation doesn't merit a redirect as it is already obscure. The merger proposal has not been responded to on the talk page of Generation Ship, but the current article warrants delete to me.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and WP:OR. ("ORy"? Really? Shouldn't it be "ORly"? :D )- UtherSRG (talk) 10:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ORy, Original Researchy, not researchly. ;) htom (talk) 16:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Lane (footballer)[edit]

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

Article is about a footballer who has yet to make a professional first team appearance, thus failing the WP:NFOOTBALL guidelines. Jared Preston (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jared Preston (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's some information on that page that is incorrect, just throwing that out there. Anyway, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In the discussion below, there is a rough consensus that the article's subject has enough coverage in independent reliable sources to meet the relevant notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Batuque (documentary)[edit]

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

Borderline copyvio. Notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have wroten the IMDd entry. I am the copyright holder of this text and the original one can be found here: http://www.marfilmes.com/en/africadocs/batuque.htm. I have already sent wikipedia an email donating the copyrights of the text. Renee Mar Mar Filmes 13:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It would helpful if the copyright status of this article could be verified by someone at the WMF. That's not the main issue, however. I cannot find any reliable sources on the documentary to establish notability, so my opinion is on those grounds. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. To politely disagree with User:ItsZippy, we do have sources toward this film.[1][2] Understanding though, that sources for Portugese language documentary films shot in Africa are more difficult to find than for something filmed in the US, we might consider WP:CSB and give this one some time. Revisit in a month or two if it has not been improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix per Michael. Its selection to the IDFA -- the world's leading documentary film festival -- alone would be enough to meet WP:NOTFILM (imo). No need to revisit, also imo. It's a notable documentary film, whatever the weaknesses of the current stub. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would have been better if you actually linked to websites instead of a google search, which we already know how to do. What I did find in those google searches was a lot of blog entries and a couple of dead 404 pages. Personally, references in foreign languages don't bother me, as Chrome offers to translate on the fly making it very easy to verify. The problem is I don't see reference-able material in reliable sources. As for the IDFA they didn't have much to say about it, just a synopsis. I would be happy to actually look at any RS articles on the documentary if someone can point to a couple. The COI issues are disturbing, but don't disqualify the article. A lack of significant coverage by reliable sources does, however. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael was being helpful in linking to a list of links, at least one which is a reliable source. I've added it to the page: an article from A Semana. I agree with you that with Google Translate, non-English press really isn't a problem. And if the article is found to be non-notable, we should add the key details of the film to Batuque (music), per WP:PRESERVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't questioning the contribution's faith, just its utility, as a link is already provided in the AFD. He and I tend to be on the same side of discussions at least half the time, and agree with his stand on systematic bias. I was just complaining about a link to a search results. It's a pet peeve, as I find them seldom useful, particularly in this type of case, where the majority (if not all) of the results are not reliable sources. It's a link to a fishing expedition, not evidence of notability, and (imho) below the standards I would normally expect from him. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did not intend to annoy, as mine was but a response to the editor preceding me who stated he could not find any reliable sources. I do not know where he looked, but it seems that some editors do not look beyond the assigned Find sources, and my own searches use parameters that differ from that assigned by the AFD template, often sucessfully. In addressing the sometimes weakness of a Find sources created by the AFd template, we also can search under the film's actual title: Batuque, l'âme d'un peuple. The newer parameter below does give us additional sources, that I have not yet searched through nor translated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

reply - Thats fine Schmidt and adding that link is great but the point I was trying to make is that when you say "we do have sources toward this film", (emphasis added) I would expect any editor (particularly an admin) to provide links to the actual articles that pass WP:RS and demonstrate notability. Your claim wasn't that they are likely, it was that they exist. I'm open minded, but if I'm wrong in my nomination (it happens), what persuades me isn't a 'to do list' in the form of another search (which kind of looks like I didn't do what I needed to WP:BEFORE nominating it). Perhaps a link to the article that you read that clearly told you that this is notable. Not trying to nitpick, Michael, but you close AFDs yourself, you know a strong argument from a weak one. I'm trying to be persuaded (as nom), really I am, but claims require proof, in the form of actual sigcov/v/rs/sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Brown... actual sources were found through the modified parameter I offered and used in the article by another, thus proving the utility of my proffered search and my initial comment intended to counter another editor's saying he could not find sources. My comment was based upon consideration of WP:CSB and the difficulty inherent in finding online sources for this brand new article. Not to dwell too much on it, but this article was nominated for deletion only 23 minutes after it was created,[3] and just 17 minutes after its author's last edit.[4] We do not expect gold right out of the staring gate and I feel that we need not rush this off of Wikipedia quite yet. Our being patient with its newcomer author might prove quite beneficial... as the project is itself an imperfect work in progress and encourages many options for weak startup articles other than outright deletion. And please... as your words are easy to read and comprehend, there's no need to rehash or embolden for emphasis. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bolding was because it appears I failed to clearly explain my problem with the claim with out actual sources, which still haven't shown up. I newpage patrol from both the back and front of the list, so sometimes things will hit AFD sooner rather than later. I almost CSD tagged it for copyvio (I was searching for references, after all), but did give it the chance for a broader audience to judge the merits. Take it how you want, but the article talk page speaks for itself, and the article creator admitted it was a direct copy from IMDB. From my perspective, I've given a copyvio a second chance at life by bringing it here instead of CSD. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the talk page "speaks" is the author asserting that he is the editor who contributed the text to IMDb, and in being the copyright holder, he is the one able to contribute that work here. The page also speaks that he has written Wikipedia to clarify the donation of that work here as well... but I am not a member of OTRS, and have no personal knowledge of his communication. If others feel that a New Page Patroller allowing 17 minutes for improvement was enough time for such, then so be it... and if it survives, we can always revist the article in a few months. And what was offered by User:Shawn in Montreal are "actual sources" which have been added to the article (Nice job, Shawn)... so far giving us ~~two~~ three not-too-fantastic reliable sources for the article... ~~one~~ two from Portugese source A Semana and the other from French source La République des Pyrénées. I have added this AFD to other language delsorts in the hope to gain more input from editors better able to find and offer offline sources and to find a broader consensus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one more rather more minor news ref. Have to admit, given the international festival run of this film, it's surprising to me how little news coverage I can find, and I've now searched in English, French and Portuguese. Fire the (or hire a) publicist! Anyway, I've done what I can, now it belongs to the ages. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that online coverage seems to exist and appears sparse, but I am hoping that someone able to find and offer hardcopy sources does so. We do well to not always rely only upon what finds its way to the web, and encourage through our actions and deeds that other avenues of research be undertaken. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is verifiable and interesting information about the Cape Verdan culture. I don't see any benefits for this project in deleting of this article. The article contains independent coverage in multiple languages and it is in my opinion sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:13, 23 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as foreign-language sources establish notability. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is insufficient evidence of notability.Kubigula (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bhookh.com[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:Notability (web) S Q 14:13, 15 February 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 February 15. Snotbot t • c » 14:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is about an Indian click-to-donate site which is operated by Mumbai based Vikas Sutaria. It provides a cup of staple food for every unique click (per day) of the donate button. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah so? We're talking here about the notability of website. --Saqib Qayyum (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was not obvious in the long list of today's AfDs what the subject of the article was. Now it is. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqib Qayyum (talk • contribs) 16:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reliable source I can find is this, which dedicates on paragraph to the website; I am not convinced that established notability. Certainly a good cause, but not notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. The Times of India article mentioned by ItsZippy (referenced in the article) and this article[5] which I think is in Tamil, are the only independent sources found by Google News. I can't evaluate whether the Tamil article is independent or significant coverage. Other sources may exist in non-Latin scripts. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of the article. AFAIK, it is the only Indian Click to Donate website. I haven't found any other ones. As for the Tamil link, why isn't it notable? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This statement doesn't make any sense if bhookh.com is the only Indian Click to Donate website or first and one of the earlier. Fyi, there are still couple of click to donate kinda website operating from India, one I found is http://donate1click.com/. It seems that you've any connection with bhookh.com. --S Q 13:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: There are few more articles in Category:Click-to-donate sites that can be merged with the article Click-to-donate site. These all are anyways stubs with little referencing and few have AfDs going on too. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Hunger, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ripple (charitable organisation) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Noise (website). --Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking here about the notability of the subject & I don't think so we've any good reason to merge it. But in case, if you want it to merge, at least you need some reliable sources to support the subject text. --S Q 08:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What i meant was to cut these two lines from this article, expand the Click-to-donate site article to note which sites work likewise. Maybe note them countrywise. With the charitable cause they work for. And redirect this page to that main article. Will we require to fullfill strict notability requirements to even note them in another article? Wont proving existance with available references be sufficient? Lets discuss on this AfD alone. Will later comment on others accordingly. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than 100 of click to donate websites in operation but not all notable except a few. Should we will have to mention all those 100 sites in main article? By the way, notable click to donate sites are which already mentioned in main article.--S Q 10:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. I don't know what the nominator has against charity sites. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib Qayyum - If Newspapers are writing articles about all these 100 websites then we can mention them too. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but they're not writing and if they're, provide sources. --S Q 14:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? Please make yourself clear. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about other click to donate websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqib Qayyum (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

relisting in hope of non-latin script sources turning up to demonstrate notability per User:Ihcoyc. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non latin scripts are not reliable. Saki ^talk 13:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing inherently not reliable about sources in non-latin scripts, though it doesn't look like any have been found. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm forced to agree with the A7 suggestion as there is no real claim of IoS in the article. Just who is "Cole" "Pick up Freud" et al? Are they notable artists or are they "garage acts"? If someone wants to re-create this article with sources and a claim of significance then go for it but ""I have knowledge of this organization and am sure of the accuracy in this article" is not going to cut it. Further note to the article's creator. If your knowledge of this organization is "insider knowledge" then I strongly suggest you read our guidelines on conflict of interest. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Driving Records Music Group[edit]

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

Previous Prod (by another editor) on grounds "Unreferenced, non-notable company. No reliable independent sources in Google search". Prod was removed by article creator with the edit comment "I have knowledge of this organization and am sure of the accuracy in this article". However the article remains unreferenced with no evident notability, so bringing it to AfD on the same grounds as the Prod. AllyD (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was the prodder, so-to-speak. For some unknown reason I didn't nuke it on sight for WP:CSD#A7, which it still could be done for. I'm not going to close this AfD on account that I'm an involved editor, but as a number of users share my concerns on this organisation's notability, I feel that this should be speedy deleted under A7. matt (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidate for speedy A7. OSborn^arf_contribs. 00:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kick'n'base[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kick'n'base

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

Newly created genre of music, no references or evidence of notability, perhaps specifically coined by "Basspistol Uncorporated" label (see page history). Proposed deletion contested by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

answer by Set Hallstrom (talk)Basspistol is a syndicate for independent musicians over being a label. This is why we call ourselfs Uncorporated, instead of Incorporated.... The Genre was coined by three independent artists and two bands, Holyhertz and synapset. You may delete it now, but you will see what will happen: In 3 years from now, maybe less, maybe more, someone will have to rewrite it.... History always start somewhere. Sad that you are being so sceptical. Feel free to do whatever.... 21:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs, no indication of notability. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As unnotable. A band randomly making up a new genre one day doesn't automatically make it notable, and unless we have reliable sources to verify the widespread use of the term, it doesn't meet the criteria of having an article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOATM[edit]

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

Article on a software program that fails notability criteria. Prod was removed by the article creator with the statement that "there can' trealy [sic] be credible sources because the game was just created and can not be found any where [sic] else on the internet." —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Looks like a case of WP:MADEUP. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable. Made-up. SL93 (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MADEUP. ~~Would this have been a candidate for A7?~~ Isn't "web content" or a person, so no. OSborn^arf_contribs. 00:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don' trealy see any proof of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After searching, not finding coverage, let alone coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability, created by an SPA as potentially promotional.Dialectric (talk) 04:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and acquaint the creator of the article with Notability criteria. See "that there can' trealy [sic] be credible sources because the game was just created and can not be found any where" statement referring to this article. NewbyG ( talk) 21:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ESurveysPro[edit]

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

Corporate spam, seemingly not backed up by any independent third-party references. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Only refs are blog-like sites or dowloand links. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD § A7: this "application" is a survey website, and I see no substantial difference from the rest of them. The references are specifically interesting, though. May be it's time to blacklist about.com? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability. Supposed reviews seem mainly based on self-supplied publicity material, although one comment casts doubt on the integrity of these suppliers, which would be another reason for not allowing inclusion. Melcombe (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) per G4. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fly UK Virtual Airways[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I declined an A7 (probably a bad move on my part) but it turns out that there's basically nothing except for forums about this company. Fails the GNG, etc. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 16:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied (G4) by NawlinWiki. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 17:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Barata[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator; no rationale given. This player has never appeared in a fully-professional league, so fails WP:FOOTBALL; also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG, and has not played in a fully pro league, therefore failing WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Carlos Gomes[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator; no rationale given. This player has never appeared in a fully-professional league, so fails WP:FOOTBALL; also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG, and has not played in a fully pro league, therefore failing WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josemar Guimarães da Silva[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator; no rationale given. This player has never appeared in a fully-professional league, so fails WP:FOOTBALL; also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG, and has not played in a fully pro league, therefore failing WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Nwaorou[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator; no rationale given. This player has never appeared in a fully-professional league, so fails WP:FOOTBALL; also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG, and has not played in a fully pro league, therefore failing WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Hunger[edit]

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

WEBSITE NOT EXISTING OR EITHER CLOSED. Nor third party reliable source available and website is closed/not working. Saqib Qayyum (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: There are few more articles in Category:Click-to-donate sites that can be merged with the article Click-to-donate site. These all are anyways stubs with little referencing and few have AfDs going on too. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhookh.com, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ripple (charitable organisation) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Noise (website). --Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking here about the notability of the subject. If you want it to merge, at least you need sources. --S Q 08:53, 17 February 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, —SW— ^verbalize 16:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Rose[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 08:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. --B music ian 11:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn corp -- Y not? 15:34, 23 February 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, —SW— ^confer 16:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After searching, not finding coverage in reliable sources for this company. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual World Computing[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another Internet security and privacy company advertising on Wikipedia. Reference is to a press release announcing the hiring of a CEO. Good for them; they'll need one. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:59, 16 February 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, —SW— ^communicate 16:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found a bunch of press releases. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFA, Inc.[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speady delete per WP:CSD § A7: neither article nor the web search hints the reasons to consider this company notable (apart from an attempt at inherited notability). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:54, 20 February 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, —SW— ^gab 16:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Diablo Valley College#International Education Center. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IEC@DVC[edit]

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

Non-notable junior college organization. My attempt at a speedy delete was reverted, an attempt at redirecting to the college article was reverted, so let's go this way. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Diablo Valley College#International Education Center. There is some local coverage of this institution (which is not an "organization", it is a program of the college) but not enough for notability. By the way I really hate to see a thoughtful article like this get nominated for speedy deletion within two minutes of its creation! Give them at least a little chance to develop it! --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be fine to keep if there was anything to indicate that this is notable. It's not any more notable than any other college's programs. Plus it should be noted that this is the third incarnation of the article. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Third incarnation? Evidence of that has not been shown. In any case I am not arguing for "keep" but for "merge and redirect" to the article about the college. There is some third-party coverage, but not enough for notability. BTW I see that an administrator earlier redirected it to the college, apparently in response to your call for speedy-deletion, but the author reverted the redirect to the full article. So if the result of this discussion is redirect, maybe the redirect page should be salted in some way to prevent reversion. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just look at the atricle's log to see the two previous deletions. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Diablo Valley College Not enough for stand-alone article--GrapedApe (talk) 02:11, 20 February 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, —SW— ^{spill the beans} 16:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any evidence (or even claims) of notability, so nothing to merge that isn't already at Diablo Valley College. A redirect would suffice. --DeLarge (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per GrapedApe and MelanieN. Just because it's not notable enough for its own stand-alone article, there's plenty of meat left on the bone for a decent section on the college's article. Not-notable does not lead to deletion every time. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HTTP-MPLEX[edit]

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

1. PhD thesis with no substantial coverage failing WP:GN - no substantial citations (see talk page for quick analysis) 2. COI = creator is PhD author 3. seems a dead subject as never implemented, but SPDY has been Widefox (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being an unimplemented proposal does not necessarily deprive the subject of notability. What I generally look for in subjects like this is, does it have any sort of lasting significance in the development of the field? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment Inclining to~~ Delete oh? I thought having no substantial, reliable and independent sources either in the article or elsewhere meant notability was not established. There's a different criterion here? I'm not sure how we would tell, other than by waiting and seeing if it turned out to be useful, at least academically - i.e. it got cited and written about. In which case, wouldn't this be a case of Too Soon, Crystal? --- your puzzled correspondent, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I mean is that I think that substantial coverage in independent sources is necessary, but not sufficient; the coverage also should establish one of the many sorts of significance that would make the subject appropriate for a separate encyclopedia entry. For an apparently failed proposal like this one, the likeliest route would be to find a reference establishing that it had some kind of influence over what was eventually adopted. Since it seems nothing has been, I'd be inclined to delete this without prejudice. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ihcoyc, in terms of academia, there's non-substantial coverage (more limited, incidental) but crucially doesn't establish significance. It never made it out of academia - no internet standard, no implementation, no de-facto standard like SPDY. SPDY is in use by 2/3 most common browsers. It has eclipsed this thesis. I've found no link between them, no legacy. A premature article. If not notable now, then when? Widefox (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article (and HTTP(P2P)) is an academic thesis, and all the references appear to be either journal reprints of the thesis, or presentations of the thesis by the authors. RobMattson and 150.101.154.145 appear to be one and the same, and user has indicated that the article is a self-edit . There is no implementation, standard, or independent reference. Plenty of grounds for immediate deletion, and none for keeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.101.80 (talk) 23:54, 20 February 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, —SW— ^confabulate 16:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the admission on User_talk:RobMattson this article is WP:COI. The original proposal to delete was removed by the same author. The previous comments indicate a lack of notability. Michaelfaq (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. as a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Funk[edit]

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

Film director of questionable notability. According to IMDB, only attached to short films of limited (it any) notability. Google news search on "Tyler Funk" shows only 10 results, none for this Tyler Funk. No significant coverage of the person from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has done only short films. The Google search that MikeWazowski did is only for news articles. A web search does bring up sources, but nothing stands out. One site, of highly questionable reliability, says film making is Funk's hobby. When doing a Google search, there are alot of Tyler Funks, especially football and basketball players. So, I might have missed something. Bgwhite (talk) 20:09, 15 February 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, —SW— ^gab 16:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Street Networks[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A7): the whole article is: "Utah Street Networks is a social networking service company based in the United States. It was acquired by Cisco Systems on March 5, 2007. It is the operator of Tribe.net." No claim of minimal importance. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:49, 16 February 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, —SW— ^express 16:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. as a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eiichiro Sasaki[edit]

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

Effectively an unsourced BLP. Not independant notability outside role in creating Resident Evil and there were zip RS in google books, scholar or news that weren't actually about the game. Since notability isn't inherited we need something better before we can keep this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:24, 15 February 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) 18:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – nothing past basic credits and IMDB-like list entries. --MuZemike 20:51, 19 February 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, —SW— ^talk 16:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ripple (charitable organisation)[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:Notability (web) Saqib Qayyum (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: There are few more articles in Category:Click-to-donate sites that can be merged with the article Click-to-donate site. These all are anyways stubs with little referencing and few have AfDs going on too. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhookh.com, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Hunger and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Noise (website). --Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking here about the notability of the subject. If you want it to merge, at least you need sources. --S Q 08:53, 17 February 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, —SW— ^speak 16:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure (media)[edit]

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

How obvious is this term? No cite any references or sources for more than 2 years and here is my search result: [6]. I don't see this term has received wide coverage in at least one article. «Unsourced material may be challenged and removed» — if I did it, there would be an empty article, because it contains only one phrase. :) ♪ anonim.one ♪ 06:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically an opinion on a definition of a common two-word combination in the context of media. No indication of wp:notability for this topic/combination. Zero references. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 15 February 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, —SW— ^converse 16:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dicdef, and not a particularly exact one at that. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lyubomir Mihalev[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played in B PFG. As this league is not fully pro, playing in it does not grant notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His Bulgarian name gets 37 hits on gnews, so I think there's a chance he might meet the GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. If sources can be found to show he meets GNG, please let me know so I can reconsider. Giant Snowman 09:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:18, 15 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment relisting per the possible sources found by Jenks, which may strongly influence the discussion if someone can properly assess them. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:45, 23 February 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 February 23. Snotbot t • c » 15:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe there has been an error here. According to Google's translation of the sources provided by Jenks, this player has been signed by and has played for PFC Cherno More Varna. This meets the guidelines of WP:NFOOTBALL because this team competes in the Bulgarian A Professional Football Group, which is found on the list of fully professional leagues. Look at [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Lyubomir+Mihalev%22&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1#hl=en&safe=off&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-

ab&q=%22%D0%9B%D1%8E%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80+%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%22+%22%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE+%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%22&pbx=1&oq=%22%D0%9B%D1%8E%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80+%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%22+%22%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE+%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=13774l14407l2l14709l3l3l0l0l0l0l145l296l2.1l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=a9d6c9bac240f907&biw=1675&bih=897 this Google search], which contains the Bulgarian name for this player and the Bulgarian name for the fully professional team. Apparently he has not played in a game yet. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 20:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no error. I'm not disputing that the he is signed to Cherno More. However, he has not played in any actual games for them, and WP:NSPORT explicitly states that it does not apply to players who have signed but not played. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been a useful piece of information to include in the nomination. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 20:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the guidelines. Jared Preston (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aussenkehr Desert Extreme Trail Run[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is about an event with no coverage in reliable sources. Sources in the article consist of an article from a sporting goods company (not reliable source) and primary sources (company organizing the event). Whpq (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I was the nominator in the first AfD), still no reliable sources, still of questionable notability. --Pgallert (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:GNG. If reliable sources turn up, I'd be willing to change my opinion. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Burnout Paradise. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burnout Paradise soundtrack[edit]

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

An unnecessary spinout from Burnout Paradise. While the soundtrack received coverage in the context of the game, it did not get a commercial release and as such it is typical of WP:VG to cover any relevant information in the prose of the parent article (Burnout Paradise in this case) and omit the soundtrack listing. There is very little coverage aside from press releases on the soundtrack itself, and any independent coverage is for a few key songs, such as Guns 'n Roses' Paradise City. Teancum (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi, I'm the one who created this article. Since this article have been nomination I have doing some major edits on this article to stop it from beening deleted. I don't see why my article is nominated for deletion as I had a fair amount of sources which I placed reliable sources from reliable websites in my external links on the article. I also don't see why this article is nominated for deletion as I have same format like from other seprated soundtrack articles from other Burnout Games. I also think this soundtrack is notable as Criterion Games (the delevopers of Burnout Paradise) has the soundtrack on their website which I sourced in the external links. TheDeviantPro (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Burnout Paradise article in its own section. It's better when mentioned there in context of the parent article. --MuZemike 01:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Per MuZemike; article would make more sense in the context of the game's article. Trim down/source the intro paragraph, and maybe make the chart collapse-able or something once merged. Sergecross73 msg me 15:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Nyttend (talk · contribs) per criterion G7 (Non admin closure). "Pepper" @ 12:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

300-399 (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion at MfD by Tinton5 with the rationale "A very strange dab page that is unnecessary. I have never seen a range of numbers needing a page for various meanings." Procedural relisting by me here, as MfD is not for pages in the main namespace. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a proper dab page, which list items which are not ambiguous with each other. No one would search for a number range, and individual dabs for numbers with truly ambiguous items can be created as needed in compliment to the X (number) pages (for instance 300 (disambiguation) exists to serve such a purpose). France3470 (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a single thing called "300-399" appears on the page. This is some kind of (non-encyclopedic) oddball list of things designated by numbers in a range, not a proper disambiguation page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although listed as a disambiguation page, it contains only selections from 300 (number). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per the creator's request. Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Penale[edit]

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

Subject of the article does not appear to meet notability requirements as set forth in WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and/or WP:SOLDIER. Article was deprodded claiming that the subject is notable per WP:ANYBIO; I can only believe that the deprodding is due to an award by granted by the New York State Baseball Umpires Association, and was placed in the hall of fame of the Niagara Falls Umpire Association. That being said, it is my belief that the subject is not notable as there are zero mentions of the individual in any reliable news sources, only eight brief mentions in books (all whom are sourced directly from Wikipedia, and thus it can be argued those fall under WP:SPS), and slightly greater than 1,300 google search hits (none which are reliable sources). Although I honor the service of the late Frank Penale, I do not believe that he is notable. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; additionally regarding the award given by the New York State Baseball Umpires Association, it allegedly was renamed for the subject of this article. A search for the award comes up with just over 100 hits, none of which appear to be from reliable sources. Therefore, as the award is not "well-known and significant award or honor" as per WP:ANYBIO, the subject is not notable per ANYBIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Got a full obituary in The Buffalo News, which looks like a pretty major newspaper, so I think there's a decent chance the guy meets the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets WP:ANYBIO. Within his specific field (umpire) the subject has not only been named to the Hall of Fame, but has received a well-known and significant award. Additionally, the New York State Baseball Umpires Association "Umpire of the Year Award" is actually called the Frank Penale Award in his honor. In accordance with WP:ANYBIO, he has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[7] Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- However, per WP:ANYBIO the award has to be "well-known and significant award or honor". This alleged Frank Penale Award is not "well known and significant" outside of the awarding body, the New York State Baseball Umpires Association, which itself does not appear to be notable (zero news hits and one book hit). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. What is up with using "alleged" throughout this conversation? Its use may indicate bias or an issue with POV. The guideline specifically calls for being recognized as "part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". With being HOF honor and having the Umpire of the Year Award named in your honor? This clearly meets the WP:ANYBIO criteria. On a completely different note, got a kick out of the looking at the baseball digest link to see my good friend and homeboy Ryne Sandberg. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply; just because an award exist doesn't make the award "well known and significant" per WP:ANYBIO. For instance, an elementary school can name a teacher their "Teacher of the Year", but that doesn't make the award "well known and significant" which is a requirement of an awardee being notable. ANYBIO is more for awards such as the Nobel Peace Prize or the Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross (as examples). These awards are notable in and of themselves, and awarded in such a limited manor, that individuals who receive the award are therefore presumed to be notable per ANYBIO. As for the alleged existence of an award named for the subject of the article whom we are attempting to determine their notability, doing a search for the alleged award does not bring up any tertiary reliable source. Cheers! --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It appears that the arguments for keeping this article are that: a) an umpiring award has been named in his honor, and b) an obituary was published in The Buffalo News. However, the award is one given by a local chapter of a state umpires association; I don't see that satisfying WP:ANYBIO, which refers to "a well-known and significant award or honor"—I get zero hits when I search for "Frank Penale Award" in Google News archives. Regarding the obituary, I guess I'm just not willing to accept an obituary in a regional newspaper as sufficient to establish notability; newspapers regularly publish obituaries for people who are not notable in an encyclopedic context. Furthermore, although the subject's obituary appears to be behind a pay wall, I notice that the headline ("Frank R. Penale, Longtime Nabisco Worker") doesn't highlight either his umpiring or his military service, suggesting that the obituary writer didn't consider these activities to be especially notable. Ultimately, it comes down to what Wikipedia is not—it is not a memorial site, it is not a directory, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The justifications for this article seem to fit in those categories. BRMo (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Obituaries are not indicative of notability, but generally offers leads to additional content. I'm not that invested to pay for access. I don't support notability based on the Nabisco or military career. The Frank Penale Award is the "Umpire of the Year Award" presented by the New York State Baseball Umpires Association, which is indicative of "part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". This is the notability criteria presented. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 05:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - No, I think the article is actually incorrect when it says that the "Tony DeVivo Award," which is given by the New York State Baseball Umpires Association, was renamed in Penale's honor. Looking at the two websites that are the only references in the article, it's clear that these are two separate awards, and that the "Frank Penale Award" is given by the Niagara Falls chapter of the state association. Regardless, I don't see any evidence that either of these awards are themselves notable (that is, there doesn't seem to be any coverage of these awards by recognized sources other than the associations themselves). In my opinion, that leaves a poor argument for the notability of the subject. BRMo (talk) 14:27, 18 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification to get additional editors to comment, I have left a message at the WikiProjects for Military History, New York (state), and Baseball. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of multiple sources of independent significant coverage. One obituary is the main source, and it has not been determined to be independent (written by family member?) The Niagara Falls Umpire Association that seem to be his main claim to possible notability, is a service for "High School and Summer League baseball". This seems local, and a job someone does in their spare time after work and on weekends. Lacking significant independent sources on the person or even the league, this doesnt seem notable for WP.—Bagumba (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet requirements of GNG - lack of siginificant coverage by third party reliable sources. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Defence League[edit]

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

It does not meet wp:gng. In all the references it is only mentioned once or twice, usually in the context of being a sub-group of English Defence League. Hence it should most likely be merged with the English Defence League aticle. Pass a Method talk 11:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nominator's rationale is incorrect, simply. There is ample discussion of the organization in the sources, which are ALL reliable sources. I find this nomination frivolous. __meco (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources such as [8] and [9] (both in the article already) are enough to establish notability separate from either the EDL or Breivik.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not knowing Norwegian I feel a little bit handicapped, but it appears that adequate sourcing exists. Such political organizations SHOULD be the subject of encyclopedic coverage regardless of what one thinks about their motivating ideology. Seems to be written in accord with NPOV, which bears constant watching. Carrite (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as it is the subject of significant media coverage (also way beyond what is referenced in the article). Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Meco. Estlandia (dialogue) 11:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and purge of all WP:BLP violations and misuse of sources - a lot of charhes are made with grossly insufficient RS sourcing at all Collect (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient sources to create an article. Only made scant news coverage in Norway because Breivik suggested setting it up and may have been a member. Ironically Collect and others want to minimize the little information that is available due to BLP issues. Otherwise the main source of information is the group's own website. Suggest merging into EDL and saying that a group based on them exists in Norway. At some point the group may become notable or will fizzle, but it is too early to tell. TFD (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Any reason for the ad hom inserted into this discussion? WP:BLP happens to be a major Wikipedia policy. Collect (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People sometimes label any mention of a fellow editor in connection with criticism of edits or positions as ad hominem attacks. I believe that is inappropriate. I think we should not be that touchy. That's my opinion. __meco (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take the existing sources, remove your BLP violations and statements sourced to the NDL and there is no article. TFD (talk) 07:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP is an absolute policy - if one wishes to keep BLP violations in any article, one is running contrary to stated policy. I made no comments which could be as totally misconstrued as your apparent post seeks to do. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. as a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fyodor Pavlov-Andreevich[edit]

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

No evidence that the subject of the article meets inclusion criteria. Sources appear to be limited to trivial mentions and promotional-type listings of his work without actual in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The article itself also reads like a promotional piece. Kinu ^t/_c 00:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is promotional puffery, but there are some sources: Guardian, CNN. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:36, 16 February 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, Wifione ^Message 11:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Marie, 1st Viscountess Cardwell-Farrington[edit]

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

This looks like it was based on a Geneology book. Google Book search doesn't reveal anything related (there's a french book with one mention of the name but I don't think it's the same) and there's nothing to support the claim that she was a brilliant author that I can find. Pure geneology alone does not inherit notability. Shadowjams (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the works of the "brilliant writer" are "lost" and the rest unnamed and unnoticed. This isn't Burke's Peerage. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:45, 17 February 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, Wifione ^Message 11:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if this person was real, some of the claims about her sound like a hoax. How could someone who lived 1892 to 1949 have a reputation as a brilliant writer yet most of her works have been lost? She would have had to have lived much longer ago for me to believe that her writings could have been lost like that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unverifiable. Hoax. SL93 (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filipe Quintiliano Machado[edit]

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

PROD was removed without a reason. Player has not made a first team appearance for a team which itself plays in a non-professional league. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Eddie6705 (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Eddie6705 (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL. No indication of notability, no RS found. Moswento (talk | contribs) 11:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, failing WP:NSPORT, and in the absence of significant coverage, fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Livingston, New Jersey. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Livingston Police Department[edit]

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

Police department covering a small town of 30,000 people. I believe it fails general notability guidelines for an organisation, and makes no attempt to establish notability e.g. through significant incidents/arrests/cases in its history, or notable members. Biker Biker (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article appears to be largely, or entirely, a copy of pages from the official police website, see [10], [11], etc. This may violate Wikipedia's WP:COPYVIO policies since (unlike the US federal government) local governments generally retain copyright in their materials, see WP:PD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with rewriting) / Redirect to Livingston, New Jersey. There is usable material here, that would need to be rewritten in many cases but that could be meaningfully added to the article for the municipality. Alansohn (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge per Alansohn and per WP:OUTCOMES -- we've probably merged 3/4 or 4/5 of local law enforcement agencies, unless they have a real claim for uniqueness. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not identify any useful or unique information that could be added to its city page (unless I missed something).Z22 (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Livingston, New Jersey. The topic IMHO is not quite deserving to have its own page. However, some of the material used here can be useful for the Livingston, NJ page. Tinton5 (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd say merge, but there's no content worth merging. Given that it talks about "Our Detectives...", thisreally should have been deleted as G11 as well as A7. DGG ( talk ) 07:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sagarika Ghatge[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO#Basic_Criteria or WP:ARTIST as significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is lacking. Though Google tell that she has acted in Indian films, being an actor does not by itself provide notability. Some award she won is mentioned (mostly a non-notable one) but without any citation. Wikieditindia (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you go through Google News archives, you can find some news articles on her (e.g. Indian Express, India Today, The Times of India). utcursch | talk 10:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep .Are we wikipedians going mad ?.LinguisticGeek 10:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close In the case of film actors, ARTIST is not the guideline but ENTERTAINER. The actor already has multiple lead roles in notable films, including Fox (film) and Chak De! India.Many news hits. Significant coverage also quite some.[12][13][14][15] Wifione ^Message 11:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I doubt the notability of Fox(film). The references pointed above are related to either Fox or Chak_De!_India. Although notability of Chak_De!_India is well referenced, I have reservations as to how this will help to meet the criteria under WP:ENTERTAINER. Wikieditindia (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Keep: Added many weblinks to the page for its further improvement. And as Wifione pointed, WP:Entertainer is met. Also is WP:Artist met for the clause "has won significant critical attention" as she has few awards to her name. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for the critical attention please. Wikieditindia (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have this photograph reference for the Lions Gold Award. But i am looking for a better one to go in the article. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Considering the above sources, there appears to be sufficient coverage and enough significant film roles to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:ENT. Gongshow ^Talk 20:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayendra Ghatge[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO#Basic_Criteria or WP:ARTIST as reliable secondary sources neither significantly cover nor brings out that he is a notable. The article also does not have an assertion of importance or notability rather than stating that he acted in X film and Y serial. A Google search proves claims but not notability. Wikieditindia (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find any sources apart from incidental mentions. Moswento (talk | contribs) 10:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it satisfies "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" per WP:Entertainer. The guy has been in 80 films. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reference please. Also plese check WP:VAGUEWAVE Wikieditindia (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for what? 80 films you mean? Refer his IMDB entry. And thats funny! You citing WP:Vaguewave in a vague comment of yours. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not comment, and I asked for the reference for raising a claim of 'the guy has been in 80 films'. It need not be a list of 80 films, but give something to justify the vague comment you have written citing WP:ENTERTAINER. I saw the line from the criteria was just copy pasted by adding 'He had' without citing any RS for saying so. Funny?! :) Wikieditindia (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep per Animeshkulkarni. Despite of the lack of the correct Indian ortography for his name (could someone provide that, please?) prevents us from a correct research about him in Indian sources, a quick look at his career show us the profile of an Indian character actor with a long and profolic career that span from mid-70's till today, with significant roles in notable films (see the 1970s box office hits Chitchor and Kasme Vaade, the multi-awarded Deewangee or the BAFTA nominated Devdas). There's enough to pass WP:NACTOR#1 and to substain a claim of notability. - Cavarrone (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manav Gohil[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO#Basic_Criteria or WP:ARTIST. The article also does not have an assertion of importance or notability rather than stating that he is a television actor and anchor. Wonders how that will make him notable! No significant coverage in reliable secondary source Being an actor does not by itself provide notability. Also article does not have reliable sources dealing significantly with the subject. Google search proves the claims in the article but not notability for WP. Wikieditindia (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep actor played on 13 different TV series (14 if you count CID Special Bureau as a separate series) some of them quite notable. As for coverage, click that "news" link above to find at least 9 recent features in reliable sources, some of which covering him in great length and depth [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23][24]. For sure, the article needs improvement, but the subject is notable. --Muhandes (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in multiple news outlets, as enumerated by Muhandes. Moswento (talk | contribs) 11:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it satisfies "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" per WP:Entertainer. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: Not only does he pass WP:ENT because of his many notable roles, he has significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the verifiable assertion of notability that this person "is a television actor and anchor", enough so to meet WP:ENT... and through the enumerated sources showing a meeting of WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 through meeting WP:ENT Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aashish Chaudhary[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO#Basic_Criteria or WP:ARTIST. The article also does not have an assertion of importance or notability rather than stating that he is an actor. Being an actor does not by itself provide notability. Also article does not have reliable sources dealing significantly with the subject. Wikieditindia (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it satisfies "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" per WP:Entertainer. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reference please. Also please check WP:VAGUEWAVE Wikieditindia (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for what? You are vague in your Vaguewave comment. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for saying "...it satisfies.." Wikieditindia (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The filmography table present in the article itself shows that the subject has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing reference. Wikieditindia (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficient credits to pass WP:ENT. Cavarrone (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arya Babbar[edit]

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

No reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage for notability. Fails to meet WP:ARTIST. Though Google search prove him as an actor, I don't think taking up acting as a profession alone will make anyone notable. Wikieditindia (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Times News Network has a number of articles about him, most notably this and this. There's also this book on Google Books, although I can't tell anything about its reliability. Moswento (talk | contribs) 09:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that there are source mentioning him, but I don't think that makes him notable. ~~All~~ the ref above are one paragraph. The notable ones you mentioned above is about his debutant release in 2002. Both are about same event. ~~One paragraph each.~~ I would find some significant coverage about him; as he is an actor, about his acting capabilities. The book mentioned is titled "Bollywood's Star Families: The Babbar Family". Wikieditindia (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the refs are one paragraph - the two I specifically mentioned are longer, you just have to scroll down past the Google ads. Moswento (talk | contribs) 10:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Google News search also turns up more outside of his debut, like this (2011), this (2010) and this (2008). Moswento (talk | contribs) 10:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I stand corrected on the length of the paragraph. Stuck it down in the comment. Still I have doubts about notability, whether having acted in a couple of films makes one a notable person fit for a biography in WP? I have reservations, and thats just me. Wikieditindia (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the sources (several articles from different news outlets across several years, with more than just incidental coverage) point to notability. But we'll see what other editors think. Moswento (talk | contribs) 11:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close Per Entertainer, the actor has played the lead roles in three notable films.[25][26][27] So no reason to continue this AfD. Wifione ^Message 11:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment Thanks for pointing out WP:Entertainer, I guess I didn't look hard. But if you do not consider existence of a wiki article as proof of notabilty of a film, I doubt the notability ofThoda_Tum_Badlo_Thoda_Hum and Ab_Ke_Baras. The wiki articles do not have any reference for both the films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditindia (talk • contribs) 11:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reasons above. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was also nominated for Screen Award for Most Promising Newcomer – Male satisfying the Wp:Artist clause of "has won significant critical attention". -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference please. Article page does not have it. Wikieditindia (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recheck. Reference was added before posting that comment here. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reflsit was missing and now its ok. Wikieditindia (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy of the Zodiac EX[edit]

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

Unfortunately, I could not find enough reliable sources for this online game. Should sources be found, I would gladly withdraw this AfD but until then... The article is also an orphan and is written poorly, but those are no good reasons to delete, but lack of notability is. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not establish notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 15:54, 23 February 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) 19:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find multiple reliable independent sources of significant coverage to establish notability per WP:GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Walmart brands. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Thunder[edit]

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

Wal-Mart store brand. Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect- To List of Walmart brands as not sufficiently notable to justify a separate article. Dru of Id (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Walmart brands, per Dru of Id. Not enough for a standalone article, and this is the obvious choice for a merge. Moswento (talk | contribs) 11:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gung-ho (band)[edit]

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

No significant coverage in any known or apparent material. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Delete. — C M B J 23:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:Band. If this discussion ends with a deletion decision, the article for the non-released album should be Speedy Deleted as well. Rorshacma (talk) 20:05, 17 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough for standalone article. Mentions in The Boomtown Rats and Johnnie Fingers is enough. Moswento (talk | contribs) 10:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominator withdrew the nomination, and no !votes to delete were posted. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solo (Norwegian soft drink)[edit]

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. Article claims that this is the most popular Norwegian soda, but no:Solo (brus) is as lacking in content as the English version. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep extremely notable, has an entry in a general-purpose paper encyclopedia (see SNL). For years Norway's most-sold soft drink and one of the strongest Norwegian domestic brands. Has a rich history and the article could include the inception (import from Sweden), the development as the first nationally-sold soft drink brand in Norway, ownership (the brand is owned and marketed as a partnership), in addition to the history and current production, distribution, varieties etc. A check in newspaper databases shows hundreds of relevant articles which strengthen the notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: quite notable. If you haven't researched Norwegian newspapers before, I'll let you know that google does not pick up a lot of their content, you have to go thru individual archives.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources. Its annoying to run across an AfD like this. If you don't know how to research foreign sources, don't nominate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, you nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Enuf too? How many of these are there?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know how to research foreign sources, don't create the article in the first place. I agree that the sources you've added are a start towards showing notability, but they should have been there when the article was created, or sometime in the half-dozen years after. This article is poorly written, and has been here six years without sourcing. no:Solo (brus) is even worse. Deleting the article isn't going to make the drink any less popular, and if sourcing is found a referenced article can be created. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Six years ago, the sourcing culture here on wikipedia was completely different--articles frequently had no sources. Close your nom now, you have no business making this AfD nomination.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well holy shit, cupcake. Calm it down a notch. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol, probably so.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your lol has thawed my frozen nominator's heart. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the added sources. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources seem quite sufficient. This is a Norwegian cultural icon. __meco (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - Although we could use more material for a decent article, Milowent's sourcing has show sufficient foreign-language notability for inclusion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solo (Australian soft drink)[edit]

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. Several "references" on the page; blogs and an online store, not reliable sources. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Schweppes Australia, which is in need of writing. Iconic drink from an iconic company, we should cover it, although not in a standalone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge). Pladask (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge definitely a part of Australian drinking culture. notable but as per above, suggest schweppes article. its not going to go on and become anything more than an iconic australian drink. Alvin M. (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solo (Norwegian soft drink)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged and redirected both Passiona and Solo (Australian soft drink) to Schweppes Australia. There are probably more soft drinks. These drinks are popular, but not quite at the level of Coca-Cola, and in the absence of significant secondary source coverage, they are probably best merged together. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - when Afd's are in progress there is a specific request to not do as such - your merge is not correct process - please understand that Afd discussion and the note above the article say not to do so until the Afd is finished. Satu Suro 01:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a view, but not universal or absolute. Wikipedia:AfD_and_mergers#Merging_during_deletion_discussions does not say what you assert. I also consider Wikipedia:Closing Administrator is not an Edit on Demand Service and User:Mangojuice/Administrators are not slaves, and I do not commit myself to return to this nominated page after its eventual close. In this case, the counter proposal to the nom was to merge to a page that was then a redirect. This is too unclear to leave as is for subsequent AfD participants or even the closer. In a minimum of edits, I demonstrated a minimum effort at the merge. I don't see anything controversial in this. In fact, even after the revert by The-pope, and your comments, this AfD remains applicable to WP:SK#1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is only an essay, not policy. The text in the AFD notice clearly states that the article must not be blanked. Redirecting it to another article is blanking, IMO. The-Pope (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Schweppes - after the afd has been completed - Satu Suro 01:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current Schweppes Australia article is insufficient and overly concentrates (WP:UNDUE) on the two brands, rather than on the company and it's whole history - and the fact that it doesn't mention Schweppervescence or lemonade or mixers means that it needs a lot of work. Whilst this may sound like a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument, but Solo is a long standing iconic soft drink brand in Australia, but suffers from using a "normal word" so Google searches are difficult to focus on the actual brand, not just the word solo. The-Pope (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly a notable brand in Australia, though obviously the article could use some work.Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources out there as far as I can tell. For example, here's a useful one [28]. Even in 1979 it was already acknowledged that Solo received substantial coverage in the media. --99of9 (talk) 04:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable soft drink in Australia. See Google news results. --LauraHale (talk) 05:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above, especially The-Pope. Definitely a notable soft drink in Australia (can be bought everywhere) and I'm sure in-depth sources exist. Jenks24 (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article has been improved since nomination. Further work is encouuraged. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmin Bhasin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Has had one mid-level role in the Tamil film Vaanam. Notability has not been asserted. Note - before deciding to nominate here, I checked the 3 external links in the article. None were useful/working, so I removed them. They can be found in the edit history, obviously. Colon el Tom 13:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources, and fails to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved since proposal, looks like her career is taking off. Editor 2050 (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Editor2050. There's just enough there to pass WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 14 February 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, Der yck C. 16:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements to the article. Passes GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

change to Delete or Redirect to Vaanam. After a further look I have to notice that actually her profile meets BLP1E, consisting her career just in one significant role. Cavarrone (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently three news sources in the article. While they discuss what films the subject is in, there still doesn't appear to be enough coverage to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:09, 20 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hirobo XRB Sky Robo[edit]

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

I found no notability for this mini radio controlled helicopter. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable and seems like an advertisement. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:13, 6 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Hirobo. While I can't see enough information in sources to retain this product as an encyclopedia page, I do see the parent company as being potentially notable enough to have such a page. The company being around a long time, I'm certain sufficient sourcing will eventually be found to reach my second conclusion above. It's possible a list of products may eventually be created, but not yet. I agree with User:Argento Surfer about the general tone of this page as promotional. Failing truncation and merge, delete. BusterD (talk) 14:05, 22 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

13th Belief[edit]

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

Non notable due to lack of coverage in any relaible secondary source. Wikieditindia (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found [29], but that is not enough. SL93 (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a bit too soon for this article. Userfy to author if requested. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darla Jaye[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:BIO. Local broadcaster with little or no coverage from reliable third-party sources. Lack of "significant coverage." Of the few mentions in local media, most (if not all) are passing mentions of subject and trivial. WP:BASIC Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding coverage beyond the very brief mention in FMQB. Doesn't meet WP:BIO RadioFan (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. as a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Li jianjun[edit]

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

Looks like self-promotion (creator has only edited this article), lacks independence sourcing, lacks verifiable sourcing, and in any case notability is still questionable even if all of the claims are true and verifiable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources to confirm the notability of this individual. Possible vanity page too. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Vertical Continuous Sensor[edit]

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

Non-notable product Tinton5 (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems to be a single manufacturer's product line of continuous level sensors, and there is no evidence that the specific product line is notable. PleaseStand (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete short of additional sources. I did find what I believe to be two republished press releases, but neither appeared to confer indications of notability. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prestige group[edit]

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

Company fails notability guidelines. No sources found to establish any notability. Tinton5 (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest redirect to status group. Unsurprisingly, Books and Scholar find plenty of instances of this phrase. Most appear to be referring to social hierarchies in groups rather than to this Indian real estate developer. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just one look at the reference section is enough to suffice that it is notable enough. What a waste of time, listing it here... --Ekabhishek^talk 17:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I had originally nominated this, there were no sources given at all. Now sources are listed, which influences me that it is notable to keep. However, let's see what others think. Tinton5 (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is kept, I'd suggest that it move to Prestige Group (developer), and that this page become a disambiguation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I think too it's waste of time listing this page here..bcoz it does takes time to update the company's info and its project's wiYh all the references..if need more references..it will also be addded. I ll also suggest the move to Prestige Group (developer) User talk:Sayowais 06:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is very much a popular company in India. No doubt of notability or lack of sources. I too support the move to Prestige Group (developer)--Anbu121 (talk me) 19:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. On all three AfD's there is a severe influx of SPA's who ask to keep this article. Combined with the previous two AfD's there is a very strong consensus to delete. To prevent further wasting of the communities time, I'm salting the entry Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaume Cañellas Galindo[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of page preivously deleted after two sockpuppet-infested debates (in which I and other editors were accused of being "Catalan separatists", whatever that's got to do with anything -- take a look [30] if you're interested).

Subject is a psychiatrist who's (1) been director of a local clinic; (2) testified (along with two others) at a murder trial; (3) reported a violation in abortion procedures which led to a scandal; (4) been agitating for some years to get Spain to recognize child psychiatry as a specialty. On (1) his photo and some short quotes appeared in two local puff pieces. On (2) he is mentioned in passing in a story on the trial. On (3) he is mentioned as the person who made the complaint, and his affiliation with the hospital under investigation is explained. On (4) he was quoted as spokesman at some kind of protest by parents, plus he's one of a score of signatories on a petition, and he's written some advocacy pieces. Oh yes... (5) he's also an "Ambassador" for Save the Children, which we know via jpgs (posted by the subject himself to his own blogpage) of an ID card with his photo, and a certificate of appreciation identical to one my mother received when she donated $100.

Items (2) and (3) aren't even mentioned in the article, for some reason -- I did a real review of the sources, you see -- but in any event all of this added up falls far short of notability. He's a hardworking crusader for kids who's no doubt fighting the good fight, but unfortunately withut anyone taking much notice, it seems. EEng (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Cañellas Galindo does have some notability, but not nearly enough to pass the strict WP:BIO guidelines here on Wikipedia. Of the sources given, only a few are actually usable in any context and even then they'd pretty much only be able to be used as trivial sources. The rest of the sources aren't usable, such as the brief name drops and the primary sources. It's pretty obvious that if this page is deleted it'll be re-added by one of the same people who have been sockpuppeting in the previous AfDs, so I think this needs to be salted.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Demonstrated notability and references.--Spmdcp (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)— Spmdcp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Noting obvious SPA/sockpuppet. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The character is notable. Sources verified and authenticated references. Should be maintained and protected from systematic attacks because it is a living person and a remarkable professional.--46.253.38.94 (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)— 46.253.38.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Noting obvious SPA/sockpuppet. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and salt per the reasons laid out by the nominator and at the previous AfD discussion. The references are rife with primary sources, and those that might pass muster as extremely weak WP:RS are cursory mentions that do nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. The strawman and WP:VAGUEWAVE arguments here obviously do not establish notability either. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete: nothing new since last nomination (in which the article was deleted, by the way). --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep.Remarkable character with obvious neutral and verifiable references. [31]MRCaa (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC) — Marcamp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Noting obvious SPA/sockpuppet. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep After do some research found many resources with information about the contribution of this well known professional in his field. Links need a rework deletion is excessive.[32][33][34] --Dataslow (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)— Dataslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Noting obvious SPA/sockpuppet. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Looking at [35] and references, this character is a notable and verified professional who deserve to be in wikipedia, pioneer on child and adolescent psychiatry in Spain. --LG (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC) — LuisGracias (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Noting obvious SPA/sockpuppet. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have semi-protected the article due to repeated addition of the same "sources" (read: scanned documents previously uploaded to Imageshack and now some random DropBox account... really?) by the socks. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Tokyogirl. Enough already. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Relisting yet again would not likely further clarify conensus, and, as of now, though we have a nomination plus a delete, against just one weak keep, I can't in good conscience say there is actually consensus to delete here, especially with non-latin script sources possibly still out there Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Net Project Journal[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable CMS software. Tagged for notability since October 2008. Lacks inline references. References listed at end are all in Russian. However, at first glance they all appear to be either connected with the project or unreliable sites such as forums. A wider Google search seems to return nothing (web, scholar, books and news) of value. The one book I did find lists this article as its source. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 24 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, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I found the following sources:
- Коршунов, Алексей (November 2005). "Разрабатываем документацию с помощью NPJ: эффективно и удобно!" [Developing documentation with NPJ: effective and comfortable]. Системный Администратор (in Russian). 36 (11). Moscow, Russia: ООО «Синдикат 13». Retrieved 2012-02-09.
- Дмитриев, Сергей (December 2005). "Система образования как самоорганизующаяся среда" [System of education as a self-organizing environment]. PCWeek/RE (in Russian). 508 (46). Moscow, Russia: ЗАО “СК Пресс”. Retrieved 2012-02-09.
first is rather strong one, second discusses the requirements for software part of the education-related idea citing NPJ as the only viable technical solution. Both are not enough on their own; still they indicate that more sources could be hiding somewhere. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:01, 9 February 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, —SW— ^comment 02:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monday Morning Blues (newspaper)[edit]

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

School paper. Lots of assertions in the article -- backed by zero refs. Lacks substantial RS coverage, though there is one news article in gnews. Tagged for zero refs for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is essentially an OR essay. There are no references supplied and I can't find any via a quick search. Any useful content can be added to College of San Mateo as a section there. Aside from all this, I don't think a school newspaper is notable anyway. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:10, 23 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, Stifle (talk) 20:03, 28 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, —SW— ^confer 02:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "Jubal Early" controversy mentioned in the article was apparently written about in a 1992 issue of the academic journal Women's Studies: an inter-disciplinary journal, although the paywall allows me to see only the first page.[36]. It might be appropriate to redirect and merge a little bit of the content here to College of San Mateo.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. A reasonable search finds nothing substantive; the sources currently applied and linked above provide no backing for assertion of notability. If I saw anything which said this student newspaper won awards or was even covered in direct detail, I could see a week keep. But since not, delete. Failing delete, merge with institution page as above. BusterD (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zubed[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:CORP, very promotional in tone. I found a few hits on google news but they seem to be press releases. Probably qualifies for an speedy but it was prodded and the prod removed by a single purpose account Delete Secret ^account 00:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another location intelligence company, a developer of web-based public sector and corporate geomapping and search applications advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is purely WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 09:42, 16 February 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, —SW— ^gab 02:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's pretty telling that this is a subsidiary of a company that doesn't have its own article: Triad Group Plc. Agree with nom that the gnews hits read like press releases. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heralds of Harmony[edit]

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

No indication that this group meets WP:NMUSIC. Swayback Maru ^{Mufka's alternate account (talk)} 19:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local group with local coverage. Lots of concert announcements can be found, and some local coverage like this, but not enough for me to say it meets inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 31 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet wp:notability, appears to be rw notable, and existence of more suitable sources is likely. North8000 (talk) 16:13, 3 February 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, Sandstein 18:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: AfD wasn't transcluded to a new log after previous relists.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— ^prattle 02:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this group is important to some people and has reliable sources. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Local notability, at least, is clear from the sources, and the sources also make note of the group's national and international activity. On balance, it seems like this group is significant enough to have a place in Wikipedia's impressively extensive coverage of barbershop music. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. B music ian 12:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Amos[edit]

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

No sources cited ProfPolySci45 (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article had sources when it was nominated. Subject played several professional games of Ozzie Rules football in the top league, therefore meets the WP:NSPORTS#Australian_rules_football notability requirements. Sionk (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and suggest withdrawal or SNOW close. The article had sources (and footnoted ones at that) at the time of the nomination, and those sources show that Amos meets WP:NSPORTS. To go off on a bit of a tangent, I'm pretty disgusted with the way this article, by a new contributor, has been treated. If you'll look on his talk, you can see that the creator is a new editor who was actually encouraged to create some articles exactly like this. But in the space of something like 20 minutes, this clearly notable (if anyone had cared to even look up the relevant guideline) article has been nominated for deletion via CSD, PROD and now AfD. No wonder we're struggling to retain new editors. Jenks24 (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nomination by a Twinkle user run amok, it would seem. I note the nominator's history for today includes an attempt at speedy deletion launched against a stub bio of an 18th Century British MP and BLP-Sources tagging of a turn-of-the-20th-Century American labor leader that died in 1908. In this case, played in top league of Ozzie Rules, snow keep. TURN OFF THE AUTOMATED TOOLS AND SLOW DOWN, FRIEND!!! Carrite (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NSPORTS#Australian_rules_football Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC
Keep sports people who have played in a top-flight league of a notable sport are automatically notable. Has sources to back it up, too. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew
Keep. Notable. We need to protect new editors.--Grahame (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crashlytics[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - keep article - subject of article has many reliable third party sources. This article should be kept. Zackattackk (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please offer examples? Presently, it has been subject to six news articles, 5 of which are just reprints. That leaves two non-duplicate references. One of the two references just discusses the organization's founder, and only briefly mentions the company. The five reprints just mention that the company raised one million dollars to work on an app for Apple iOS. It is a five person company founded in early 2011. Presently, they don't meet the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete insufficient independent proof of notability. Locador (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Ortiz El Buen Samaritano[edit]

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

Article looks like a self-promotion page of an unremarkable self-proclaimed psychic with links to his website that offers services and a store. The original author of the page hasn't worked on other pages. In addition, the only references are the psychic's own website or small appearances in local media, while other links are dead or misleading (like #7). Other problems include a long list of other names and biographical information, both without any references. I'm from Puerto Rico and never heard of him until recently. Ljvillanueva (talk) 03:54, 8 February 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 February 8. Snotbot t • c » 06:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 9 February 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete - highly dubious sources. Locador (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Got some coverage for predicting that some celebrity was going to kill himself ([37], [38], though Son Famosos seems to be a celebrity gossip site), and has been mentioned several times in a newspaper called Primera Hora ([39], [40], [41]), so I guess the main issue is whether or not you think Primera Hora is a legit source - I'm inclined to say it is, but it seems almost like a tabloid. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Western Canadian Championship (Gaelic football) as a bulk delete response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Canadian Championship 2009. This was a non-admin closure as the closing admin at the other discussion did not close this one. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 15:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Western Canadian Championship 2008[edit]

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

Non-notable Gaelic Canadian Provinces football competition. PRODed, but PROD was removed by creator. Epeefleche (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 February 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, JohnCD (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- Both articles fail WP:NOTSTATSBOOK as they are generically a table of results. The topic of the article however, is notable. There is significant coverage but there seems to be no solid indication of notability. Cleanup and include more information in prose on the subject. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 17:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael -- as this involves the same issues, can I assume your !vote is revised in accordance with your discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Canadian Championship 2009, to userfy?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- To the closing admin: a discussion is being centralized aroung this article in very close perspective with an article of a similar topic. The discussion can be found at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Canadian Championship 2009 ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 04:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Epeefleche: yes, that is correct. Userfy. Sorry for the late response. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 03:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Yaloe (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Western Canadian Championship (Gaelic football) per above linked discussion. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Journal of Severe Storms Meteorology[edit]

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

Article was PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal, not indexed in any major, selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded with justification "removing proposal for deletion given its prominent contributors, ~100 references in scientific journals, inclusion in hundreds of libraries that satisfy criteria 1 and 2 of WP:NJournals". However, prominent contributors don't contribute to notability, 100 references in scientific journals would mean a speedy delete for a single researcher and is way too low for a scientific journal to come even near notability, and being included in libraries is not very meaningful for an open-access journal (i.e., libraries just list it, they don't really make a formal decision to include it in their collections, as would be the case for a subscription journal). In all, does not meet any of the criteria of WP:NJournals (and WP:GNG even less). Hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per the quite well spoken nom. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I am unable to find any reliable, independent coverage of this journal, so I guess we should delete, though the creator's reasoning on the talk page is quite persuasive. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laois Intermediate Hurling Championship[edit]

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

Non-notable, second-grade, intermediate, amateur county hurling competition. Lacks significant, multiple, independent RS coverage. Article was PRODed, but an editor removed the PROD. Epeefleche (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leave. Heshs Umpire (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sourcing or obvious notability. If there's coverage of the championship, I'm unable to track it down. I think an amateur competition like this could be notable, if we had enough sources saying so. But we need those sources. I wonder, idly, if this might be a merge candidate to Laois Club Championships or Laois GAA? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:53, 15 February 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, Gongshow ^Talk 06:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laois Minor Hurling Championship.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article doesn't meet notability guidelines, also problems with finding any independent sources. Cloudz 679 06:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Senior tournament. And is is the second division, not so bad as second-grade, intermediate sounds... Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Night on this its a senior tournament and if I'm correct it meets notability for gaelic games.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Instructions per second. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weighted Million Operations Per Second[edit]

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

This is an article created in good faith, and a concept that has a few uses in contemporary scholarship, but it is one that cannot currently satisfy the general notability guideline. Right now, there isn't enough published information about it to provide for a verifiable, comprehensive summary. Perhaps this topic could be merged? The complexity of the subject has me wary to suggest a specific place. NTox · talk 01:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect to Instructions per second, which has MOPS (which is not MOPS). Locador (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Instructions per second, per Locador. I couldn't find enough to justify a standalone article at this time, and Locador's suggestion makes sense to me. Moswento (talk | contribs) 10:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 20:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laois Minor Hurling Championship[edit]

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

Non-notable, under-18-years-old, amateur county hurling competition. Lacks significant, multiple, independent RS coverage. Article was PRODed, but an editor removed the PROD. Epeefleche (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Heshs Umpire (talk) 16:04, 15 February 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, Gongshow ^Talk 04:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connacht Minor Football Championship.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regional amateur tornament. Not notable. Tigerboy1966 02:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, no coverage in sources from what I could see. Moswento (talk | contribs) 10:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that a "keep" close does not bar a merge but that will need to be discussed on the article's talk page Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs[edit]

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

Not notable at this time, primarily because of the speculation. One ref to a blog, been speedy tagged for a while due to a flood of IP SPAs that primarily resolve to college campuses "contesting" on the talk page (meatpuppeting), so I decided it would be better to see if anyone else has an opinion. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source in the article doesn't even justify the title of the article, and in addition, it is a very weak source. Presumably, this game, whatever it is, may become notable in the future. It isn't now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it is notable, because it's the sequel to a well known, well sold, and award winning title that was released two years ago. It's not just notable in the future, it's notable now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.238.128 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note The old reference was removed and a new one added since the article was nominated for deletion. My comment applies to the old one, but I don't think the new one is sufficient to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The source not only justifies the article's title, but declares it to be the *official* title of the game. I don't see how it can be a 'weak' source when it is an interview with the game's developers serving as the game's initial, official announcement. Joystiq is a reputed blog and has been used has reference countless times for video game articles. I have pruned the article of all speculation as well - it's all facts now, and there's plenty to justify having this article. Sabre (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joystiq if fine for some things, but as a sole source to demonstrate notability? Even NYT blog isn't good for that by itself. Usually we want more than one to begin with, per WP:N. It may be released this year (it MIGHT) but that doesn't make it "notable". That just means it might exist. I just don't get the fascination with creating articles on anything simply because "it exists". Dennis Brown (talk) 11:30, 23 February 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) 18:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's earlier than I would have created an article, but there's nothing suspicious about the source used (in fact it's getting widely reported - [42] [43] [44]). The interest in the previous game Amnesia: The Dark Descent as well as the just re-released Dear Esther means that there is no chance that this won't snowball, "the wait for more info shouldn't be too excruciating, as a big reveal is apparently just around the corner." Deleting this now would be pointless, better to have a basis to be improved as more information is released. Someone another 19:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following Someoneanother's reasoning. I wouldn't have created it now (putting it into the current Amnesia game article) but there's certainly more than enough sources to assert notability even if it just a tease + announcement. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is one of those inevitably to-be notable topics given history and existing coverage. It's still pretty much WP:CRYSTAL and all the sources say the same thing essentially. So I wouldn't call it GNG-ready for a stand-alone article and I think it would live fine as a "sequel" section in Amnesia: TDD until concrete info near the end of the year. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, maybe merge… The custom Google search going along with the WP:VG/S source guideline brings up a plethora of sources when searching for "Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs", but the majority of them only seem to announce basic details. Like others have said, I wouldn't have created the article right now, but it might be worth keeping. A merge per HELLKNOWZ would also be an acceptable route, as the game will inevitably become quite notable in the future. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 18:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or merge. I was the one to initially create the article, and I admit it was my mistake. I originally intended it to be a personal article that would later be a full article when more sourced details and definite information were available. For now, I think the article is of a decent enough standard to be kept where it is, especially considering my initial version which was dire (hence why I wanted it to be a personal article).

Considering the success of Amnesia: The Dark Descent, there is no doubt that this game will become a note-worthy topic and have its own article soon enough anyway.

However, feel free to do as you wish, obviously this is out of my hands and it's up to the community to decide on what should be done. I just hope that the details will not be forgotten, and perhaps if the article is removed, it is instead merged with the Amnesia: The Dark Descent page. (Jeimii (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Deletion is obviously not certain, but in any AFD, you can always request the closing admin to 'userfy' the article into your space, so the history and content isn't lost. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's snowing here. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oribe Peralta[edit]

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

No sources provided... ProfPolySci45 (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes provided; in ext links. Locador (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep - a member of a national team; verifiable. References are easily searchable; just nobody cares. But laziness is not a reason for deletion. Locador (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly speedy keep. I don't follow the reasoning for this nomination. A link to the player's page at mediotiempo.com is duly provided; that online publication appears to be the standard source for Mexican football per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links, so I don't understand the claim of "no sources". He plays in the Mexican First Division and clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. More than 5,000 hits on GNews provide ample material to expand what appears to me to be a routinely valid stub about a notable player. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone who has played for a very popular and notable football league, and one of the best ones at that, is automatically notable per WP:NSPORT. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - the article has a source provided (Medio Tiempo external link) and is about a notable professional football player. Jogurney (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, article needs improving, not deleting. Did the nominator even perform WP:BEFORE and search for more sources? Giant Snowman 17:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - There are sources to show that this page meets WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Janec[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Fails WP:GNG. No evidence this player has played in a professional football league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Highbury Ward. As below, the redirect is unlikely to be used but I've kept it on the extremely off chance that someone searches for it -- Samir 05:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oakfield (Hitchin)[edit]

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

This is an non-notable urban area within a small town. There are no references to suggest this name is anything but a locally known name for a few streets. Previous PROD removed on the basis all settlements are notable, but this is only a very small part of a settlement. Derek Andrews (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Highbury Ward. Gosh! I deproddded this 3.5 years ago! Actually, if we are still going down the route of 'all settlements are notable' then we really do need to define what is a settlement. In truth, I see no merit in deletion - pray explain what harm this page is doing? To be fair, though, this does look a permastub as do the other three 'settlements' that form the Highbury Ward page. I think that a good pragmatic way forward would be to merge all four feeder pages into Highbury Ward, add some details about the ward elections and we would then have a worthwhile page. WP:Before also applies. TerriersFan (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did consider WP:Before, but given the lack of references and lack of apparent notability, I would not be comfortable adding this material to another page. The harm this page does? Well, it just encourages more pages like this to be created, i.e. pages based on unreferenced local knowledge. It also leads to content like Hitchin#Districts_of_Hitchin, a list which I am working through and am faced with a whole bunch of such pages to deal with. Some have merit, but I think for the most part only the current wards and perhaps former distinct villages will survive. This of course leads readers to find these stubs, and perhaps want to create more based on where they live and what they know. Derek Andrews (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Highbury Ward unless someone can come up with a reference about this district. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to go for delete but I'll go along with a merge/redirect. Although there's so little in this article there's hardly anything mergeable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am beginning to think I should have flagged this article as a neologism WP:NEO. Take a look at a street map. Anyway, I have merged what I can from all four feeder pages into Highbury Ward. The other three I have made redirects already. If you really feel that this is worth making a redirect too, then so be it. Derek Andrews (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banquet (Life's Work)[edit]

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

Does not appear to have any notability independent of Life's Work. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Maybe we should merge the article into the Life's Work article if separate notability cannot be found about the individual episode. GVnayR (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As sgeureka says below, the list of episodes already does a good job of summarizing the episodes. There really isn't a need to include individual episode summaries in the main article, is there? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent notability. Basically all of the details are already at List of Life's Work episodes. Moswento (talk | contribs) 10:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' The LoE already does the job in a comparable length of plot description. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star Trek fan productions. The suggestion to merge to Star Trek fan productions stands unchallenged after it was proposed Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: The Pepsi Generation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Insufficient third-party coverage to establish notability. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a shame no-one has been able to cite any reliable sources in the last 5 years, because the film sounds fun! However, though it may have some fame amongst trekkies, the blog-o-sphere and YouTube officianados, it clearly has not been noticed by any reliable news sources, therefore clearly fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (reluctantly) - could not find any reliable sources. Search of newspaper archives turned up nothing. Moswento (talk | contribs) 10:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article mentions (and the first AfD largely turned upon) coverage of this fan film in a August 26, 1996 BBC documentary. Such BBC coverage would constitute coverage in an independent reliable source--our rules do not require online access thereto. See WP:OFFLINE. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect as not notable. Being mentioned in a BBC documentary goes some way toward notability, but we need something to be able to verifiably write an article from, otherwise it's just a line in Star Trek fan productions. That is, we need reliable sources about this film to have an article on it. These do not seem to exist. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think a BBC documentary counts as a reliable source; the question is moreso whether or not the coverage is significant enough for the article, both for notability and verifiability purposes. I don't think a reasonable decision can be made either way without seeing the source, or at least information about how much coverage the source has (e.g. whether it's trivial coverage, or detailed information). 216.174.109.254 (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete relunctantly per Moswento and whoever at IP 216.174.109.254. It looks fun, but there are insufficient sources with significant discussion. The only citations I found were at tv.com. Fanfic can be notable, but this isn't. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 6 years later we're back. This 16-minte short being part of a BBC documentary 8 years after original release is almost convincing per "other attributes", even if a BBC link is no longer available after 24 years. And though certainly cheesy by today's standards, this one was really not too bad for a fan film of 1988.[45][46] It is not too surprisning that this fan-made short did not get a review in The New York Times or anaysis by Roger Ebert, but as this project has some sourcability in books,[47][48][49] if it develops that the BBC screening 8 years after its initial release is somehow not a suitable "re-release or screening", is there no place where it might be mentioned and redirected? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested Star Trek fan productions. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Missed that. I would be okay with a Redirect and partial merge to Star Trek fan productions#Parodies. Would your "delete" up above be the same? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, on second thoughts. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I'm indifferent at the moment because of the BBC doccumentary claim however, I don't know if I've missed something but the BBC doccumentary doesn't seem to appear as a source. If it manages to turn up, then I'll have no problems changing my !vote to a keep. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Well, since no-one seems to be prepared to track down that BBC doccumentary, I'll go along with what most people are saying and support a merge as aside of the lack of RS, it would be a waste to just discard it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion shows that some discussion about this production belongs in Wikipedia's coverage of Trek fandom; accordingly, deletion is the wrong result. I would have no problem with a merge/redirect to Star Trek fan productions#Parodies. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Star Trek fan productions#Parodies per above. There isn't enough coverage in reliable third party sources in order for this subject to meet the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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