< 27 January	29 January >

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

The result was speedy keep. Stifle (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Shamoo[edit]

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

~~No evidence of notability, at least not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG or especially not enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (academics)~~. GrapedApe (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editor in chief of a well-established academic journal, meets WP:PROF#8. Article does need some cleanup. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom withdrawn. I totally missed that in reading the article.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with a leave for speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patoli[edit]

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

All sources that I found for this tribe point back to Wikipedia. Unverifiable. SL93 (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 5 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, Wifione ^Message 08:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable or verifiable. History2007 (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are a verified Multan tribe.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Wifione ^Message 16:41, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 23:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting rationale: Have relisted the article to give time to evaluate the sources presented by Wifione. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was early closure as speedy keep -- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stiction[edit]

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

Dicdef, OR, unsourced beyond dictionaries. Tagged for maintenance for 3+ years with no improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator was perfectly at liberty to improve this article himself. This is an important topic in engineering, easily referenceable from several different fields. The poor writing quality and triviality of some of the examples is no reason to delete the whole topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Yes, that's right, it's impossible to do a starting course without this topic. That it needs improving is undeniable, citations not least. But it's right we have an article on this topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Google scholar finds 829 articles with stiction in their titles; no doubt there are many others that treat it nontrivially but have other titles. Also see e.g. these two examples of books with entire sections about stiction. AfD is not for improvement of articles on obviously encyclopedia-worthy topics. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Stiction, in spite of its apparently silly nsme, is the correct name for a real physical phenomenon that is of interest in science and quite important in engineering. -- The Anome (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Pseudofusulina (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per wide range of sources mentioned above. -- 202.124.72.253 (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Vetter[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of notability. State Trooper killed in the line of duty. Per WP:VICTIM, subject is only known for being a victim of a crime. Wikipedia is additionally not the place for a memorial. Nothing to indicate notability here through topical or general notability guidelines. Sources are merely a bunch of redundant articles about his death and how he died. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, known only for dying. Hairhorn (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No real notability here. Disavian (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, his service to Texas should be honored, but not here. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't really understand why this should be deleted when there's pages for fictional characters of no importance and that aren't even real. Classic example being this: Christie Monteiro. Not to mention so called actors who have appeared in about three films and can hardly be called "famous". I've seen plenty of pages like this. This cop is a real human who died serving his country and what makes it unique is the fact that his death was recorded and is used for the training of new police officers. He's not unknown to people. That's why it should stay, it's not a normal police officer death.RealiityCheck (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RealiityCheck blocked as a sock of the page creator. The existence (or not) of other pages has no bearing on whether this page in particular should stay. Hairhorn (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes GNG. Not unknown. His death set a standard for training of new police.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might pass GNG, but that's no guarantee that an entry is warranted, particularly when it fails the guidelines for people known only for one event. Hairhorn (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a news source, nothing particularly significant about this man apart from his unfortunate death. --He to Hecuba (talk) 23:30, 3 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 already deleted under G4 by Graeme Bartlett. (non-admin closure) — Abhishek ^Talk 03:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Easwar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Rahul Mothiya ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 20:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteShould be a speedy as the previous AfD deletion was earlier today. AllyD (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G4 Pit-yacker (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Adams[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Poorly written article that cites no reliable sources. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~While this gentleman may be of interest from a purely genealogical point of view, nothing stands out in his biography that confers sufficient notability to appear in an encyclopedia.~~ Safiel (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable individual without significant coverage in reliable sources; see #2, "Genealogical entries," at WP:NOTDIRECTORY. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment ~~per Roscelese~~ Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC) I'm prepared now to give the editor more time to improve. I don't think it's at the notability line yet, but it's not hopeless Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is cited, relevant, and just needed a little work. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REQUEST for speedy keep - The article now how 5 valid sources (including two different newspapers) and an external link. This is a founder of the Colony of Connecticut, the City of Hartford and the town of Colchester, Connecticut that was also probably involved in the incident of hiding the Colonial Charter in the Charter Oak tree. He most certainlyl passes the notability sniff test. Thanks & Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose speedy keep, ~~but changing my opinion to weak keep~~ In light of additional material, the individual does seem now to barely squeeze past the notability threshold. However, I would insist the AfD go the full week, unless the nominator and the others who voted delete change their votes. Safiel (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by article creator Hi All, Jeremy Adams is the original founder of Colchester, Connecticut (an American town with more than 15,000 residents, and the 57th best place to live in the country (according to CNN 2005). He was in the original company (the Hooker company) that founded Hartford, Connecticut. He has had a mountain ridge, and a river named after him (in Connecticut). He was the owner of the Inn - which was also used as the court - where the world's first written constitution -- may have been written (sniff, sniff, just kidding hahaha)....Wikipedia was founded upon the notion of collecting all human knowledge" in one place (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c9mRKFy5fU&feature=plcp&context=C368c497UDOEgsToPDskJD61wnFdj33Oz5oidebUfV). I need additional time to improve this article (please), as I just discovered Jeremy a few days ago, and I am certain that this subject can be improved upon... and at some point may even be interesting! (please give me a break, I am brand new to the entire Wikipedia process) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormonfaith101 (talk • contribs) 19:30, January 31, 2012‎ (UTC-5)

Note I formatted and added the unsigned template to the previous comment by the article creator, which was unformatted and unsigned. Safiel (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've done significant work on cleaning and formatting this article. I removed the hobby genealogist's family trees, reformatted gbook refs, and added an infobox. The number of references are significant for an individual that lived 400 years ago. He is the documented founder and proprietor of Hartford and Colchester. I recognize the asserted significance and notability supported through reliable and independent sources. Recommend retaining the article in accordance with the general notability guidelines. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 03:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing from weak keep to keep. Article looks to be in decent shape now and sufficient notability has been shown. Safiel (talk) 23:11, 4 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. Most people would prefer first attempting to rewrite it so that it sounds a bit more meaningful. Sandstein 08:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Business requirements[edit]

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

Partial attempt to explain concerns below - please also see article and form own opinion:
I'm not convinced this article is encyclopaedic or needed - it's clear that "business requirements" is a term that is often used in a business environment (as confirmed by an easy web search). If one takes the (obvious?) definition "business requirements are things a business needs to do or be able to do" is the article needed?.
There are multiple issues arising from lack of references, ie - is this not just a "two word pair" on which an essay has been written?, does an accepted definition even exist? Is this WP:OR or just a well written essay (not actually suitable for an encyclopaedia)?
Use of jargon, and lack of a lead suitable for layman complicate analysis. This really reads like a jargon heavy MBA dissertation - I'm not convinced that this is a topic suitable for encyclopedia (ie why is this not covered in the article Business), or that the coverage is encyclopedic - my view is that this is a "meta article" attempting to define business related jargon.
(rhetorical examples) what about articles on "business technology" "business computing" "business networking", "business relations" etc etc. it creates a never ending list - also see the "see also" section of this article that links to many more articles with similar or related issues - to be honest I see a developing issue with what I would call "business fan cruft" - the danger is the reader is lost in a sea of jargon - that may have already happened. If people agree with my concerns I think a whole raft of similarly written articles may need to be looked at. How do I say bullshit - totally obfuscated article - nominator suggests may not actually be written in english.

Summary - over extensive coverage of common business jargon - either needs deletion, extensive cleanup, merge to much smaller redirect to section of business, or simple wiktionary definition. User:Mddkpp

Delete - an exceptionally badly-written article with a remarkably poor References section - only to company sites, too, so this is probably not only WP:OR but WP:SPAM. The term 'business requirement' is however in fairly wide use in industry; it doesn't just mean "things a business needs to do" but "things a business needs to have done... most likely by a software or other system which we're about to procure". But WP:TNT applies here: blow up and start over would be easiest. If it's needed at all, other than as a mention in Requirement and Requirements analysis. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Improvable. If the topic is notable, there's no justification for deletion. In fact,I do not find it exceptionally badly written. True, the paragraphs are longer than in our usual style based on the manner or elementary school primers, but this is easy to fix; true, and there's too much wordiness and jargon, which is almost as easy to fix. But everything is understandable. The references do need improvement. I agree with Chiswick Chap that the title seems poorly chosen (perhaps it should be Business requirement analysis)( but the material covered does seem like a distinct topic. Once we start deleting for poor writing, there won't be much of Wikipedia remaining. Our way or working is not well suited for elegant style--though better than the present state of this can certainly be achieved. FWIW, the German Wikipedia I am told does delete for low quality writing--but that WP also gladly accepts articles with much lower than our standard of referencing when the sources seem reasonably obvious. If anyone proposes we emulate them, let them first find the qualified authors able to do educated writing based on common sense knowledge that the deWP seems to have available. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for keep+improve. Blow it away and it will just come back in just as ugly a form. There are actually appropriate references for this topic - most notably from IEEE and the engineering world. Page is definitely full of cruft. The problem is that so many people who analyse and design logical relationships, structures and convey this via document writing actually can't :) I propose we design a simpler structure on the BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS talk page and test drive some new/old content combos. Thoughts?Craigwbrown (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, total rewrite OK, I can see which way this is going. For me, the choice is therefore between a total rewrite under this title, with new text and citations, or a merge to Requirement (despite the total muddle in the article - is it about BR or Analysis?) which obviously includes System Requirement as well as Business R. Guess it doesn't matter a lot which way we do it. Let's all have a go at Improve, then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, strongly. If an article requires a total rewrite, deletion probably should be considered; but this requires a rewrite because the underlying idea is so bloody obvious as to have no focus: Business requirements describe what a business needs to be able to do, and any required constraints such as necessary performance, security, or safety that apply at the business level. Being unconstrained by an actual subject to be about, the prose can expand by the leisure and vocabulary of the originating editor until it reaches the stage where no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it, and that's what we have here:
- Stakeholders who help define requirements come in early, and later hand over to the project development teams who build the business system; others test and evaluate final deployed system or working solution. Clarity requires traceability of requirements, making necessary a well administered process to control the process of determining business requirements. This regularises the process, determining which template to use, determining to who fills what section, and who modified next and released which version.
- To address these challenges, early stage stakeholder buy-in achieved through demonstration of prototypes and joint working. Stakeholder workshops are common, either as facilitated sessions or simple huddled discussions help in achieving consensus, especially for sensitive business requirements and where there is potential conflict of interest. Complexity of a business process is a factor of such interest conflicts among stakeholders or due to an inherently complex business process, such as one where there is much specialized knowledge required to comprehend legal or regulatory requirements, internal company wide guidelines such as branding, corporate commitments to social responsibility, and the like.

It wanders from flower to flower, dribbling abstract nouns and glittering generalities as it goes, without ever settling in one place. News searches find results for "business requirements", of course; different businesses require many things. But nothing suggests that "business requirements" is an appropriate or even possible standalone subject for an article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly willing to rewrite those two paragraphs so it matches your preferred style of prose, or at least as close as my ordinary style can get--I haven't the least difficulties in understanding; a little attention can reduce jargon to more standard English, but to some extent jargon is inevitable for discussing subjects which are generally discussed in that style--I dislike some of the contemporary business vocabulary as much as you do, but it's the vocabulary used in that segment of the RW.. To help me in rewriting, I'm curious what phrase you are unable to comprehend. (I will admit some subjects defeat me: I am unable to understand the articles on cricket in Wikipedia, and I can only understand the ones on baseball because I was brought up watching it.) DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If either of those paragraphs mean anything more than "hold meetings, then pass off the project to the people who will actually do the work, all while taking notes" go ahead. But if that's the gist of it, I still think it's both trivial, and deceptive because it seeks to give self-importance to this triviality. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I chose this article to AfD because it seemed at least a potential "real article" - I've already "prodded" many lesser articles, and there still are many left - eg Knowledge process outsourcing, Value process management, Agent-based computational finance, Human interaction management, Business process improvement, Business process illustration, Value grid - that have similar or different issues - it's a random list - some are better than others - one issue here is the extent of it - please start at Category:Business and browse downwards - maybe 25% or more of the articles have serious issues? And I'd estimate 10% might fail a WP:PROD, more an AfD - that's a problem.

One option (in many cases) would be to delete the text and convert to redirects a lot of these to a List of business terms and jargon - with minimal one line definitions or links.

There is a wide range eg consider the obviously notable article Customer satisfaction that needs work, to the article "Consumer confusion" which I am not sure needs to exist

What is the official way to deal with such a large number of articles needing improvement or deletion?Mddkpp (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An honest question. I fear the proper answer is "one at a time, and very carefully", because topics like these do in fact often have their own "literature" - often textbooks, conferences, white papers, and whole schools of both industrialists and academics beavering away at improving the state-of-the-art. Such is certainly true of requirements engineering. I hesitate here because jargon changes quickly, but perhaps if I just say that "requirement" was fashionable and now is not; that people used to say "Functional Requirements" meaning requirements of all kinds at a level higher than design; now they don't; people then said "User Requirements", meaning the same thing; then a few said "Stakeholder Requirements" or "Business/User Requirements", and now (presto!) some say "Business Requirements", and guess what, it's mainly the same thing again. Worst is, each time the books and conferences and research of the previous mob are discarded, and a new lot starts over making the same mistakes. A business requirement is a need felt by a business for, usually, a bit of software, to fix some problem or other. I'm sorry that Smerdis (whose opinion I rate very highly) thinks this is all dross - the article as it stands is, but the subject is not. Sorry if TLDR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A large part of the problem, IMO, is that the field tends to re-invent the wheel, or rather to repackage the same old wheel under a new name to enable a claim that the latest model does so much more than its forerunners. I did look through some search results, mostly Google Books and Scholar, and most results seemed to me to be adventitious. I was unable to determine whether there was a clear distinction between "business requirements" and supply chain management, as suggested by one[7]; or whether it instead related to business intelligence or business analytics, as suggested by another.[8] I'll wager that none of those just-linked phrases are anywhere near as red as they ought to be, either. I'll wager all of them will give you a headache if you try to read them, too. (And finally, I'll wager that all of them are written from a viewpoint that will inevitably suggest that computers and software are vital and central to the subject at hand. This is obviously not true, and seems parochial, our inherent biases at work.) My preference would be to clear much of them away, myself, for the simple reason that the prose they're written in is not built to inform. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that this is an example of how not to write a dictionary - At a simple level - if you want to be in business selling apples your business requirements include - having apples to sell, having a shop to sell them from, having some bags to put them in, having change, having staff to do the selling etc etc - a business requirement document is a list of the things I just mentioned. A business analyst writes the list. Yes we probably need a reliable definition including a modern scoping, but I get the feeling all the words in the article are trying to hide an inherent lack of need for any article at all. (Supply chain management is getting the apples delivered by the way)

To support a stand alone article I'd would need to see evidence that there is anything needed other than a definition of the 'jargon' in a list of business jargon terms. I think the admission above by Chiswick Chap that the term is nebulous (or fragmented or whatever they actually said) suggests this is not a "stand alone" encyclopedic topicMddkpp (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with chiswic chap that TLC is needed - but before that a haircut and a de-louse please.Mddkpp (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first step, I think, would be to identify a set of core topics that are needed articles, and make sure they are in English, and avoid referring to "processes", "systems", or "stakeholders". Articles that pop up outside the core group can then be redirected to them. My grave suspicion is that most of these unintelligible articles on these things are coatrack spam, designed to increase the visibility of buzzwords. At any rate, I am fairly certain that "business requirements" is not one of the core terms or needed articles. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smerdis, what words would you substitute for "systems" or "processes". There are synonym phrases to say in in a wordier fashion, such as "inter-related groups of procedures", but they are not more precise. I dislike "stakeholders,", but again, the nearest equivalent is "those having an interest or concern in the matter". Have you any single word that expresses exactly the same meaning? The business world has no need to Wikipedia to increase the visibility of the most common buzzwords. That's not what coatrack means--go look at that page you cite. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with those words in a nutshell. They overgeneralize; they ignore the aspects of business that do belong in an encyclopedia, like the details of manufacturing, equipment, and raw materials, or the unique aspects of individual firms' corporate governance. (And I do want intelligible articles to be written on these aspects of business.) And my impression is that most articles on vague management theories, of the sort that are presented at the system/process/stakeholder level of abstraction, would appear to be trivial variants on each other. The different names that are applied to them strike me as attempts at branding rather than attempts at drawing meaningful distinctions; and if the presentation is at that level of abstraction it becomes more difficult to tell whether they are or not. This is why I tend to believe that vaguely worded articles on management subjects strike me as likely being coatrack spam. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Business requirements are a topic unto themselves. The quality of the article isn't in such a state that it is unusable. Sources abound. For example this. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to Business requirements (software development), and clean up accordingly. This is not an article about business requirements in general, it is in fact about business requirements within SDLC (see, for example, overview section). In SDLC world, all these things start to make sense and are indeed well-known (enough to pass WP:N with flying colors). Ipsign (talk) 13:16, 4 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. A redirect to Taiwan, if wanted, can be created separately. Fram (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan island group[edit]

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

As a Taiwanese editor, I have never heard of this term. Google ("Taiwan island group", "台灣群島", "台灣島群") does not turn up significant usage of the phrase as a formal, well-defined geographical term in reliable sources. wctaiwan (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested in the article, neither 島羣 or 羣島 is used. 諸島 is used instead. 203.145.92.208 (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never heard of it either, which is why I thought it was a hoax. Google it, turns up nothing. I suggest it be redirected to List of islands of the Republic of China.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So what is the name of this island group then? You opposed Taiwan Islands before. Shall we try Taiwan Archipelago next? What has to be done that you stop denying the existing of an island group around Taiwan Island? @"Google it, turns up nothing." - 88000 results = 0 results? Again problems with basic maths? I ask this because you already redirected Taiwan island group to Taiwan [9], but the latter is about ONE island as the intro prominently explains. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as passing references to the term can be found but nothing that indicates that it is a notable individual concept as opposed to the wording that individual writers happened to choose to describe the geography of the area. Kansan (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Taiwan islands are not notable? Why treat them differently compared with others in Category:Archipelagoes of the Pacific Ocean? Please think again why this island group should not have an article. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, no independent notability. Individual islands of note, such as Orchid Island and Green Island, have their own articles. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think these islands are not "notable" - whatever that means - as opposed to the Spratly Islands or the Matsu Islands? Huayu-Huayu (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asserted that they have no independent notability simply because I can't find a significant number of reliable sources discussing them as an 'island group'. Notability isn't a matter of whether you or I think something is important or not; it's whether there are significant numbers of reliable sources referring to the topic at hand. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dr. Blofeld and nom. GotR ^Talk 04:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What has to be done that you stop denying the existing of an island group around Taiwan Island? Huayu-Huayu (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. All archipelagos should have their own article. Other island groups already have their own articles, e.g. Spratly Islands, Matsu Islands, Paracel Islands. Find more at Category:Archipelagoes of the Pacific Ocean. RENAME if you like. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The islands are listed at List of islands of the Republic of China#Taiwan. And per User:Nwlaw63, who pointed out that all the notable islands have their own articles. CityO fSilver 17:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably ~~Rename and restructure~~ -- If we do not have one already there should be room in WP for an article with a title something like Islands of Taiwan (which currently redirects to the article we are discussing) or Island possessons of Taiwan, providing a greater overview than the list at List of islands of the Republic of China can do. The WP consensus is that we should refer to the polity officially known as the Republic of China as "Taiwan". This implies a mass rename for exisitng articles and categories using RoC. However, perhaps it may be better for the list article to be expanded into something more substantial, with one of the names suggested and the present artile made a redirect to it. Note -- I came here because Huayu-Huayu asked me to, but (as will be seen) I am expressing my own view, not merely supporting his. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Revoted below -- but to much the same effect. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not about all islands of Taiwan!!! You don't understand the topic at all!!! Huayu-Huayu (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If you are so passionate about keeping this article, I recommend you find a bunch of reliable sources referring to 'Taiwan Island Group', because right now the lack of such sources is what may have the article deleted. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Don't delete. Or else merge into and redirect to Taiwan (island). 203.145.92.175 (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article significantly expanded. 203.145.92.175 (talk) 01:56, 27 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) 20:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting due to the late changes to the article. I would note that none of the additions were referenced however. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note This AfD has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_for_WP:Identifiability. Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Taiwan and redirect There should never have been an AfD citing the title as a reason. Purely desctriptive titles are fine if there is no common name. All that is needed is an identifiable topic dealt with as such in secondary sources, e.g. geography books with a chapter on the subject. There does not need to be a common name. I'm proposing merging as there doesn't seem to be enough to have a separate article on the subject. And merges should not be done by AfD either except in extreme circumstances. So the merge is really keep and I think a merge discussion should be started. Dmcq (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this AfD because to my knowledge (and from what I've seen on Google), there is no widely recognised grouping of Taiwan and the surrounding islands--Should Kinmen and Matsu be included? Should Penghu be included? What about Diaoyutai Islands? (The article answers those, but I do not feel it is adequately sourced for what would be a fairly major topic.) The title isn't the issue, the issue is that (as far as I know) the concept is ill-defined and isn't supported by usage in reliable sources. List of islands of the Republic of China serves a large part of the article's purpose, and would be far less disputed. wctaiwan (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suppose it takes time for sources to be added. That list doesn't answer these questions, although it implicitly does by having separate sections for the different groups of islands, namely, Taiwan, Quemoy, Matsu, Wuchiu, Pratas, and Itu Aba. 203.145.92.208 (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Compare this with Zanzibar Archipelago, Zanzibar and Unguja (the main island that is also known as Zanzibar). 203.145.92.208 (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CityO fSilver 21:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has been open for a week, and no sources have been added. CMD (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- New sources are added throughout the article. 203.145.92.173 (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to List of islands of the Republic of China. Wasn't it clear first time?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename' 147.8.232.140 (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cross Wiki-Spam (the same in jp, de and at least nl) of chinese nationalist POV by an IP from PRC. This is not a common or approved geographical term. Weissbier (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Doesn't look particularly "nationalist" to me. Anyway, I noticed that the German version of this article was deleted as "nationalist OR", and invited the deleting admin over there to come and join this discussion. Der yck C. 21:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and rename if necessary. The article's subject certainly has significant RS coverage in Chinese and Japanese as "台灣諸島" (see footnotes of the article, and ja:台湾諸島). We don't need to delete another article for technicalities regarding the article name. Redirection to List of islands of the Republic of China is, though intuitive, not a correct outcome, because they do not refer to exactly the same group of islands. Der yck C. 21:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources given are quite old: The Japanese one dates from when Taiwan was annexed to the Empire of Japan, during which time it would have made sense to refer to "the Islands of Taiwan," which is the literal meaning of "台灣諸島" in Chinese (and I suspect in Japanese as well). I don't think the grouping itself (not just the title) is a current or widely recognised concept. wctaiwan (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read the term is still used among the academia from within the Republic of China in the 2000s. For example 日本的東海政策, p.21 and 國防科技概論-全民國防教育補充教材, p.22. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the first document, "台灣諸島" refers literally to "the various islands of Taiwan". The second one is a dead link, so I can't check. wctaiwan (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

列島, 諸島 and 羣島 all mean isles, islands or archipelago. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

´Delete as strongly POVious and/or nonsense. --Matthiasb (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's so POVious(?) and nonsense? 116.49.130.45 (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider to read Island group. Archipelagos are not created by grouping islands in the same country but they're geographically grouped together. So for instance there are Aegean Islands, no matter wether they're turkish or greek. There's no Greek Islands Group or a Turkish Islands Group. Concerncing the RoC we have the big island of Taiwan and several isolated islands in the area as well as Kinmen, the Spratly Islands, the Matsu Islands, the Pratas Islands and the Pescadores. Most of all, the sources cited in the article lack on reliability or are otherwise irrelevant. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. That's why this article doesn't cover Kinmen, the Spratly Islands, the Pratas Islands and the Matsu Islands. They aren't part of this archipelago just because they are part of the Republic of China. Similarly, we don't define the Senkaku Islands as part of the geographical Ryukyu Islands just because it's politically part of the Okinawa Prefecture. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Deryck C. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, probably renamed. I consider that List of islands of the Republic of China (which covers the same ground) should be merged with this article (or vice versa). I would suggest that the merged article should be called Islands of Taiwan. WP has reached a consensus that WP will refer to the polity offically called the Republic of China as "Taiwan", which is strictly the name of its (overwhelmingly) largest island. Any discrepancy in scope between the two articles can be resolved by pruning or expanding so that they cover exactly the same material. It is a regret to me that so many of the new references are in Chinese. This may be necessary, but could these at least be translated?Peterkingiron (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've translated the Chinese and Japanese language titles for the scrutiny of other editors. Der yck C. 12:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read from the sources cited in the article, it doesn't cover all the islands of the ROC. The count (15 or 79, depending on whether the Pescadores are included) reveals that Quemoy, Matsu, the Pratas, and so on, aren't covered. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further, some of the Japanese islands in the Pacific Ocean, such as Okinotori-shima and Ogasawara-gunto, aren't part of the Japanese Archipelago, although part of Japan. Quemoy, Itu Aba aren't part of the Taiwanese Archipelago per se. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let's look at another set of islands in the same island chain. We got articles on Japan, the Japanese Archipelago, the Home Islands, Honshu, and a List of islands of Japan. All these are different from each other. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CityO fSilver 23:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It reads "While perhaps a legitimate response, the automatic dismissal of such a statement is just as lacking in rationale and thus the second user has provided no reason to delete the article.", "But such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation." and "In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.". 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. 1.65.157.174 (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was moved to a more proper title a few days ago. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the new title. 202.64.29.231 (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nomination and above. 202.189.108.245 (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 59.188.42.63 (talk) 08:58, 7 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. Nominator withdrew the nomination. No arguments to delete the article have been presented, other than by the nominator. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Tarrant[edit]

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

Not notable despite a long TV run. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, He had a major role in one of the most popular programmes on British television for twelve years, and he has also had stage roles that have received plenty of coverage:[10], [11], [12], [13], [14].--Michig (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the criteria, actors have to have had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." We have a long run of The Bill admittedly but apart from that it is just a play about a football manager and a more minor part in The Caretaker. Not sure this amounts to significant multiple roles? (There must be other minor roles no doubt) Philafrenzy (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what NACTOR says. It states that an actor who has had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" is likely to be notable. It doesn't follow that any actor that hasn't is not notable, even assuming that that's the case here. Common sense should indicate that an actor who has played a major part in a top-rating television programme over a period of years is going to be considered sufficiently notable to have an article here.--Michig (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to have an article about every actor that has had a run in a TV series? The bar is set too low on these people, they are just jobbing actors. We don't have an article about every carpenter that goes to work every day, every accountant or office worker just doing their jobs. There has to be something special about them other than being on TV surely? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actors in major television series are known to the general public and of interest to the general public. Carpenters are not. Are we going to have articles on every actor who has had a major role over several years in one of the most-watched television series in a given country? Of course we are. And why does one of his plays being "Just about a football manager" make that less worthy of consideration? It was the subject of several newspaper articles and also featured on television news. And did you look at the article about the production of The Caretaker that he appeared in? There are three actors listed in the cast, with Colin Tarrant listed first, so how is that a 'minor part'?--Michig (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my meaning was that apart from The Bill it was just two things in the quoted refs, not just about a football manager, but I will concede the point about The Caretaker, nonetheless we just have averagely good actor performing in a variety of roles over his lifetime, some of which happen to be on TV. I don't see what is special about that but I won't oppose retention further since you feel he is so notable. I assume that you will be adding all this in to the article in due course? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Colin Tarrant (who died today) the only one of The Bill cast being considered for deletion? There are several on there not being considered deletion who have only had a short/minor role in the series and haven't done anything else before or since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.230.151 (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems he died recently, presumably that was why the article was reinstated but that info had not been added to the article until about an hour ago. I think the manner and coverage of his death combined with the other things now definitely makes this one a keep so I withdraw the deletion nomination. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rainpower[edit]

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

Not notable and no references to assert notability. Shrike (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a notable company in the fast-growing area of renewable energy commercialization. Reliable sources, such as this, are available. Johnfos (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the article needs additional references, there are enough search results for WP:CORP. Beagel (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Zach Slater. And delete. Redirect target can be changed as desired. Sandstein 08:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Cambias[edit]

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

This article is written like a biography of a fictional character, and WP:PLOT may take this article so seriously. After reading this character's profile, this character lasted for two years, and no impact from this character was made. No books that cover this character were made, no news about him were made, and no academic researches about him were made. Even if the previously deleted revisions have been restored after copyright issues were resolved, there is no study about him. He may have been significant as the son of Zach Slater, but he had done other malicious things to people that may not justify merger to "Zach Slater". No one, however, for five years after his death has taken him so seriously. Plus, he is different from James Scott, the portrayer. DGG may have good valid analyses on fictional characters, but this case is different. James Scott's interview about this character won't hold up water, and neither do soap recaps. George Ho (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wholly unreferenced to any sources and consisting wholly of WP:PLOT. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zach Slater or List of All My Children characters. That is what should have been done. The character being different than his portrayer is not even remotely relevant. Plenty of, if not most, actors are different than their characters. Flyer22 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know... if many articles of non-notable characters are gone, then I'm planning to nominate the list for AFD. That list has too many problems, yet I can't PROD it because... there is too much praise for keeping it, especially from you. Ethan has done many things that justifies against merging or redirecting to Zach Slater. In fact, Ethan is more than Zach's son; he had a relationship with Kendall Hart and done many bad things to people significantly, yet no academic or critic discusses him. Remember: this article was deleted by PROD, and someone created a content that infringed copyrights. Fortunately, the administrator restored non-infringing revisions. --George Ho (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your arguments. But you're telling me that once you have succeeded in deleting all the All My Children character articles you perceive to be non-notable, you are then going to nominate the All My Children characters list for deletion? Well, that'll only help to validate to a lot of people that your true intention is to rid Wikipedia of all soap opera character articles. I have not praised that character list whatsoever! I have said that non-notable characters should be redirected there. Why? Because doing so is standard procedure when it comes to characters that cannot have a stand-alone article. I have said that character lists, full of non-notable characters or characters without a lot of history, is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. Shall I point you to examples? Ethan "having done too much" has absolutely nothing to do with redirecting him to either of the articles I mentioned. Adequate information can be covered about him in either article, and soap opera critics have discussed him. Soap opera critics have discussed every soap opera character featured on the soap opera they are discussing. You continue to display to me that you need more mentoring on AfDs, and that you need to try harder to hold back on the attitude when someone criticizes your choice or choices. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 20 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:11, 19 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) 17:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second relisting due to no participation at all during the first relist period. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of All My Children characters. No sourced content to be merged. --Michig (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources available to WP:verify notability or add anything substantial beyond a WP:PLOT summary, which is what Wikipedia is not. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to character list as noted above. Claims that content about a recurring character on a nationally broadcast television series is unverifiable are simply incorrect, as obviously the series itself is a reliable source for its own content. Character lists are necessary for any TV series article, and when the series is long-running and/or has a large ensemble cast, the size of such a list alone merits splitting it from the parent article. postdlf (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation, and redirect to List of All My Children characters. Character is already initially covered on the list. Since there is no current sourcing for the article, there is no WP:V verifiable material to be considered for merging. Since wp:notability and improved sourcing are possible, no prejudice to recreation. Unscintillating (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of current sourcing ≠ unverifiable. Nor do we have a practice of deleting material just because it is unsourced at present outside of WP:BLP concerns. postdlf (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article has been listed at AfD since January 11 and currently has zero sources. As per WP:BURDEN within WP:V, any challenged material without sourcing can be deleted. In this case, that is all of the content in the article. And WP:Deletion policy lists WP:V as one of the reasons to delete articles. WP:Deletion policy "is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Perhaps the previous comment has to do with WP:NRVE, in which evidence of sources is sufficient to establish notability, but the sources themselves do not actually need to be known. Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you "challenging" it because you actually have good reason to think it is incorrect, or are you "challenging" it purely because it is unsourced at present? postdlf (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I could not find anything that verifies this topic's notability. I searched him in Google News and Soap Opera Digest; I found no significant real-world coverage, i.e. reception, reaction, and/or development. I don't treat fictional element as if it were merely fictional. Sam and Diane has real-world coverage; Ethan Cambias rarely does at trivial (not significant) best or never does at all. --George Ho (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        We were talking about verifiability, not notability. Any main or recurring character is an element of the notable TV series topic that should be covered to some extent, even if only in a list of characters from that series. postdlf (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not challenging the material, I'm supporting a legitimate challenge that has existed since October 2011. Something I don't understand is why you as an administrator seem to be saying that it is our "practice" to ignore the policy, when the policy is marked, "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Why do you want me to answer a question that is only relevant if I agree that we can ignore policy? Do you agree that it is policy-based and reasonable as per WP:BURDEN that I remove all of the prose of this article and replace it with the text for Ethan Cambias from List of All My Children characters? Unscintillating (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If you think the material should be removed under WP:BURDEN, then you are "challenging" it, and I asked you whether you are challenging it because you actually have good reason to think it is incorrect, or are you challenging it purely because it presently lacks sources? I can guarantee you that if you went around deleting all material you saw that currently lacked sources just because it was unsourced, you'd have some problems. postdlf (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems reasonable to review the WP:BURDEN policy. Here is the relevant text from WP:V. Again, this policy is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Note the footnote from Jimbo Wales that says that unsourced material should be aggressively removed, and that this is true of all unsourced information. The first subsection defines "challenge", and the second subsection is the one about removing the material. The source for this material is Wikipedia:Verifiability#When_a_reliable_source_is_required.

[policy statement elided, due to objection]

Unscintillating (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How you think that is responsive to my question is beyond me, and it's more than a little obnoxious to flood a discussion with a big block of policy text as if that constitutes discourse. My question, which you still haven't answered, is about how you are interpreting "challenge", which the policy text itself doesn't answer (no, it doesn't define "challenge"), and you are also ignoring the reasonable qualifiers in both the policy language ("Whether and how quickly this should happen...") and in Jimbo's quote ("Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information") to somehow read in a justification for removing any presently unsourced material just because it is unsourced. See also WP:WIKILAWYERING. Never mind the fact that the TV series is itself a source for its own content, but whatever. postdlf (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've lived with a person that had a JD degree, we never had conversations suddenly escalate like this. IMO, the material was challenged on 1 October 2011 by AwamerT. If the admin will look back he/she will see that in response to the question I asked a question, and I also asked another question, one intended to reduce our differences—but the response IMO has been IDHT. The only measure/metric the admin has offered in how to use this WP:BURDEN policy is that editors that do so can expect to "have some problems". "obnoxious" "no" "as if that constitutes discourse" "flood" "you are...ignoring", "Wikilawyering", how are these words improving the encyclopedia? There is a connection here that those words are a response to a review of a Wikipedia policy. I had no intention to offend or do anything other than have a collegial discussion here. I have removed the policy statement due to the objection. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this AFD doesn't turn into a battle: see WP:BATTLEFIELD. --George Ho (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See File:Ethan and Simone.jpg, where the nominator has filed to get the picture from this article deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- off-topic, but You haven't explained why you added the non-free image in one list; even so, this use may also violate WP:NFLISTS, unless you explain why it doesn't violate it. --George Ho (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added the picture to a potential redirect target so that the article could be deleted without concern about losing a part that is useful. Unscintillating (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Still, per WP:non-free use rationale guideline, you must add a rationale. You can't just save an image from deletion; in fact, you must explain to readers the reason the image is used in each separate article --George Ho (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The history shows that the nominator of this AfD has twice nominated to get this image speedy deleted on the current article, (here is one diff), and each time been refused, although in both cases the admin explanations are missing. This looks like an issue between the nominator and the admins. There is also an apparently incorrect deletion of the picture that was in this article on 3 September 2011, which was deleted on 1 September as follows:

2011-09-01T17:36:08 After Midnight (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Ethan Cambias (C).jpg" ‎ (F5: Unused non-free media file for more than 7 days)

Unscintillating (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at revisions: I nominated for deletion many times because the rationale was meant for Simone Torres article, not Ethan Cambias, but I couldn't said the same reason until now because I feared that I might offend soap fans, and back then I was not aware about other templates, so I chose what I chose. As for nominating an image as "orphaned", that's a different story. Think what you want, but I don't know if I've convinced you that I'm honest here. See history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ethan_and_Simone.jpg&action=history. --George Ho (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I also agree with the redirect (after the deletion) going to Zach Slater. Unscintillating (talk) 15:47, 4 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 keep (nominator withdrew; non-admin closure). St Anselm (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul E. Toms[edit]

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

Author and pastor with no evidence of notability. Can find nothing of note from news sources of Google Scholar. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he headed two of the largest evangelical associations in the U.S., P.S. Church and has published.Swampyank (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as President of the NAE. I don't know why this was nominated. St Anselm (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Swampyank and StAnselm. -- 202.124.73.227 (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per User:StAnselm. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this in haste and is seems notability has been established. I therefore withdraw this nomination. Thanks to those pointed out what I'd missed. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Refocus and move. There is consensus that as a biography, this lacks notability, but the farmhouse is found to be notable. I am moving it to Abraham Brian farm house for now per Diego's suggestion, but no consensus for any particular name can be found in this AfD, so don't take this closure as an argument not to move anywhere else.Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Bryan[edit]

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

Fails to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. Apparently the only reason this article was created was that the subject owned a farm on a Civil War battlefield. Nothing else to distinguish him from any other farmer on other ACW battlefields. Wild Wolf (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree its an interesting story but it doesn't seem to meet notibility. --Kumioko (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of countless millions whose property was destroyed by war. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why the aticle creator thought this was a notable person I'll never know. Millions of farmers had armies fight over their land throughout history. This person is no more notable than any of the rest. Mad Man American (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete He isn't relevant, delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundersport (talk • contribs) 16:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person. 67.239.100.244 (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Rename to Abraham Brian Farm House. A quick search at Google Scholar for "Abraham Brian" "Battle of Gettysburg" returns at least four peer-reviewed articles [15],[16],[17],[18] and two books [19],[20] mentioning the man in the context of the battle, proving that the story is notable per wp:GNG. If the problem per nom. is that it doesn't meet biography guidelines, change the focus of the article to the story or merge it into Battle of Gettysburg#Aftermath per wp:PRESERVE. Diego (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at [21], [22], [23], [24]... the house and story are notable, more than the man's whole biography. This article needs a change in focus, not a deletion. Diego (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. How does it get done?--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already changed the article's content to reflect the new direction, but the AfD should be closed (and the article kept) before the actual rename can take place. Diego (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite convinced that simply changing the focus of the article be an improvement. I can check the books I have on the battle but as I recall, the property played only a minor role in the battle, with the soldiers of either side using the structures as cover. There were several buildings on the southern edge of Gettysburg which were used for the same purpose, as were several buildings at Fredericksburg (and probably hundreds of buildings in other battles throughout history). Unless control of the Bryan property affected the battle in a vital way (and I haven't recalled coming across anything which suggests this), I'd say that this article should still be deleted or merged into the aftermath section of the battle article. Wild Wolf (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why being noted for affecting people lives should be less notable that being noted for affecting the course of the battle??? Diego (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm sure that there must have been dozens if not hundreds of farmers who had their property damaged or destroyed during the Civil War (in addition to the thousands of other farmers in other wars throughout history). The question I have about this article is what makes this particular farmer any more notable or significant than any other farmer who had his property damaged during war. Wild Wolf (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is just the point, it doesn't matter what you think about this person and his house's notability, what matters is if the topic attracts the attention of reliable sources. Claiming that there were other poor farmers hurt by war is a proof by assertion for which no evidence is presented. And the point is that this poor farmer and his house for whatever reason have attracted attention for close to 150 years. Unscintillating (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll admit that there are sources which discuss this particular person and this particular property. But the reason I started this deletion proposal is that the Bryan property did not play a vital role in the battle. I have seen nothing either in the rewriten article or in this discussion which suggests that possession of the farm was vital for either army to win the battle. Perhaps someone can direct me to the book and/or website which argues this point. (And I can recall two books which points to farmers on other battlefields which suffered structural or crop damage during ACW battles: Stephen W. Sears' Landscape Turned Red: The Battle of Antietam and Robert K. Krick's Conquering the Valley: Stonewall Jackson at Port Republic. Given the frequency that Civil War armies fought on farmland, I find it hard to believe that Bryan is the only farmer to suffer loss during a battle. Again, I must ask what makes this particular property more notable than any other farmer.) Wild Wolf (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Q:"What makes this particular property more notable than any other farmer?" A:"That there are sources which discuss this particular person and this particular property". Being relevant to the battle outcome has nothing to do with this article's existence, since notability is not inherited. Notability at Wikipedia is established by direct coverage of the topic, not by its significance or relation with a different notable topic (though that significance can be used as a heuristic to determine if those sources are likely to exist).Diego (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted in the light of the late suggestion that the article should be refocused. Please ensure this is done within the duration of the next listing to prevent the article from being deleted.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep Rename Abraham Bryan Farm House to change focus from the owner to the building in the battle, per suggestion by Diego (talk above.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note new subsection just added:

Brady photo and the 1985 rediscovery of biaxially tapered shakes roofing
Matthew Brady photographed the house shortly after the Battle of Gettysburg. In 1985, the photograph led to the rediscovery of a roofing technique used in Germanic settlements up to the end of the 1800s. Initially believed to be clay tiles, a closer examination of the photograph determined the roofing to be the so-called biaxially tapered shakes. Further analysis of 19th-century photos found 16 additional such roofs around the Gettysburg area.[4]

Comment This source is further evidence that the topic is notable beyond the effects on victims of the battle, and it's one more step in the direction of refocusing the topic. See also [25],[26] Diego (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Brian House as per refocus. Unscintillating (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gettysburg National Military Park, or delete as second option. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to mention which policy-based argument supports your !vote? Diego (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The farm house seems notable. Just rename the article to Abraham Bryan farmhouse, or whatever its official name is. It says in the article it is a monument. If officially recognized as such, then its automatically notable as all national monuments are. The coverage alone though is sufficient. Dream Focus 22:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being recognised as a "monument" by the owner of the land does not convey notability. Mt king ^(edits) 07:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a person he does not appear to be notable, as a building notability is not shown, is not listed on National Register of Historic Places but rather as a Classified Structures so other sources are needed to demonstrate notability are needed. Mt king ^(edits) 07:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have other sources. Have you analyzed them? Diego (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move as per Diego and Dream Focus. The topic is somewhat notable, and this is an interesting, sourced little tidbit of knowledge that ought to have a small place on Wikipedia. DCItalk 04:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as the farm house at least for now. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 4 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. Consensus is that the content should be kept. Whether that is best done by merger can be resolved outside of this AfD.--Kubigula (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aria (storage engine)[edit]

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

I found nothing to show notability for this software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article states this is the main storage engine for MariaDB. If you do not believe this is independently notable the common sense approach would be to (propose to) merge this into MariaDB. —Ruud 20:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to MariaDB. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:29, 26 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per Ruud. Failing notability without the material being worthless = a merge. Unscintillating (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge and keep a redirect. Notability RS: 3 books mention this engine (it was known as "maria" some time ago). High performance MySQL page 24, MySQL Administrator's Bible page301-302 (this book has something about maria on other pages too), Expert PHP and MySQL
merge into MariaDB. Ipsign (talk) 13:31, 4 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. Feel free to ask me for a copy of the deleted content if you want to perform a merge. Der yck C. 12:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OpenXMA[edit]

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

I found no notability. This software fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to online banking: banking protocols are mainly of technical interest and as lacking general interest part don't normally deserve separate articles. Though, information about available protocols may be of interest to readers looking for online banking information. I think the best way would be to create a subsection of the target article listing the available online banking protocols and tools and land the short description of OpenXMA (with history information stripped) there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm seeing zero independent coverage of this. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:31, 26 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and no independent coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:36, 8 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yue Huang[edit]

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

A complete mess of an article — and, as a result of it being a complete mess, I can't discern any notability from therein. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- N.B. and FWIW it's not mess anymore, it just needed some formatting. Herostratus (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 15 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Keep Not a lot to go on really. He's an artist and has exhibited at "China's National Art Gallery" which I also can't find much info on. They could be referring to National Art Museum of China. Either way the sources provided don't really establish notability and I can't find much online, nothing really to search on in Chinese either. Pol430 talk to me 18:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Driling down into the sources, it's apparent that "China's National Art Gallery" is the National Art Museum of China. Herostratus (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think. It's tough and I'm not sure about this. He has exhibited at the National Art Museum of China, albeit possibly at a sub-institution called the National Academy of Painting (not clear on this). And twice, although we only have refs for one. And these were full exhibitions under his name. According to this, Steven C. Rockefeller, Jr. who has all the taste that money can buy acquired one his pictures for the Rockefeller Family Collection, whatever I'm not sure what that is but I think it's a highly notable private collection which interacts with high-end museums and so forth. So he's not just some mook. WP:ARTIST is awfully strict, except for the vague first clause which allows for "The person is regarded as an important figure" whatever that means, whether he is regarded as an important figure I don't know but I don't find much evidence of it, or any real evidence of him on the web right off (Yue Huang is a common name I guess). So I dunno. But the National Art Museum of China is a really really important venue, #1 in China I think, and China is a huge country with a tremendous artistic history, so two exhibitions there devoted solely to a person is a probably a pretty big achievement. Herostratus (talk) 14:53, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm with Herostratus here. We must not set the bar so high for artists who not part of the North American and European art circles that it is almost impossible for them to get in otherwise. Being recognised at a national level in China is a much bigger deal than in other places because of its sheer size. He seems to me to meet the spirit of WP:ARTIST. --AJHingston (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the GNG based on the sources listed at the page. However, I have absolutely no understanding of Chinese, so I cannot verify. The Steve 06:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've switched to weak keep per Herostratus' rationale. Huang is indeed a very common surname, his name in chinese is written 黄月 (according to the sources). I'm not sure if this is his real name or a professional name. Although the info about the Rockefeller purchase is good, the source is a blog which are not normally considered WP:RS. However, I'm willing to accept that his exhibitions at 中国国家画院 meet point one of WP:ARTIST. Pol430 talk to me 14:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kalia, Pakistan[edit]

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

I found nothing to verify these two sentences. Fails WP:V. SL93 (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 14 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:12, 21 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find any mention either. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prison-Ashram Project[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:ORG. I hoped to find information that would pass criteria at WP:NGO, but I found very little in-depth coverage by solidly reliable sources, and lots of mentions in articles by interrelated nonprofits that struck me as promotional. The "sister project" that might make this group international fails to bring this separately named and administered organization closer to notability. Nothing about this subject's coverage or activities easily satisfies WP:BASIC or WP:ORG. JFHJr (㊟) 07:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references to sources that have no connection to Prison-Ashram Project or its parent organization, Human Kindness Foundation. I believe this satisfies the "significant coverage" guideline. There are more sources available, but I don't want to clutter up the article just to add more sources. If specific sources that I've added seem too closely related to Prison-Ashram Project, I will replace them with others, so if the current version is not satisfactory, please let me know which sources you object to. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hope4444 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the sources offered at the article, I removed two sources altogether: one was a blog, not a reliable source (see WP:BLOG, WP:RS). Another, supporting a block quote defining "ashram" (a bit of a WP:COATRACK), did not contain the text of the block quote, and had nothing to do with the prison program. You also added a cite to an article by Bo Lozoff. How is it you didn't think it was too closely related? At any rate, none of it is significant coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 18:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Prison Ashram Project and Bo Lozoff are worthy of Wikipedia, but their current entries don't give the topics justice. I'm afraid I don't have the time to beef them up, provide history and context, etc., right now. Espertus (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you didn't cast a !vote. I've found virtually no reliable third party sources on this entity. WP:MERCY/WP:ILIKEIT aside, what exactly makes this organization "worthy," and what notability guideline can you point to in support? JFHJr (㊟) 21:23, 16 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:21, 21 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It has been demonstrated that WP:CRYSTAL does not apply (see Lugnuts). Absent the application of that policy, the discussion resolves around a difference of editorial opinion as to whether it is presently appropriate to have an article on the subject. That opinion is evenly split. Mkativerata (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 UEFA European Under-19 Football Championship[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It's been a year and a half since the last afd, but the same rationale still applies. There is still insufficient information available for this article to be notable. It will be in the future, but not now. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL & nominator; article can be recreated nearer to the time of the event & when more info is available. Giant Snowman 16:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, why nobody don't see anything wrong with 2013 UEFA European Under-17 Football Championship, while 2013 UEFA European Under-19 Football Championship need to be deleted? Plus, qualification article already was created, its kinda strange to have qualification article about event and do not have article about that event. --Bearas (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 1 year to the finals.--Uishaki (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, there is still insufficient information available to merrit writing an article. Other stuff exists is an invalid claim to notability. The fact that qualification becomes notable before the main event, goes without saying. Qualification starts before the main event, therefore there it is covered sooner than the main event, making it notable earlier. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can be restored nearer to the event's start. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Can't see the issue here. The article is referenced and is part of the qualification articles that go with it. My feeling is that people who want to see the qualification articles will only want to see the actual championship aswell. If not referenced then it is WP:CRYSTAL, but referenced then it isn't, is it? Druryfire (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that there is nothing to see. The last afd deleted the article, on the grounds that there was insufficient information available on the subject with a provision for recreation when it becomes available. However, this article is substantively the same as the one that was deleted fifteen months ago. At present the article is nothing more than a content fork from the article on the qualifying tournament. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:22, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CRYSTAL, which states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Lugnuts (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjarzai[edit]

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

Zero refs, zero gnews hits. The best I can find is limited snippet mention in gbooks, but that does not seem to confer sufficient notability for a stand-alone article. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 14 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:42, 20 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. I've fixed the promotional wording, and notability doesn't seem to be problematic. Non-admin closure. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D-Mart[edit]

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

Speedy G11 tag removed by a third-party on the grounds that the article is "not promotional." Yet it is promotional. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rae Threat[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Little coverage of subject by reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Almost all of the sources are self-published sites (gram ponante, rebecca gin, tiny nibbles) or just plain unreliable (fleshbot, mishka). The AVN mention is scant. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article by Rebecca Gin was published in No Magazine (http://www.nomagazine.co.nz/) and Tiny Nibbles is the personal site of Violet Blue, a published author and sex educator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.80.158 (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still self-published. Read WP:SPS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that 69.230.80.158 deleted the AfD template from the article page which may have delayed the discussion.[27] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A shame, I like Rae Threat's work, but, sadly she doesn't meet our notability guidelines at this point, and per Morbidthoughts about AVN, etc. SarahStierch (talk) 22:42, 22 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, Wifione ^Message 16:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Profile article in NO Magazine was published and in circulation with a distribution of roughly 15,000 in print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.220.77.140 (talk) 07:57, 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 merge to The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism. Sandstein 08:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Book liberalism[edit]

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

Non-notable concept with no significant coverage in secondary sources. Anything useful, if there is any, could be merged into The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism. SupernovaExplosion (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree strongly, the term Orange Book liberalism is becoming increasingly used with many sources demonstrating this as a term, with no other term with a Wikipedia article being a synonym. A good example of such a source would be this news article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12310041 this well known blog http://www.nextleft.org/2010/05/coming-battle-for-liberalism.html article from prospect magazine http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/06/who-are-the-liberal-democrats/ Total Politics http://www.totalpolitics.com/opinion/157732/would-alliance-work-between-labour-and-the-lib-dems.thtml Total Politics again http://www.totalpolitics.com/blog/159167/can-tim-farron-ride-to-his-partyand39s-rescue.thtml Daily Telegraph http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/julianastle/100077413/did-the-orange-book-pave-the-way-to-coalition-with-the-conservatives/ Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/23/liberal-traditions-and-true-colours? etc. If you really want, I can find some more? --Purple1342 (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism, not because the topic is non-notable, but because the articles are really about the same thing. Readers would be better off reading all the material in one place. Borock (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would tend to disagree with that too as there is significant difference between the book and the ideology, the book merely helped spark it. One does not simply merge the liberalism article into the On Liberty article as they are broadly the same thing. The principle should stand here. Give the article time to expand and become more separate from the Orange Book one. --Purple1342 (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is an Orange Book and the liberals who support it are occassionally refereed to as "Orange Book Liberals". In order to justify an article we need a source that says it is a commonly used term with a clear definition. Until then it is just original research. TFD (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Excluded the SPA's !vote. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Alexander (comics)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October#5 October 2007

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

An almost word for word recreation of a previously debated and subsequently deleted article. Taseriouslyta (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interviewed on MTV Rates a mention on Time along with the sources already present. I am also curious as to how the nominators first edit to wiki is an AFD? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the simple basis the nom is faulty, there hasn't been a previous AfD debate nor a prior deletion. tutterMouse (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per DarknessShines. Also, I find it interesting that a new editor can claim in his first edits that this is a duplicate of an article from years ago, making this nomination suspect, IMHO. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I have undertaken various edits on the article I have to question the nominators comments that it is a 'word for word' re-creation of a previous deleted article. The article is referenced with independent verifable sources. He is an australian artist that has had his work published in a major american comic book publication - no small feat - and as such in my book is notable. Dan arndt (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Obviousfakeaccount99 (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)— Obviousfakeaccount99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Dan arndt has made this into a pretty decent article now. It's referenced and verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MustardC (talk • contribs) 11:42, 1 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. Sandstein 08:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morito Suzuki[edit]

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

First version was speedily deleted for copyright violation. Same user (a new user who has only worked for this article) recreated it without the copyright violation, but without offering any independent RS. This was also marked for speedy deletion, but another user removed the tag because an album was notable. However, it is not notable because of this album designer, and I cannot find any independent reviews or articles in English or Japanese which talk about the notability of this design or of him as an artist. Fails WP:ARTIST. Michitaro (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Michitaro (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any in-depth coverage or reliable third-party sourcing to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does some amazing work, but unfortunately, I'm unable to find any reliable references. Bgwhite (talk) 07:37, 1 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) 04:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sudarshan Prasad Verma[edit]

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

An educator with a thoroughly unremarkable career, not remotely passing WP:PROF (nor the WP:GNG). I could find no citations on Google scholar. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO and article was created someone close to the subject.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability in the article, and I could not find evidence of notability from a Google search... Tradedia (talk) 19:05, 4 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 soft delete. per lack of discussion, and the possibility of sources under a different name in a different language Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ramciel National Bank[edit]

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

Unimportant bank, that is "proposed" to be made. Contested prod. Whenaxis about | talk 22:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Whenaxis about | talk 23:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete two references. One is to a spam-farm. One is to a report that reads like a press release. Googling isn't finding anything in English about this. (Is it likely to be under a different name in a different language?) One reference doesn't notability make. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 12:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Begin Chess[edit]

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

This chess book does not seem notable enough to be worth its own article. It can be merged in List of chess books instead. SyG (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've already added it to List of chess books. Rcsprinter (chatter) 11:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable book. Most sources are Book Sellers, one or two reviews are from chess magazines don't assert it as notable. Also seems to be a bit of puffery going on. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book is by a notable author, but I don't think this book is notable. Its Amazon sales rank is No. 6,000,000+, so I don't think it is a big seller. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence is present of the book meeting the criteria of the WP:BK guideline. Although the author is notable, notability is not inherited, especially not "downwards" (that is, from a "general" subject (an author) to more specific subjects (individual books)). Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, per wp standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Miller (footballer born 1990)[edit]

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

PROD was contested in August 2011. Fails WP:GNG as having not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and WP:NFOOTBALL as having not appeared in a fully professional league. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the general notability guideline and guidelines for notability in association football. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage. As such, the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 28. Snotbot t • c » 10:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL & WP:GNG. Mr. Miller has only played in the League of Ireland & Conference National which are not fully professional, he has also not received any significant media coverage. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL ~Feedintm^Parley 00:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 23:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL GauchoDude (talk) 19:05, 4 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 original research should either be sourced or removed, but the subject is notable. The rest is not up to AfD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Solitaire Mystery[edit]

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

This article is pure research, and basically unsalvageable.
Would be nice if someone recreated it in accordance with WP policies sometime. Mathglot (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This received a lot of coverage when it came out - plenty of reviews on Google News.--Michig (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These for instance: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. It also won the Norwegian Critics Prize for Literature in 1990.--Michig (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 28. Snotbot t • c » 10:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a citation to the Critics' Prize and to a review; Michig's sources should lead to a few more. Seems about enough for a Keep, I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the two "keep" votes, maybe I just need something explained to me. The recently added prize and review citations are nice--thanks for that--but the article has 11 sections and subsections, and is currently around 12,000 bytes but with the exception of Reception every line of the article is original research. I'm not quibbling that the subject is notable or deserving of an article--it is both--I'm saying that this article grossly neglects WP standards about research, and should be scrapped and rewritten in accordance with policy. Given the correctly cited Reception section, rather than delete it, I would vote for a "keep" too, if the rest of the article text were deleted, leaving only the reception section as a stub. Does that work? Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that we are not a dictionary. Sandstein 08:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Zealand words[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Even if it was, this article is mostly original research, written in an un-encyclopedic manner and getting a lot of things just plain wrong. Anon 10:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty clear violation of WP:NOTDICT.--Michig (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, this is a list of dictionary definition, many of which are orignal research, wrong or irrelevant. AIRcorn (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, encyclopedic list article about the lexicon of a variety of English. This list article is nowhere near being a dicdef. Any problems with sourcing and accuracy can be solved by editing it. Angr (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming a list like this is deemed appropriate for Wikipedia, how does one go about fixing it?. It desperately needs inclusion criteria, but that is near to impossible. What Maori words should be included as everyone of them would belong in a list of New Zealand words? How is it determined that a word is unique to New Zealand? Why is there a section on words shared with other countries (that would include every word ever said in New Zeqland)? An article on the New Zealand lexicon with a few choice examples would work, but a list is just too unweildy. AIRcorn (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - One way would be to limit it to words that merit articles. postdlf (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any word that does not have its own article would need a reference. This would require someone to go through the existing list against one or more of the several dictionaries of New Zealand English, eg The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary ISBN 0195584511, The Dictionary Of New Zealand English ISBN 9780195583809 or Oxford Dictionary of New Zealandisms ISBN 9780195584974. These works include at least 12,000 words, so we would still need some further criteria to restrict entries. In terms of having a "few choice examples", that would be better included in New Zealand English than having a standalone article.-gadfium 01:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The title is problematic, and the current inclusion criteria ("a list of words used in New Zealand English") is hopelessly vague. Still, it is possible to develop reasonable criteria for inclusion and to limit the included items to words noted as New Zealand-isms in reliable sources. Compare Regional vocabularies of American English or the "Vocabulary" section of articles such as Canadian English or Variation in Australian English. I don't see any reason to limit items to words that have their own articles (any more than, say, Timeline of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season should be limited to storms with their own articles), but I do think that entries should cite reliable sources that call the items New Zealand regional vocabulary. Cnilep (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The article pertains more so to language usage and lexicon of New Zealand rather than straight-forward dictionary definitions. That said, the article title is too vague and not acceptable in it's current form, but the content should be kept. References are also needed, but these can likely be obtained in time. The best solution would be to merge or create a seperate article on New Zealand English and it's regional variations, and include some of the material there. Grillo7 (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I recently moved this article from New Zealand words to better reflect the actual content of the article, but on reading people's comments here I think that may not have been such a good idea. I agree that in its current incarnation it is problematic, but I think if we move it to say, New Zealand vocabulary, and edit it to reflect scholarly studies on the topic then it would be a perfectly acceptable article. On the other hand, wouldn't want to keep it as a list; I was reading around the subject and found a claim that only 5% of the words used in New Zealand are unique to the country (I don't remember where, sorry). Multiply that by the 12,000 words in the dictionaries cited above, and we get a list of at least 600 words - still rather unwieldy for Wikipedia. A list of New Zealand words may be more suited to a category on Wiktionary, but an article on New Zealand words would work. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a New Zealand vocabulary article would work, make it a content fork from the section in New Zealand English. A major advantage of an article over a list is that it allows more editorial judgement and items can put in context better. Considering there are only a few inline references in this list I am not sure how much help it would be in developing such an article though. AIRcorn (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to proposed New Zealand vocabulary article. Deletion reasons perWP:WINAD and Anon's argument. The latest edit to the page shows one of the biggest problems with it ... inclusion of unsourced nonsense. I've lived in this country for over 50 years and I've never heard the word "Wog" used to describe "persons of Mediteranean decent" except in news reports sourced from Australia. It may be used in some obscure sections of society, but without sources it's impossible to say.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiore (talk • contribs)
Delete and redirect to New Zealand vocabulary as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:44, 4 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. Sandstein 08:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abutilon × hybridum[edit]

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

Is this article, Abutilon × hybridum, noteworthy? It describes a nebulous "idea" of a taxon, not a real taxon; and even then it is not one that occurs in nature. None of the reliable sources have ever said "I've seen this myself", and described it. Everyone is referring to someone else. A quick Google search shows there is zero affinity of purported specimens; it is just being widely used as a fancy latin version of "hybrid". Even the article itself has two pictures which are definately not from the same nothospecies. So first reason: notability; second reason: impossible to ever reliably source. Any objection to deletion? --Tom Hulse (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article "Incompatibility in Abutilon 'Hybridum'" (K. K. Pandey (1960), American Journal of Botany 47:10, pp. 877–883. JSTOR 2446586) treats this as very much real. Whether a hybrid occurs in nature or solely as a cultivar is by itself of no consequence to the encyclopedic value. If you widen the search term to include Abutilon hybridum with an x or without the ×, Google scholar returns many hits (which I have not examined further). --Lambiam 11:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The paper cited states "Abutilon 'Hybridum' is a group of cultivars that has arisen through hybridisation between several Abutilon species, particularly Abutilon darwinii and Abutilon striatum." Is that not a reliable (if secondary) source? Lavateraguy (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: hybrid taxa are not always well defined, especially in horticulture, but Abutilon x hybridum refers to a identifiable group of some horticultural importance. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The typical forms of Abutilon × hybridum are Abutilon darwinii × striatum, but these have been further crossed with Abutilon megapotamicum. Perhaps some cultivars, such as 'Patrick Synge' and 'Cynthia Pike' should be assigned to Abutilon × milleri, but in the absence of breeding records it could take a fair amount of genetic work to identify which. For intermediate forms between the two illustrated in the article see 'Kentish Belle' and 'Yellow Trumpet'.
Keep. Who cares that it isn't a real taxon?; nor is invertebrate, slug or dinosaur. Who cares that it lacks a formal description?; that might place its existence in doubt in the minds of some systematists, but we are under no obligation to take such a polar view. This cultivar group has been deemed worthy of examination in reliable source; that suffices. If a paper were published tomorrow that proved this to be a useless grouping, that would strengthen the case for us to have an article on it. Hesperian 12:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is mentioned in enough reputable gardening books (many hundreds to thousands[34]) that it's plenty notable. Even Missouri Botanical Garden dedicates a page to it.[35] Whether it's been formally published or not, or whether it's a legitimate usage of the formal lingo, is an issue that should be discussed in the article. First Light (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like much of our article is copied directly, or too closely paraphrased, from the Missouri Botanical Garden article I linked just above. If kept, this needs to be rewritten from the source, rather than mostly copied. First Light (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement on propagation is dodgy. There are seed strains, but these plants are usually propagated vegetatively. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the main copy taken from the MBG site (and removed the seed propagation info, though I see now that it is mentioned in the MBG article.) First Light (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most Google sources don't make a claim to taxonomic correctness (just parrotting seed catalogs, etc.), so they are only "reliable" in the sense that yes, lots of people use "hybridum" to replace "hybrid" for lots of very different Abutilon cultivars; they are not reliable sources to show this is a valid nothospecies or cultivar or even cultivar group. For every source you do find that makes a taxonomy claim, there are others, more reliable, that correctly do not treat this as a valid taxon. There was no valid type for the original publication, and there never will be, and there was no parent taxa with the original publication, so it will never be recognized as a valid taxon by serious authors in Abutilon, especially now that everyone uses it for everything hybrid in Abutilon [proof here]. Even the article cited above, the "reliable source" in the American Journal of Botany (just a college kid in the late '50s who bought a seed packet mailorder per the article, not anyone who even looked at Abutilon taxonomy), says that this is a "a group of cultivars", not a legitimate nothospecies, and he also is not able say exactly which species it contains; he claims primarily A. Darwinii & A. striatum (A. Darwinii is a cultivar group, not a species, A. striatum is a syn. for A. pictum), but he doesn't really know. He only definitively says that it has "arisen through hybridization between several Abutilon species" (same as saying this name means multi-hybrid mutt).

So lets separate the "Keep" reasons out: First anyone who says this is a valid taxon, deserving of a taxbox and the full treatment Wikipedia gives taxa, would be in serious error. Second, for instance Hesperian's comment of "Who cares that it isn't a real taxon?; nor is invertebrate, slug or dinosaur", I will certainly bow to consensus as long as we realize how un-notable this article might seem once it is corrected to real reliable sources: No taxobox (per WP:TOL#Taxoboxes) since it is closer to a cultivar, and definately not a taxon; no Cultivar infobox per Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Cultivar infobox since it is not a valid cultivar for several reasons; we can put no dubious claims in the article about parentage since they can't be known; no description since it is impossible to say which group of plants this name describes in relation to other known species or cultivars. So this will be just a stub article for an invalid taxon & invalid cultivar designation that describes no specific group of plants. A stub to basically say this name means nothing. I guess I'm ok with that. Are we going to have a new article for every other invalid designation and synonym now too? --Tom Hulse (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to see a claim that Abutilon darwinii is a cultivar group, rather than a species. It is treated as a species in the recent Brasilian checklist, and in Martius.

Abutilon striatum (1839) has priority over Abutilon pictum (1842). Lavateraguy (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Multi-hybrid mutts" can have names - see Rhododendron ×superponticum. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, independent of whether it is a taxon and warrants a taxobox, or is just a garden name; its notability as something that someone might look up in Wikipedia seems clear. If I'm following the discussion correctly, a rename might be desirable, though.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that there is a sensible alternative name. This is a much narrower topic than Abutilon hybrids, and Abutilon has rather more currency (at least in the UK) than Chinese lantern or parlour maple. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the vernacular names apply to more than just the hybrids. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lavaterguy, Actually most reliable sources give priority to A. pictum over A. striatum, on the authority of Sida pictum Gillies ex Hook. & Arn., 1933 (1942 is the tranfer date from Sida to Abutilon); which is also why A. pictum has priority here on Wikipedia. Abutilon Darwinii is treated as a cultivar group by many reliable sources. One prominent source is the the ICNCP Code itself where it uses the Abutilon Darwinii group in an example of proper nomenclature in Article 22.2 ex. 2.

Sorry, I overlooked the existence of the basionym. (Several recent floras have used Abutilon striatum, but presumably they are wrong.)

Do you have a reliable source (I only have the 1995 edn of ICNCP, which lacks this example) which says that Abutilon Darwinii Group is the same as Abutilon darwinii? For all I know, Abutilon Darwinii Group could be an alternative name for what is commonly called Abutilon ×hybridum. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that this article is much narrower than the just Abutilon hybrids, I would ask exactly how much narrower? My whole point here is that you don't know, no one has ever or will ever know exactly what this "name" describes. It is meaningless and therefore lacks notability. It belongs only as a blurb in a Taxonomy section on the genus page.

Also, your addition of the "parlor maple" common name should be moved to the genus page, as the source does not support the claim that this applies to A. "x hybridum" directly.

Whatever the scope of "parlor maple", it is not coterminous with the genus Abutilon. Usage probably varies, but the widest plausible usage is section Pluriovulata. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going by the source in the article, I didn't add it. It does say "parlor maple" applies to the genus Abutilon on pg 13. --Tom Hulse (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Rhododendron ×superponticum, it has not yet acheived consensus acceptance, but if it does it might be because the parentage is specifically known, something that is impossible in A. x hybridum because it is widely used by gardeners to replace the word "hybrid", so no one could ever know which plants to DNA test, the originals have long since been lost to mass dilution of the name. --Tom Hulse (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, from English language to bipolar disorder to subtropics to species, Wikipedia contains hundreds of thousands of articles on topics that cannot be precisely circumscribed. We're not about to delete English language just because we're unable to draw a bright line that divides English dialects from non-English dialects. With respect to A. × hybridum, you're probably right that "you don't know, no one has ever or will ever know exactly what this 'name' describes"; but it doesn't follow from that that the name is "meaningless and therefore lacks notability". Hesperian 12:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bright line issue, there is just no line at all. There is nothing relevant you can put in this article, except what it isn't and how it has been incorrectly used. You can't say what it IS. Surely you have some standards of notability? Many of these less-relevant topics are handled every day here by inclusion in a separate article; especially plant articles, where we have a specific convention of only having articles for valid taxa & cultivars. When a name changes, for instance according to new DNA work, and it is widely accepted as valid, then Wikipedia also changes our article name. We don't leave up a whole separate article for every invalid designation, even if people are more likely to initially search for the old one. They can still find it mentioned in the new article just fine. Plants are different at Wikipedia. --Tom Hulse (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abutilon ×hybridum is not just any invalid designation. It is a name of broadly clear designation with an extensive record of use in the horticultural literature. You are proposing not a merge, not a redirection, but a deletion of an article on a notable horticultural entity, on legalistic grounds related to the ICBN. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also propose deleting floribunda (rose) and hybrid tea. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"a name of broadly clear designation"? Absolutely not! :) Also, it is not just legalistic grounds. In plain English, Abutilon x hybridum means nothing. It is not a thing. It's just a word, not a "horticultural entitiy". Per real consensus, the Code defines what words actually represent an entity and which do not (and not just the Code in this case, no one has ever reliably defined what this name means, especially the original author).

If I wanted to delete Datura arborea because taxonomists had replaced it with Brugmansia arborea by wide consensus, and we have all the info we need there (including a note on the older name for those who search for Datura arborea), would you object? If you want a whole separate article for a word like this, then it might be more appropriate for Wikispecies or Wiktionary. How about not really deleting the word from all Wikipedia, just moving it to its appropriate place as part of the genera article (where we normally put these invalid designations, per the Datura example and a thousand others) instead of a stand-alone article; and leave a redirect here to the genera page?

No I wouldn't delete Floribuda or hybrid tea. Both actually mean something and are reasonaly defineable to mean more than just the generic "hybrid"; A. x hybridum is not. --Tom Hulse (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly object to deleting Datura arborea under those circumstances; it should be (and is) a redirect. Perhaps Abutilon ×hybridum should be a redirect, if there is a better article name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abutilon ×hybridum does not apply to just any hybrid Abutilon. It excludes (Coryn)abutilon ×suntense (vitifolium × ochnense); it excludes Abutilon ×milleri (megapotamicum × pictum); it would exclude hypothetical hybrids of the majority of pairs of Abutilon species. Abutilon ×hybridum strikes me as a fairly close analog to groups of rose cultivars such as floribundas or hybrid teas. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lavateraguy, first you are still not saying what A. x hybridum IS (no one can ever say that). Floribundas and hybrid teas are different because they are definable in multiple ways, as evidenced by all the correct info in the articles. Nothing in our article here is correct.

Second, you can't make claims like it "would exclude hypothetical hybrids of the majority of pairs of Abutilon species: without very reliable references; there are none, including the original description. Martha-stewart-type references and basic houseplant-type books don't count. You need someone who has actually seriously looked at Abutilon, examined the plants, and is not just commenting on what they vaguely percieve the name to usually mean in their little corner of the world. There is no agreement even among these non-reliable sources as to what this name means, and even if they did agree, none of them actually say what the limits of this name includes. Look again at the Google images for these plants. Those 21,000 pics represent every kind of cross in general cultivation today. Anyone who looked at those pics, and then considered that "hybridum" is obviously a simple translation of "hybrid", could not (honestly) claim that this name is not being widely used just to replace "hybrid".

The very most important thing though, is that the Code defines what words actually represent an entity and which do not, which is why you dont see a full article at Datura arborea, even though there are mountains of secular & taxonomic literature about it, and it is still often sold that way from seed suppliers. It's huge, it's relevant, it's used often, but no separate article because the Code says it does not represent any real plants. The Code says the same about A. x hybridum (for many reasons). It's not a technicality, it is the result of very wide consensus that these rules apply. --Tom Hulse (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move information There are two different issues here which seem to me to have been confused above.

Is the information worth having in Wikipedia? Yes, clearly so: it's notability is established by the widespread use of the term in the horticultural literature.
Should the article be at this title? No. It does not represent a clearly identified nothotaxon.

Where should the information be placed? Actually this is a widespread problem with genera containing cultivars of complex and uncertain parentage, particularly where there are no well-established Groups. In the case of Schlumbergera, I put the information on the hybrids/cultivars in the genus article, although I'm not totally happy with this. The same problem arises with Hemerocallis, Hippeastrum, Dahlia, etc. Here I'd be inclined to move the information to Abutilon, at least for the present, leaving a redirect. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Abutilon as preceding, due to literature written and cultivation etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted (CSD G12) by Jimfbleak. Non admin closure. "Pepper" @ 16:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Codan-lingyun[edit]

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

Promotional in tone; does not support the subject's notability. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 09:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a major rubber hose manufacturer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any reliable third-party source that indicates notability. Take note that No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. … "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it. (from WP:CORP) ZZArch ^{talk to me} 11:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedied as a copyright infringement from the company's website, spammy in tone anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parabellum (band)[edit]

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

There's a vague claim to notability, in that they may have been one of the earliest Colombian death metal bands. However, I can find no reliable sources to back this up. They never released an album, never did any significant touring, and have significant coverage in independent, third party sources... comprehensively fails WP:MUSIC. Probably a cool band to name-drop when discussing the good ol' tape-trading days, but has no notability here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consider Parabellum to be relevant (and I don’t defend every old band, in case anybody wants to come up with some bullshit like that), but I have no references to improve the article and would accept its deletion. Should I get some material to improve it, I can still ask somebody to restore it. --217/83 16:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the band seem to have existed for only a few years but seem to have a strong following in some contemporary online reviews, 30 years later! This probably signifies they were notable but, with the passing of time, 'reliable' sources will be harder to find. It is a short enough stub to be re-created quickly if someone finds a good source. I feel uncomfortable keeping an article that has no reliable sources. Sionk (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 5 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) 04:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 12. Snotbot t • c » 05:13, 12 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rockin' Las Américas: the Global Politics of Rock in Latino America, University of Pittsburgh Press,[36] has some detail and and a series on South American metal in Zero Tolerance has features on 'em.[37][38] I'd like more, but there probably is more. 86.44.38.30 (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep verging on neutral. Several mentions in reliable sources indicate that in their day the band was important in Colombia. It seems they only released one album released after they split up, and significant coverage is hard to find, but it seems reasonable to assume that the band would have received such coverage back in the 1980s. It's debatable though whether we can have a decent article here without access to such sources.--Michig (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting a final time for the sake of the ip's and Michig's comments. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 09:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, comments and linked sources above indicate to me that this band passes WP:GNG. The spanish-language article is also quite lengthy (though apparently unsourced at present by en: standards), which further suggests potential to me. postdlf (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Der yck C. 23:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kelner[edit]

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

Recreated after speedy. Seems like vanity spam. I have more than an inkling that this subject does not meet WP:BIO. Seems to have written a lot of articles but little is available written about him Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 12 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG SarahStierch (talk) 22:42, 22 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, Wifione ^Message 09:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Der yck C. 12:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Omega Theta[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this fraternity. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 5 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) 04:23, 12 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As WP:TOOSOON. 2009 Xlibris book Fraternal Brotherhood: The Story of Alpha Omega Theta Fraternity Inc. by member Frederick M. Gross, and supposed 2014 film here. No current coverage found. (Belated signing) Dru of Id (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added links to two books on the subject of Alpha Omega Theta via Google Books. One referencing actor Steve Buscemi's membership in AOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.86.43 (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted purely for the ip's efforts. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 08:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the looks of it, the Fraternal Brotherhood: The Story of Alpha Omega Theta Fraternity Inc. is a reliable source, with decent editorial control. That's plenty of significant coverage right there. If that's so, I'd say it's a keep, especially combined with the scraping-by source from the book The Pledge, which is barely a paragraph. If there are things wrong with the book (i.e., it's mostly fiction, or doesn't have significant coverage on the subject, which seems unlikely, since it's about the subject), then it's a delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis are you claiming that it is a reliable source with decent editorial control? It appears to be a self-published source (it's published through Xlibris, which is a self-publishing service) so that doesn't suggest any editorial control. It's the only book listed by that author name at Amazon, so there's not a writer with an existing reputation for accuracy. More importantly, one person feeling it was worth writing a book about doesn't say much for notability (if all it takes is one individual to believe a topic is worthwhile, we'd never delete any articles for notability, since the person choosing to post it would be notable enough. The book is number two-million-and-something on the Amazon sales chart, so that's no sign of a vast general interest in the topic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's self-published, then I'm all for deletion. I didn't see that the first time around, but had my suspicions that something might be up with it (hence my carefully phrased comment rather than keep). 14:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want confirmation, you can see the publisher name listed on the book's Amazon listing, and can confirm that it's a self-publishing service either through their Wikipedia article or the website of the service itself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 5 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. Nobody supports deleteion. The debate is between redirect, merge or keep; and that is a discussion to be had on the article talk page. Sandstein 08:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There are three issues.

(1) Every statement is based on primary sources. The Watch Tower Society is a reasonable source on information on its own doctrines, but the issue here is the lack of secondary sources that demonstrate notability to the extent that the subject warrants a separate article. The relevant information here has already been merged with the Jehovah's Witness beliefs article uner the "Salvation" subheading.

(2) Additionally, the second paragraph of "The anointed" section, which constitutes almost half that section, drifts into a discussion about the Governing Body’s perceived opinion towards the validity of the claim of some that they are anointed. The statement that the Governing Body "cast doubt on other members’ claims of being anointed" is an interpretation, and therefore arguably a synthesis of opinion.

(3) The "Jonadabs" section is also irrelevant in an article that otherwise has no claim to portray the history of the salvation doctrine.

Those three factors, particularly the fact that the relevant statements of notability about the salvation doctrine are sufficiently covered at the "Beliefs" article, combine to make this article redundant. BlackCab (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Salvation and Redirect Per nominator, notability for the specific topic does not seem to have been established from reliable secondary sources. Add subheadings for Anointed and Other sheep under Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Salvation.
Note: The statement about 'casting doubt' has not been present in the article for over two weeks, however the principle is supported by the cited source. However, deletion of the article will rescind that point anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see that there is anything left to merge, and barely a need for a redirect. BlackCab (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deleted, a redirect should be put in place, even if temporarily, until all articles that link to it are updated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that deleting it as a redundant article is justified because it has been substantially re-written when it was merged into [39] . I am however, not sure entirely that the article is notable enough as a stand alone subject to justify existence, still I don't feel that it is necessary to " jump the gun" and quickly delete the article, I suggest allowing a significant amount of time, at least two weeks, for interested parties to give input into the matter. Willietell (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy isn't listed as a rationale for deleting the article. In any case, it seems that you are in support of redirecting? (Pending further responses from other editors.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for further time to improve the article. I gave notice two and a half weeks ago here that I was contemplating proposing the article for deletion. Nothing much has changed since then. The article is poorly sourced; has little indication of notability, or sufficient detail, to warrant a standalone page; and is basically redundant. BlackCab (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to deleting it, because I don't think, as a stand alone topic, that it is particularly notable. I do however, like certain aspects of the page, which I would like to see retained in the merger if the page were to be deleted. I don't think that allowing a couple of additional weeks for input from interested parties is all that much to ask though, as two weeks isn't the end of the world, so to speak. Additionally, the article only became redundant when a Salvation section was written into Jehovah's Witnesses Beliefs, and third, 37 references to support 9 paragraphs is not inadequately sourced, if your statement is instead, that you don't care much for the reference material, that is a personal matter to which I have little concern. Willietell (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 37 references, zero are from secondary sources. Please read WP:PRIMARY.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Salvation. It's probably best for the reader to keep their basic beliefs on one page. There doesn't seem to be a good reason to split this off on it's own, given that it's all primary sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Salvation, though I don't entirely agree with the nominator's stated reasons... I believe the topic is notable, and I'm untroubled at the article's reliance on Watch Tower references, and I believe any weaknesses in the article's discussion of "the anointed" and/or "the Jonadabs" could have been addressed without deletion and redirect. The fact remains that the first AfD nomination failed because the Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs article did not yet exist . So, while this topic is notable and even particularly notable among JW beliefs, this topic is now adequately discussed as a section within the more-encompassing article. Frankly, this reminds me of the article at Faithful and discreet slave, which should probably be made to either redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs or Parable of the Faithful Servant.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(For similar reasons to those of the nominator for this article, I agree that Faithful and discreet slave should be redirected to a summary at Parable of the Faithful Servant.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion page is not the place to raise or express opinions on a proposal for a different page. BlackCab (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is certainly plenty of discussion of these concepts in unaffiliated literature, e.g. A People for His Name: A History of Jehovah's Witnesses and an Evaluation, Thirty Years a Watchtower Slave, and Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses. Clearly notable. -- 202.124.73.170 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC) — 202.124.73.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The subject is certainly notable and is adequately covered in the Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs article. The question is whether there is sufficient detail, supported by secondary sources, to warrant a separate article. At the moment there is not. BlackCab (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the editor's supposed 'question whether there is sufficient detail supported by secondary sources', because nearly every phrase in the current article likely could be sourced to one or more among a variety of secondary (non-JW, non-Watchtower) references. Furthermore, the article is of sufficient length that length per se is not a particular concern (see WP:LENGTH). Rather, I believe that the current article's topic is better-discussed within the context of other 'JW beliefs' rather than as a standalone topic.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeffro77 It is illogical to pick a subject that will knowingly have a very limited number of available secondary sources, write the article, and then complain that it doesn't need to exist due to the lack of secondary source material. This is a situation where one might point out that "you knew this going in, so don't rehash it now". Additionally, primary sources are really the best available and most authoritative sources in existence when it comes to a topic related to the beliefs of any particular group, for no one knows better what a group truly believes more than that group themselves. Therefore, to say that a lack of secondary sources diminishes the article somehow really holds little water and is without merit. Having said that, I stand behind my earlier position that I am not entirely sure that the article, as a stand alone subject, merits existence, and shouldn't be incorporated in whole or part into either the main Jehovah's Witnesses page, or into the Jehovah's Witnesses Beliefs page. I would likely normally lean towards the Belief's page, but you understand my reservations there as I feel that particular page is abundant with POV spin and smear and has serious WP:NPOV issues as I have already made clear my position and that this trend might continue with regards to any added section relating to a merger with this page. Willietell (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. So basically, you're saying, Well, yes, I kind of agree that the article should be incorporated into the Beliefs article, but it's not going to stop me attacking your motives first. Sigh. Please stick to the point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Willietell, please read WP:N, which states: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." A decision on inclusion in Wikipedia is subject to measurable standards of notability, not a personal conviction that it's a worthy subject. Still, you have at least expressed your view that you doubt that it's worth a standalone article. BlackCab (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is, or has the potential to be as notable as Salvation in Catholicism. The concerns about secondary sources are pendantry in the extreme, and a distortion of the intent of WP:Primary. As Willie said, we have to consider the reasons for wanting secondary sources, and they don't apply to this article, as long as we don't start putting judgements in the article about whether the beliefs are true. For instance it says "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source", and of course none of those belong in this article. The only relevant question for this article is 'Do they believe it?', and secondary sources are largely irrelevant to this question... there are no individual claims in the article, supported by primary sources, that could possibly be challenged by a reasonable person, because the article is about what they believe. --Tom Hulse (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename to Jehovah's Witnesses' view of salvation. Ideally, the title should be cognate with Salvation in Catholicism, but I do not think there is a satisfactory "-ism" noun. Merger back to the parent article is inappropriate. That is why we have a "main" template. Merger would unbalance the parent article. (I am not a Witness). Peterkingiron (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And it doesn't bother you that even after the original AfD proposal almost four years ago, the article still contains no secondary sources? I'd suggest the material is comfortably and adequately contained in Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Salvation; splitting off as a separate article was premature. Saving this article guarantees it will remain as a poorly-written article with an absence of secondary sources to indicate notability. BlackCab (talk) 23:33, 4 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. No consensus to delete. Most prefer a renaming, although it is not clear what to. Sandstein 08:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Single-lens translucent camera[edit]

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

The incorrect use of the term "translucent" in describing pellicle mirrors in SLR-like cameras is an invention of Sony marketing. The only substantive sources listed in the article are Sony advertising.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. So what's the problem? If it's the title, presumably the article could be retitled (off the top of my head, "fixed-mirror single lens reflex camera", though there might well be a better alternative). -- Hoary (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a non-notable marketing term. They're not normally called single-lens translucent cameras, not even by Sony: acording to their official site it's a "Sony a77 DSLR Camera", or according to the first reference of the article which in full is "Check out the amazing autofocus capabilities of the Alpha a55, Sony’s latest DSLR camera".--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:06, 22 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, Sandstein 08:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to taste. This is clearly a significant group of SLR cameras, using non-moving pellicles. Anything else, and arguments over "made up marketing term", are just about naming, not notability or even scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to some non-Sony based term. The Steve 08:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above. The only place I've seen that proposes an alternate name is CameraLabs.com, whose editor has said, "I'd argue it's technically more accurate to describe the mirror in the new Sony bodies as being semi-reflective or semi-transparent." — Dale Arnett (talk) 07:18, 1 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) 12:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Bundle[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is, in essence, a single. It is clearly not an "album". As such, it falls under WP:NSONGS, which it fails. Not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:27, 3 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. Though sources have been added, none of those are independent. Even if they were from partners, they're still not independent. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Game-Debate[edit]

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

No indication of notability, does not seem to meet WP:GNG. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no notability, no references, no information, beyond "in the top 20k of Alexa". If that was notable, this would be Adverpedia, not Wikipedia. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 12:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any indication of coverage in independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Yunshui 雲‍水 20:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. We are still adding information. We added new information today. Your words are harsh my friends. Pip 14:05, 01 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment New sources are all directly from Game-Debate, hence useless for WP:GNG which requires independent sources to demonstrate notability. Not harsh, just policy-based. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have been trying to contact some of our partners but it's hard for them to create a page just to give us credibility so in the end some references have to come from the own website. What I was trying to say is that we are still building the page. It takes time. Oh and I have been looking at some pages (won't mention the names) without any external references and they don't seem to have this problem. Instead of just saying 'DELETE, DELETE, DELETE' it would be nice to get some help and advice. Pip 14:05, 02 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent sources are provided, so there is no evidence of notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:27, 5 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 redirect to Svengoolie. Der yck C. 23:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry G. Bishop[edit]

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

Very close to G11. Unsourced BLP. Seems to fail WP:N CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support under G11.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk | contribs} 07:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Svengoolie unless and until there is sufficient sourced material about Bishop, other than what's already at the article about the character he played. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 I-League U19[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable youth competition. There is insufficient coverage for this article to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am guessing you dont know Indian Football what so ever. The U19 competition was confirmed by the AIFF at there conference earlier this year. In fact I have that as a reference in the article. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The single reference appears not to relate to the article. Nor does anything else assert notability. Cloudz 679 17:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I will say yes to the deletion of this article BUT once I get any dates for the tournament or any team news that CAN be proven through a reference then I will recreate the article. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of reality but notability. Most youth competition do not receive sufficient coverage to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but can you please explain that again. Are you saying that the I-League U19 is not popular enough to be included? --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, yes. Most youth competitions, this one included, do not receive significant coverage, which is required for an article to meet the inclusion criteria. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It actually does receive a lot of coverage in India but only during the season which looking at other youth leagues it seems that way to (example being the 2011–12 Premier Academy League which was created in October when coverage about it started). If you look at sites like thehardtackle.com, indianfootballnetwork.com and the-aiff.com you will see that the competition does get some coverage but I do understand and I am open to deletion of the article for now till the first game is completed and reported. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Just because something exists does not mean that it is notable. Giant Snowman 11:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we all agreed that this should be deleted (me included) so why is this page still up. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure requires an afd to last at least seven days, to make sure all sides of the argument are heard. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Blatant hoax. Fences&Windows 16:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus cotton[edit]

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

Unreferenced article from 2009. Unable to find any information about this supposed material after a lengthy search. Definitely feels like a WP:HOAX. France3470 (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – clearly a hoax. The creator has a history of creating nonsense articles and other vandal edits. --Lambiam 11:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does look like a hoax, not finding anything else online about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Disavian (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax and as complete bollocks. Google News search for "Cactus cotton" brings up 6 results, none of which have anything to do with this likely imaginary material. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably should have been speedily deleted long ago as a blatant hoax. LadyofShalott 15:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nasim Yousaf[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Really concerned about this - an independent researcher, mostly writing about his famous relatives, almost entirely published by a company that solicits authors/self-publishers. Next to nothing of note on GScholar/Gbooks except his own works & obscure other titles. Plenty at GSearch but most of it relates to self-published or obscure sites. I am treating the "D" of AfD here as "discussion". I really need more eyes on this one. Sitush (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Actually, I see that it is a recreated article. That should make life easier, but let's go through the process anyway. - Sitush (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability cannot be inherited or derived automatically from "papers presented." If you hadn't nominated this, Sitush, I would have removed all those lists of papers etc. As it is, I removed all but one of the images (WP is not a gallery, and the book cover, for instance, is promotional and is probably not OK per fair use guidelines) and some of the linkspam (per WP:ELNO). Drmies (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, refs do not come anywhere near establishing notability. Hairhorn (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The previous AfD was in 2006, so re-nominating it rather than speedily deleting as a re-creation is the proper procedure to follow. However, as far as I can see, this still does not meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, fails WP:ACADEMICS. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAs per nom and fails WP:PROF , WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:42, 1 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 delete (CSD G4). --Bongwarrior (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Candelabra (film)[edit]

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

delete per WP:NFF Gaijin42 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We've been here before (it was nominated last month under an incorrect title at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberace (film)), and nothing has changed, i.e. it hasn't started filming yet, and won't for some time if at all. Behind the Candelabra already exists as a redirect to Liberace#Behind the Candelabra, and I honestly don't see the point redirecting this one there as well.--Michig (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator doesn't present any rationale for deletion and not outstandig !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Index of MS-DOS games (N-Z)[edit]

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

2 page split from unmanageably large Index of MS-DOS games where a 26 page split already exists (starting at Index of MS-DOS games (A) with nav between pages); 2 page split remains unmanageably large. GILO A&E⇑ 04:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but 26 splits are too much. 2 splits no. If you want I can make 4/3 splits. Alancito10t (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... It was divided by letters (A, B, C, D, etc.). But it was difficult to read. So i thought that if I put it in only one article, it were be more easy to read. It was, but it was heavy (about 10-15 sec to load). So i thought to split this article in two. Index of MS-DOS games (A-M) and Index of MS-DOS games (N-Z). Although I have a problem: with an administrator permission, I want to delete:

If you like my changes (Index of MS-DOS games (A-M)/Index of MS-DOS games (N-Z)/Index of MS-DOS games ) we can delete this pages, because it wont be necessary. Please answer! Thanks to all Alancito10t (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Close - This should not be discussed in an AfD. Salvidrim! 20:09, 1 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 keep. Nominator doesn't present any rationale for deletion and not outstandig !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Index of MS-DOS games (A-M)[edit]

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

2 page split from unmanageably large Index of MS-DOS games where a 26 page split already exists (starting at Index of MS-DOS games (A) with nav between pages); 2 page split remains unmanageably large. GILO A&E⇑ 04:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but 26 pages are too much. 2 pages no. If you want I can make 4/3. Alancito10t 15:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.173.150 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sorry, on what grounds do you want this deleted? Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was divided by letters (A, B, C, D, etc.). But it was difficult to read. So i thought that if I put it in only one article, it were be more easy to read. It was, but it was heavy (about 10-15 sec to load). So i thought to split this article in two. Index of MS-DOS games (A-M) and Index of MS-DOS games (N-Z). User:Alancito10t 19:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.48.211.160 (talk) [reply]
Procedural Close - This should not be discussed in an AfD. Salvidrim! 20:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no actual reasons to delete.--Avala (talk) 13:07, 2 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) 12:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Georgetown Improv Association[edit]

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

Small-time undergraduate improv troupe. Basically, this is a student club. No third party sources, per WP:GNG. Just having notable former members doesn't confer notability. GrapedApe (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having notable former members doesn't confer notability, but the fact that many of them have credited this troupe as assisting them in their successful comedy careers makes it notable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while I wish there were more sources in the article, I'm inclined to believe that the ones present and the age of the group indicate that it passes the WP:GNG. Disavian (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources, except for the former members, are from college newspapers, which don't exactly count as reliable sources. I mean, a college newspaper covers student government meetings like they're the UN, so the fact that the college newspaper gave it coverage doesn't indicate notabilit.y--GrapedApe (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hosting one of the longest running improv festivals is notable. That festival, whose article was previously merged into here, should be key.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 01:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, nominator withdraws nomination and no other delete !votes. (non-admin closure)Quasi human | Talk 20:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruins & Relics[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NBOOK; neither significant coverage found nor won a major award. Nat Gertler (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has received sufficient coverage ([40], [41], [42], [43]) and was nominated for the McAuslan First Book Prize.[44] --Michig (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination - not sure why most of those sources weren't showing up on search. (Possibly searching with & - actual title - instead of and?) ---Nat Gertler (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 16:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul John Ellis[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. Has one publication (don't know how important it is) and was a professor. Google News search comes up with zilch. Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Next time do your homework before sending something to AFD. PJ Ellis has/had a Hirsch index 41 according to gscholar, which is pretty high, and indicates that he easily satisfies WP:PROF.T R 11:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clear pass of WP:prof. Well known Physicist - looking at google scholar using "PJ Ellis", rather than "Paul John Ellis", shows lots of citations to lots of works. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Comment No time to look at this in detail, but an obituary in a scientific journal is rather exceptional and a red flag that this is almost certainly a notable person. And what does the nom mean with "has one publication"? I don't know of any professor with only one publication (perhaps, if true, that could be a claim for notability.. :-) Did the nominator do any research on this person before going to AfD? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The only editor on this page who is civil is Msrasnw (who kindly left a note on my Talk page about searching for "PJ Ellis" rather than "Paul John Ellis" (which is what I did). The rest of you should drop the vitriol and improve articles like this one (as Msrasnw has already done a bit), which have no apparent notability as written. The Ellis article has seen virtually no work since its creation at the end of 2008 (three years ago). Because and only because of Msrasnw, I'll withdraw the nomination rather than letting it run its course.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jitta On The Track[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete No independent evidence of notability. Lom Konkreta (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No one, except the nominator, advocates deletion of the article. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Internarrative identity[edit]

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

Nonnotable philosopnical neotheory nearly no links beyond wikipedia mirrors and author's works. Lom Konkreta (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Maan's theory may not have had wide takeup in the academic literature, but there's still a published book from Routledge, which was reviewed in The Personalist Forum (see JSTOR). And there are a few other citations on Google Scholar. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What is missing here is an article on the theory of Narrative identity, to which Maan's theory seems like little more than an interesting footnote. Given such an article, the article under discussion here might well be merged into it. As a standalone article and in the absence of a Narrative identity article, it seems to have undue weight. --Lambiam 12:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that Maan's book on the subject is notable, or at least just passes the letter of Wikipedia:Notability (books) based on reviews here and here. So I'd suggest we refocus this article to focus on the book itself. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this topic is notable.read the review Review by Joe Barnhart , University of north texas.--Brat tariq (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the same review as referenced above by Tom Morris and also by Mark Arsten. But did you actually read it? It is not by Barnhart, but by Seth Vannatta, Casady School (now at Morgan State University). --Lambiam 17:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Sandstein 08:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Hong Kong Anti-mainlander conflicts[edit]

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

There is no special mention of a "2012 Hong Kong anti-mainlander conflicts" as a separate, notable event in the sources; could be original research. (However, the part on protesting Kong Qingdong's remarks is a notable and ongoing event, and it should be merged into Kong Qingdong.) ZZArch ^{talk to me} 01:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I renamed the article to a more neutral title (may be not the best). There are article in wikipedia with descriptive titles. The conflicts are notable and well-known. Instead of deleting, please search for a better title. Lom Konkreta (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protests against mainland Chinese have existed for a long time in Hong Kong, and they have been particularly escalated since at least 2007. I don't see any secondary research that support singling out the protests that occurred in 2012; hence, I do not agree with keeping it as such. In fact, if we are to keep it, then we are obligated to also create "2007 Hong Kong anti-mainland protests", "2008 Hong Kong anti-mainland protests", etc. As I read it, the article documents 3 main events:

The suppression of academic freedom of Hong Kong professors;
The anger directed towards pregnant mainland migrants who go to Hong Kong to gain citizenship for their children;
Protests against Kong Qingdong's remarks.

As I see it, the only event among these that is notable enough to be called a separate event is the last one, and it probably belongs to the article Kong Qingdong. (Disclaimer: I am the main contributor to the Kong Qingdong article.) ZZArch ^{talk to me} 02:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, you again show the problem only with the title. You say the conflict has long history. Do we have a wikipedia article to document it? If not, expand this one. If yes, merge this one into main one. Also, as I see from the text, the "Mothers" event was notable enough as well, since it involves actions of HK govt. As for professors' cases, a closer look is required to see whether this is original research (collecting facts and connecting the dots). Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous notable events are Hong Kong 1 July marches and December 2005 protest for democracy in Hong Kong; these are all well-covered in the media and given treatment as standalone events. The 2012 protests, minus the one on Kong Qingdong, in my view falls within the scope of the general HK-mainland relations. Perhaps an article on Hong Kong-mainland China relations would be where they belong? ZZArch ^{talk to me} 02:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, we agree that a major hurdle here is lack of a good "parent" article on the subject. Such and article has to provide a foundation and a framework for all present and future detailed article, so that we have no poor, artificial titles. Your suggestion, Hong Kong-mainland China relations is good. It must cover both efforts for (and opposition against) integration, as well as conflicts controversies. I would also suggest to further narrow down the topic, so that the article covers only the issues of unification. Hong Cong-PRC relations (before unification) would be in category "Foreign relations". Lom Konkreta (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Actually, after reading more on the incident that occurred after Kong's remarks, I am convinced that the anti-Kong protests may warrant its own article. I have refactored the page and written it from primarily this angle, and I believe that the current version has no such issues. If there is no dissent, I will go ahead and withdraw this nomination. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 10:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Isaac Air Freight. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snooze Ya Looze[edit]

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

This album lacks substantial RS coverage. Tagged for zero refs for 3 years, without improvement. Epeefleche (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak keep~~ merge/redirect The album also lacks any coverage in the wikipedia article beyond basic discogs info, so refs are not an issue here. May be merged into the author's page, but just as well kept separately, since wikipedia is not paper. Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on what basis you are suggesting this could be a keep, even a weak one, given that it has zero refs and you have not indicated any substantial, multiple RS coverage. It fails to meet our notability and verifiability policies. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote clanged, for clarity. Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I have no problem with a redirect. I don't see a merge as making sense, as all the text is uncited and challenged, and requires inline citations per wp:CHALLENGED.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, you don't have to merge everything. And a diligent merge would include finding some sources. If the album really existed, I am sure to find refs for track listing should not be a big challenge. Lom Konkreta (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - One could always, after a redirect (or even now), create appropriate text (supported by refs) at the target article. A merge involves more (otherwise unnecessary) work, on the part of the editor proposing the merge -- it is he, not the closer, who must then reflect all edit history of the merging article into that of the target article, for copyvio purposes.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:06, 1 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 redirect to Fulton County School System. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Windward Elementary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Proposing redirect to community, as is the standard outcome for elementary schools. tedder (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fulton County School System per standard practice for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. As always. "Pepper" @ 12:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to target identified by Carrite and per established consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails WP:ORG. No redirect is required by that guideline or any other guideline or policy. Unlikely search term for someone looking for information about a school district or community. The consensus claimed by Cullen328 is not expressed in the relevant guideline. Nor is the "standard practice" claimed by Carrite. Follow the guideline, until it is changed. Edison (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With all respect to Edison, established working consensus is very important, even though it may not yet be enshrined in written guidelines, but remains exceptionally useful to the smooth administrative functioning of the encyclopedia. Plausible redirects are useful, and I can see no reason to oppose a redirect in cases such as this. The search term is more than plausible if someone wants information about that particular school. If someone searches for an article about an otherwise non-notable elementary school, they will instead end up at an article about a notable school district which may well contain a brief description of that school. That is a good thing, as I see it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the one hand, I myself have no problem with a redirect at this point, which I've indicated above. But the points raised by Edison interest me. Are you suggesting that each of the hundreds of thousands of schools that exists, which is verifiable, deserves a redirect? If we could create a bot that would create redirects for every school, in the world -- that it would be a benefit to have those all in wikipedia, with redirects for those that don't have articles to either (as the case may be) their school district or locale? I'm not clear that this would be helpful. Nor am I clear that the target articles typically yield any information of interest, to a reader searching for the school. They could, I imagine. But -- as with the current state of the target article here -- they generally don't ... they just lead the reader to an article that lists the names of the school he is searching for and a number of other schools. Anyway as I said, I'm supporting a redirect at the moment. But at the same time I wonder whether there might not be something worth considering in what Edison says here, and what some others have said along the same lines at similar AfDs.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fulton County School System. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manning Oaks Elementary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Proposing redirect to Fulton County School System. I attempted this, but my redirect reverted, so I'm bringing it to AFD. tedder (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Convention with schools such as this one is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable, given the lack of substantial multiple coverage in RSs in gnews (despite 33 gnews hits -- the mentions are non-notable) and gbooks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fulton County School System per standard practice for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the applicable guideline, WP:ORG. "Standard practice" does not trump established guidelines. Edison (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathori London[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert for a non-notable company. Half of article is copyvio from the company's website. No reliable source coverage found. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any sources to establish notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also cannot find any WP:RS to establish notability. Rwendland (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical Threads[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - there are some sources: LA Times is kind of a passing mention, NYTimes discusses the company more. Also mentioned in New Statesman (again, slightly passing), The Guardian (and again), and in a 2007 article in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (JSTOR). —Tom Morris (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I've also found some different sources which provide extra info, which I've added to article. Rwendland (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allam Ghulam Fakhar Uddin Sahb Gaangvi[edit]

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

I cannot find any RS coverage of this person in gbooks or gnews. Tagged for its lack of refs since September. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO.Cannot find sources for the subject.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "He wrote 2 books which unfortunately could not be published."... why? Cannot find sources for him on Google either... No references at all in the article... Tradedia (talk) 19:30, 4 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) 05:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rosaen Family[edit]

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

Does not support the family's notability. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 00:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not the place to post genealogical research. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as random per WP:NOT. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears as if article was started and left as unfinished. After searching on the family surname "Rosaen", I find nothing worth notable to include as an encyclopedic reference. SaveATreeEatAVegan 22:42, 6 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) 10:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borje Oscar Rosaen[edit]

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

Current version does not support the subject's notability. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 00:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like an interesting chap, but I can't see anything that would establish notability. Happy to change my views if something better turns up. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any sources to establish notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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