< 9 December	11 December >

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WiFi Marketing[edit]

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

The article is written like an advertisement and has been tagged for the general notability guideline for some time. A quick search on Google News turns up nothing, while a Yahoo Search reveals several sources, but they are all primary. Inter change able|talk to me 23:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a new technology that is being used by many businesses worldwide. Businesses provide internet access to their clients for various reasons, but seldom do they know how to profit from it.... WiFi Marketing technology brings the power to business to better understand their clients behavior and habits, as well as create a communication channel to convey advertising, promotions, coupons and other messages. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and WP:ADVERT. Also seems like WP:OR to me. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and move to Hinatuan River. (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 22:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted river hinatuan[edit]

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

This does not seem to be Notable. Searching only turned up a few travel blogs with a single entry about some people visiting this river. Also, the article seems to be suspiciously similar to this page. Millermk90 (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (change to Move see discussion below) ah this looks like a pretty yet non-notable place. There's a lot of travel sites info but I don't think they're reliable sources. The best that I can come up with is this [newspaper article] but this too looks too much of an advert to be used as a reliable cite.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a verifiable geographic feature. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] all verify it's existence. They also imply that it is being developed as a tourism destination. -- Whpq (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Hinatuan River, which appears to be the river's actual name (with the "enchanted" business being marketing lingo), and cut out the nonnotable content, which in this case will leave only the location info in the first sentence. Encyclopedic information about tourism and other aspects of the river can be added as it is found in reliable sources. (Google Books is turning up some material about gold-dredging operations in the river in the early 20th century, for instance, but it would be nice to have more of the normal sort of geographic information, such as length.) Deor (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with this. I'm keen on deleting the enchanted tourist spot but re-writing this as a geographic location is okay. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move and redirect to Hinatuan River. Deletion is not a preferred alternative to redirection. — C M B J 11:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Victory[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, and the GNG. BLP with no reliable sources or substantive biographical content; only claim of importance is quite dubiously sourced to a self-published ebook. No GNews hits, no nontrivial GBooks hits. Deleted without objection a few years ago; only addition seems to be recognition by the Urban X Awards, which by repeated AFD/DRV consensus does not make a significant contribution to notability, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – On searching, I've also found a dearth of reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. The higher standard of WP:PORNBIO isn't met with Urban X (see prior discussions indicating a consensus to that effect: 1 – clearest explanation, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). JFHJr (㊟) 20:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R U There?[edit]

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

No reliable sources found which are independent of the subject to indicate that it meets the notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found a reliable ed.gov article which is independent from R U There? fully detailing R U There? which meets the notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, and outlines it's relation with the Ready to Learn partnership. Transatlanick (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting here. Although the Department of Education source you give would be considered reliable, as they part-fund R U There?, they would not be considered independent of it PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't even consider that. Found another article - a blog entry by CNN contributer Mario Armostrong. I've updated it accordingly. Will this work? Transatlanick (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure - it's mainly referring to an interview he did, is that right? However, even if it's acceptable (I'll look at it in more detail when I get a chance), we require multiple instances of signifant coverage at independent reliable sources PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This subject got a mention on kacv public television - I added this to the references, so hopefully that holds up. Transatlanick (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete I can find no evidence of notability for this video game or whatever it is. I did find confirmation that it appears on some PBS stations [6] but I could find absolutely zero written ABOUT it at Google News Archive. Most Google references are to an unrelated 2010 film of the same name [7]. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a TV guide. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brasserie de l'Abbaye du Val-Dieu[edit]

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

Non Notable brewery; no claim to any significance; no suitable merge target fails WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 22:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An average European brewery which produces three average beers. Does not appear to have attracted media attention. I agree that it fails the general notability guideline. The single media reference is inadequate for notability. --Bejnar (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would Val-Dieu Abbey not be a suitable merge target?--Tikiwont (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge information with Val-Dieu Abbey, which already has a section about their brewery. I can't find any evidence in English or French that the brewery or its products are 'notable' in their own right. Sionk (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with Val-Dieu Abbey. The only notability is that there are very very few abbey beers that are actually brewn inside the abbey they are named for, as opposed to an independent brewery which just markets the brand. Filipvr (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Or integrate with the abbey article and make it into a redirect. I dont know what guidelines for those are, these days. It occurs to me that people are really eager to just delete things... Filipvr (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex VanderLinden[edit]

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

Decline speedy. Fails WP:Athlete which says Triathletes are presumed notable if they

Have competed in Triathlon at the Summer Olympics or have had a podium finish at the Pan American Games or Commonwealth Games.

Have had a podium finish in an International Triathlon Union sanctioned championship.

Have had a podium finish at the Ironman World Championship in Hawaii or at the Ironman 70.3 World Championship.

Have had a podium finish at the XTERRA Triathlon championships.

None of these appear to be applicable here NtheP (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that he meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. All the news hits would appear to be about other people with this name. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Probably could be speedied; speedy tag removed with the edit summary "Professional athletes are notable", which is a clear misreading of WP:ATHLETE. Hairhorn (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per criteria noted in nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fluenz (company)[edit]

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

Article appears to be on a non-notable software company. There does appear to be one review done by the Associated Press, which has been reprinted in several newspapers. However, it is just one single review. The article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Fluenz (software), as it also appears to fail the general notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. I found one review for the software [8], not enough. Found nothing about the company. BTW "Fluenz" is also the name of a car and a flu vaccine! --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CORP. A company/product review doesn't make it notable. Fluenz (software) should be nominated for deletion as well. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ICASE 2009[edit]

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

This article has no sources and is not notable, according to my search on the internet there is only coverage of a conference in 2009, no further links could be found for later conferences. The article was made by an author who is associated with the institute creating the event, showing a COI Gsingh (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is basically a conference report; its last paragraph bears the hallmarks of being a copy of a news story on what one person said at the conference, but that is (a) unreferenced and (b) insufficient to demonstrate notability of the conference itself. AllyD (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The conference shows no evidence of being notable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of most expensive Indian films[edit]

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

Tagged as unsourced for over a year with no improvements. BollyJeff || talk 18:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As per nom. Scieberking (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Notability guidelines. Individual Indian films are occasionally discussed in terms of their expense vis-a-vis other Indian films. There are occasional economic articles about the Indian film industry that discuss costs. Neither of these is sufficient to meet the guideline for a "List of most expensive Indian films". Whether such a list is useful is not the issue. See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Bejnar (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I had created this list as a comprehensive way to list out all the high-costing Indian films, but failed to check up on it as I got busy with other article. I was really shocked to see the bad state it is in now, and I think its time we remove it. I doubt any single editor can consistently keep a watch on this article, hence it will always be prone to vandalism (eg. budget of Enthiran is ₹132 crores.) AnkitBhatt^WDF 14:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Again there are no clear ways to determine the budget of most of the Indian films. For South Indian films we don't even have any clue. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 14:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, no objections to the coverage found by Yngvadottir (talk · contribs) in 15 days, the only delete !vote is on the basis of a lack of sources, this objection has been remedied by Yngvadottir. (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 23:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BuchGourmet[edit]

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

I mainly found a bunch of trivial mentions on Google Books. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't see any secondary sources, a quick search turned up only the official site and other sites which linked to it, but contained so substansive information, so I'd say it fails WP:CORP Millermk90 (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's an entire article about it (from May this year) in a magazine affiliated with Der Spiegel. It's singled out as a business case study in this 2007 book and is the first business listed in this 1990 article in the Los Angeles Times. Detailed coverage in the German version of the Cologne tourist site and in the Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger. According to the store's own site, there was also a mention of it in Welt am Sonntag as "Europas wohl beste Spezialbuchhandlung für kulinarische Literatur" (probably the best specialized bookstore for culinary works in Europe), but I was unable to find that: I only found the owner being interviewed as one of the experts in a 2004 article on the resurgence of meat eating. I have added the rest to the article and fleshed it out somewhat. I believe this meets the standard for general notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable culinary book store. The information is verifiable by reliable sources, as User:Yngvadottir suggests above. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to withdraw the nomination, but I can't because of the delete !vote. SL93 (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - You can still do so, but the AFD won't be closed unless the editor advocating deletion changes his or her mind. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (chatter) 18:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion of a rename can and should continue on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social data revolution[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and full of meaningless and unencyclopedic neologisms and jargon. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - valid, meaningful and discussed concept, even if neologism. Although the article must be cleaned from unreferenced essay stuff. Loggerjack (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:NEO. This is not an article on the subject matter utilising the sources presented but a distillation or take upon them. Some of them do not even mention the given subject in more than a politically tangental way. This is more like a newspaper article or blog post than an encyclopedia entry. -Rushyo ^Talk 17:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not infatuated with contemporary social science jargon, but this topic seems to meet GNG. A fairly new term, yes, but about fairly new technology — so that is to be expected. Nicely constructed article, too, and that really should be taken into consideration when a topic is on the borderline... Carrite (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are at least a dozen related concepts/articles in wikipedia relating to social data and the internet; social data revolution fits in and clearly has a number of cited sources. Apologies if the writing style isn't up to the standards, that's why it's a wiki and other folks are free to edit the entry to add the appropriate level of polish. jeremypetercarr 11:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Social data without a redirect. The "revolution" part is what ruins the article and makes it a silly neologism. The part about mining social data is actually quite interesting, and I couldn't find any other articles that already cover that subject. —SW— ^communicate 00:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (gas) 18:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Snotty Wong's renaming idea makes good sense to me; a redirect would be costless, however, so I'd recommend a simple name change (with redirect) in the somewhat likely event this closes Keep. Carrite (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jimi Hendrix. v/r - T P 15:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Church[edit]

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

This is just an off-hand reference, not an article. I wouldn't suggest redirecting, as it's obscure. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hendrix's article or some appropriate subdivision thereof. I agree that there's not enough here to sustain a standalone article, but I do think this sourced and interesting tidbit could reasonably be covered within another article. Jclemens (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (articulate) 18:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Jimi Hendrix. It's his idea, but it doesn't seem to have caught on aside from his own promotion of it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The referenced info can be added to Jimi Hendrix. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 15:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eidos games[edit]

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

This page contains a random list of titles from SCi, Eidos and Square Enix. Many of the games listed were not published by Eidos, but by SCi prior to the merger. Many titles are missing, including titles such as Tomb Raider, Deus Ex and Daikatana. Games published by Eidos, SCi and Square Enix can already be found on those respective pages. Furthermore, a category page "Category:Eidos Interactive games" exists which contains a far better list. In short, the page here is missing large number of titles and includes many that have no place here according to the description of the page MrMarmite (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CLN, if the category is better then use that to improve the list. Warden (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — A very notable developer with a large library of published games. The list is incomplete, but that's easily fixed. Master&Expert (Talk) 13:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The article describes itself as "This is a list of games published and/or developed by the Square Enix subsidiary Eidos plc (formerly SCi), including its own fully owned subsidiaries" Eidos PLC was not "formerly SCi". SCi acquired Eidos Interactive and was in turn acquired by Square Enix. Eidos, was formed by the reverse take-over of Eidos PLC by Domark, Simis and Big Red. So what is this list aiming for, the list of all games developed and/or published by Eidos and/or Sci? Before they became one company or only after they became one company? If before, then why would there be a list of game developed/published by two non-related developers? If after the merger, then this would be a list of game developed/published by Eidos after it was acquired by Sci but before SCi, trading as Eidos, was acquired by Square Enix. What is so special about this snapshot of their history? I am not sure what the aim of this page is, or what particular moment in either Eidos's or SCi's history this is trying to capture. MrMarmite (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as content fork, since the games are also listsed on the page of the sofwtare house. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (orate) 18:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand per Warden. A cat is no substitute for a list article. Outback the koala (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Expand to what though? See previous comment. There is no clarity on what "era" of Eidos this page is meant to cover. If it's Eidos games, why does the list contain SCi games from before the merger? Games are already listed on the Eidos Interactive, Crystal Dynamics and other pages. Should this include all US Gold and Simis titles from before their merger with Eidos?MrMarmite (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is Not Paper. We can be as detailed as we like; there is no limit to the amount of content that could be contributed, it seems to me that there is a willingness for that to happen here. Therefore to delete this content would be extreme, unwise, and unwarrented. I don't see an issue with linking to a main article for a developer. Outback the koala (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - At the very least a merge could be made. Outback the koala (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - But the question remains, what is the aim of this page? What era of Eidos is it trying to capture? MrMarmite (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 03:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fractal (video game)[edit]

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

No evidence that this app is notable. No non-trival mentions in sources that I could find. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Joystiq and Time both have reviews on the game. I'd say it just squeeks through. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as some notability is established in media. Not sure if/how it will ever get beyond a stub, though. -Rushyo ^Talk 17:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Those reviews are capsule reviews, which are considered trivial for films under WP:NOTFILM, any reason why they should prove notability for video games? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubiscous (talk • contribs) 22:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how either are capsule reviews, especially the Time review, which is 600+ words. --Teancum (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a lacking sufficient in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources meet WP:GNG. I see no problem with the reviews as solid sources. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely if it were notable it would have attracted more than four edits in a year and half, and the article would consist of more than a one-line description? DaveApter (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Notability is not defined by the number of edits made to an article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (state) 18:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Joystiq and TIME reviews seem to concentrate upon an edition of Fractal for iPad, not PC. The article may better meet notability guidelines of rewritten around the iPad edition. Chris (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orpie[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources as required by WP:GNG. I couldn't find anything in the Google results, either. From WP:MADEUP: "Wikipedia is not for things that you or your friends made up." Msnicki (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not provide reliable and independent sources which establish the subject's notability. Folgertat (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced software article with no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Knights[edit]

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

no indication of notability. No references in reliable sources and google searches are not finding anything significant. noq (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a non-notable college alumni hockey team, of the minor or master's sort. Delete. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kunststoff 23[edit]

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

I only found two copies of the Wikipedia article in searches. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. Not a notable band per WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not have reliable sources which establish this topic's notability. I was not able to find signicant coverage. Folgertat (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong’s Theory on Male-Female Dual Cultivation[edit]

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

The article does not establish that Falun Gong has a theory on male-female dual cultivation. It also seems to be used as a coatrack to hang (true or not) accusations of improper actions on some people. Notable information should be put where it belongs, in the main article on Falun Gong or in articles on notable individuals. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not really sure what to do with this article. Many of the sources are written in Chinese (and at least one in Russian), and although Google Translate does make the text somewhat readable, it is hard to verify the statements made in the article based on the text. It would be helpful to get a reader of Chinese to look into this further. One other possibility (that I don't necessarily support yet) is to merge these into Teachings of Falun Gong. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I, Jethrobot has asked me to evaluate some of the Chinese-language sources used on the page. I'll list them here:
- The majority of the citations are from a website "Minghui.org" – on its "About Us" page, it describes itself as "[our] main aim is in using direct first-hand information from Mainland China to expose the Chinese Communist Party's persecution of Falun Gong, and to make clear the true nature of Falun Gong...." (Chinese: "主旨在于通过直接来自中国大陆的第一手资料，揭露中共对法轮功的迫害，讲清法轮功真相"). Though much of the information the website publishes could be true, this is unlikely to be a reliable source.
- A number of other sources come from "Kaiwind.com" – this Chinese-language website seems to no longer exist, but French, Spanish, and English versions remain available. It is essentially the opposite of "Minghui.org", and purports to have exposées of Falun Gong's hidden evils. This website is almost certainly an unreliable source.
- The other sources, such as the ones near the end of the article, are mostly links to pages of Buddhist teachers in China. These also tend to be unreliable (see earlier versions of Hsu Yun for example) – in any case, removing the material sourced from the above two websites makes these unnecessary, anyway.
- In summary, the Chinese-language sources used on the page are all non-peer-reviewed websites and are unlikely to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. The article probably merits deletion under WP:Notability guidelines, as well. Glad I could be of service. White Whirlwind 咨 19:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis article has numerous problems from my perspective. I'm fairly familiar with the literature on Falun Gong's teachings, and this issue of "dual cultivation" hasn't been considered notable in anything I've read. I does exist, but I don't see any reliable source discussing it as a notable element of Falungong's beliefs. The other problem I see is that the article is an interpretation of these of these teachings, and it doesn't seem consistent or coherent. I don't see how this article would bring a reader anything but confusion. —Zujine|talk 03:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article doesn't even bother to explain what "male-female dual cultivation" means. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the assessment by White_whirlwind and on the basis that an article on this subject would require an complete rewrite to be coherent. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am really quite sympathetic, I think the whole yin-yang thing would be very interesting to write about. But looking over the sources and the article itself spends so much time quoting people without explaining what the concept is. But it does seem like a hit piece from a Chinese perspective... the whole mixing up sexes thing is not good based on their perspective of harmonry and order.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to the issues, with sourcing, I'm not convinced that this particular concept within one belief system is notable enough for its own article, and this confusingly written piece does nothing to convince me that it is.--Danaman5 (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk That Talk Tour[edit]

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

The subject of this article appears not to exist. The one source I found that referred to a tour in the search blurb made no mention of a tour in the source article. All the creator's sources refer to the "Loud" tour or to the album on which the "tour" is based. This article may meet one of the speedy criteria; I wasn't sure so I'm bringing the subject here. Tiderolls 16:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources in the article are about the tour "Loud", the image in the article is about another tour. No information is confirmed by sources. Lucas Brígido ^Msg 01:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As not verifiable. The article lists future dates. The only source I could find was a mention here which implies the tour is in progress or already happening. -- Whpq (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only one date is verifiable, and that is the Barclay's Festival...and even that source says it will be Rihanna's ONLY date in the Uk next year. This article's creation seems bizarre.--mikomango mwa! 19:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cooking With Catie[edit]

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

WP:NN cookbook and. No G-hits for news - only shop sites or promotional sites. Failed ((prod)) when sole author (with COI) objected.

This is also great example of why Wikipedia needs a speedy deletion criterion for articles about products that do not assert a product's importance. Toddst1 (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no coverage that would make this pass WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and agreed- we need a speedy delete for articles about non-notable products. There's nothing about this book that is notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Chandler[edit]

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

Prod contested by page creator. Per Bonadea's original prod nomination, "does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG at this time." Google news search shows no significant coverage. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Non-notable, unelected, candidate. The article is highly disingenuous; it claims the subject beat another candidate which might lead you to think he won. In fact, he came fifth out of six, with 0.5% of the vote. The article even exaggerates the vote count by 25% ([9]). RichardOSmith (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, per RichardOSmith. 138 votes out of 27,000+ cast = "no indication of importance". --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable "politician". Probably does not meet A7 as saying he's a politician is an assertion (false though it may be) of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mr Chandler was on One National News being interviewed about the Right Wing Resistance group. Claims are also out that Mr Chandler changed the out come of the electorate by running. (Wagner won by 45 votes, Mr Chandler receiving 138 votes, had Mr. Chandler not run, the out come could of been different) IPineappleNZ (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)— IPineappleNZ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- To surmise that he did affect the outcome without backing that up with reliable sources would be speculation and original research. Even if it could be reliably confirmed, you would have to establish that (a) this was notable (difficult, as the election was run of the mill) and that this made the subject rather than the event notable (again difficult; see WP:1E). RichardOSmith (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete not notable as a politician, or otherwise. Ridcully Jack (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Duplicate !vote struck All jumping on the delete bandwagon which is sad. This provides information to people if they were searching for Mr. Chandler online. It's providing information to the public. If you delete this you are censoring free speech which is of an Encyclopedic content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPineappleNZ (talk • contribs)

But if this is the only place that people searching for Mr Chandler can find information on him, he is inherently not notable. Ridcully Jack (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsuccessful political candidate. (How unsuccessful? He came in fifth!) He's only 19 years old and still in school; maybe he will become an actual politician later. BTW PineappleNZ, spare us the "free speech" and "censoring" talk. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it has standards. If it allowed every article that anybody cared to post, it would quickly lose its value as an encyclopedia. Go post on Facebook if you want "free speech". --MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy Skin[edit]

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

When I prodded this article, I didn't realize it had been deleted before. Per [10], Samsung has no plans to release such a model and has confirmed this to be a hoax. If anything, this article should be about the hoax if it gets enough media attention, see WP:HOAX#Hoaxes versus articles about hoaxes. If no such coverage of the hoax story can be found, then Delete, salt if needed. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: WP:CSD#A1 as there is absolutely no context in this article. It is a two sentence blurb and an infobox.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I stumbled across this, checked ref's and was about to speedy it, but noted the AFD instead (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No context provided. Article violates crystal ball rule. Folgertat (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 03:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SAE Aerodesign[edit]

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

Not-notable student competition. Not much coverage on internet (at least in the western alphabet). Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If NASA thiks its notable enough to sponsor, who are we to argue? But it appears the title should be "SAE Aero Design" ([11]). RichardOSmith (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is in the same league as Baja SAE and Formula SAE, and is very popular in the Mechanical/Aerospace engineering institutions of USA/Brazil and India. I could have provided dozens of sources to establish notability, but then I would have been accused of being WP:POINTy. And I fail to comprehend what you imply by western alphabet; you must read WP:NONENG properly, the reasoning that this is non notable because the majority of sources are in Portuguese is flawed, and is invalid. Lynch 7 14:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If so, you could write a longer article then just two lines. I can't see the notability in the present article. One of your sources point to India (only to announce that they take part in the competition), so it possible that there are more source to be found in other alphebets then the western one. Alas, my knowledge of Indian, Chinese, Japanese and the like is not enough to make any sense of them. So I did not search for them. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The logic that I didn't write a big enough article because there weren't enough sources is again, completely unfounded. Alas, I could, if I had the time to browse through all the news reports. There is nothing called as "Indian" language, and there are absolutely no sources in Chinese or Japanese. All the sources are either in English, or otherwise "Western" script ([12]). Lynch 7 15:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with RichardOSmith Oddbodz (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Margiotta[edit]

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

Importance is asserted, but the article is borderline promotional and the references to establish notability are trivial. The only references I found on Google News were about a namesake who has committed a crime in Nassau County. One editor also expressed a concern it might be a copyvio of an unknown source, but that hasn't been looked into. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barely passed speedy; I thought it sounded like copyvio in an earlier version, but I can't find the source--however, it hardly matters, as there are nothing other than incidental mentions. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CEO of a non-notable company; chairman of the board of a non-notable charity. The only results at Google News are for a (presumably different) individual getting convicted of drug possession. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 03:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Gay South Africa™[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG,Strange article with no reliable sources;Link goes to the company's website;and another leading to facebook page.Should be deleted. That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 10:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC) 2 December - reliable sourced added and bias removed.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the objectios have been sorted out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudirainbow (talk • contribs) 20:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: New sources show notability. SL93 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is kept then the trademark symbol needs to be removed from the title. I wish nominators would perform such obvious moves before starting deletion discussions, because moving during the discussion can mess up the links. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, covered in multiple different secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Has sufficient references available. A concur with Phil's comment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it now looks good per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the multiple independent sources now provided. Agree with Phil re necessary renaming; once this AfD has run its course I would suggest that the original name should be nominated at WP:RfD. - htonl (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of earthquakes in Canada. v/r - T P 15:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Vancouver Island earthquake[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS Non-notable earthquake that caused little damage and no casualties Mikenorton (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if no detail is lost. Per a cursory reading of the WP:EARTHQUAKE guidelines, which seem reasonable, and the article (which is quite reasonable too), a stand-alone article does not seem appropriate at this time. (add.) I'd be happiest with an in-between solution where the merged article is a grouping of short entries like this article is currently. I see where some detail is lost with short entries on List of earthquakes in Canada. On the other hand Mikenorton has done enough work for free so I'm not asking him or anyone else to do it. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earthquakes in 2011#September. Although this is geologically unusual for an earthquake of this size to have occurred in this region, there was no impact from it, and hence it does not need an article, although it may borderline meet WP:GNG. HurricaneFan 25 22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative redirect target is List of earthquakes in Canada, assuming that I get around to turning it into a proper table with a 'comments' column, which could carry all the content here pretty much (like in List of earthquakes in Greece). Mikenorton (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's important that we keep the information about the geology of the actual earthquake intact somewhere alongside a citation, ie. that it occurred in a near-surface fault separate from the actual Cascadia subduction zone. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 02:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to expand the List of earthquakes in Canada (in one of my sandboxes) with a comments column where this information could be put - should be ready later today or tomorrow. Mikenorton (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's done, and I've added that one detail and changed it from transform to strike-slip as it wasn't on the plate boundary. Mikenorton (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the Wikipedian who started this article - yet the person who nominated this article for deletion did not notify me of this discussion. I wonder why not? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not doing that Ottawahitech, I think that this is only the second article that I've taken to AfD and I thought that putting a message on the talk page and the tag on the article page was enough - having re-read the AfD rules I see that notifying the article creator is encouraged, so again sorry. Mikenorton (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for explaining.

Wikipedia is losing editors at an alarming rate. My pet theory is that a lot of it is happening because of aggressive deletions of articles – many times without notification. After all Wikipedians are volunteers who are not rewarded financially for their work. It is a shame to slight them further by deleting material they spent time on.

Sorry for using this AFD as a soapbox, but I really don’t know how else to raise awareness at Wikipedia, other than at individual discussions of articles that I have started when they are being nominated for deletion (several such articles have been deleted with no notification). Ottawahitech (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For some larger articles it would impractical to notify everyone involved, which might be why it is "encouraged" not mandatory. Still, for the very reasons you stated above, when possible I think it's good courtesy/practice. Again, you and AstroHurricane001 did a very good job on this, which is why I thought it was appropriate to put an AfD notice on your talk pages. I agree with your comments, and also appreciate Mikenorton's as well. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawahitech, try a discussion about your theory at Wikipedia Talk:AFD. For quite sometime I have been against notibilty and other rather dumb policies on Wikipedia. Earthquakes are not news, they are geologic events created by movements of the Earth. It dosen't matter how small the article is it is still useful in some ways. Volcanoguy 18:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes are not news, they are geologic events created by movements of the Earth. Heh, good point Volcanoguy. However I don't think it's a question of having information about this event in the encyclopedia, as much as formatting. Should it be in a stand-alone article, or part of a larger grouping of similar events? LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the suggestion to direct discussion to Wikipedia Talk:AFD made by Volcanoguy: Someone already beat me to it (Wikipedia_talk:AFD#Checks_and_Balances_in_the_Articles_for_Deletion_Nomination_Process), but it does not look like anything came out of that elaborate and thoughtful discussion? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The earthquake was the strongest in the Vancouver Island region since 2004 and prompted some scientists and residents to further examine the risks associated with the Cascadia Subduction Zone. The West Coast of North America (California to BC) had seen a relative lull in strong earthquake activity since probably the Eureka earthquake in 2010. Perhaps there is some intrinsic notability here. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AH1, do you have a source for the review of seismic hazard that you mentioned? I did some searching around but couldn't find anything - it would make a difference regarding notability. Mikenorton (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 6.4 earthquake seems significant; there seem to be multiple reliable sources; and how does this not meet inclusion criteria exactly? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the thing with tropical cyclone AfDs. The tropical cyclone could be strong (e.g. Category 4 on the SSHS) but it didn't cause any damage. Most news reports of these kind of storms basically repeat what the NHC says, and it's never anything exceptional. I couldn't find any substantial reports of damage for this quake. HurricaneFan 25 14:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the earthquake notability guidelines (disclosure: I came up with them) it states that "being mentioned in the mainstream media is not in itself evidence of notability, particularly if the news reports are only during the few days immediately after the event". Mikenorton (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article lacked reliable independent sources to verify notability. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Examsguru[edit]

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

The article fails WP:ORG and with no matches in GBooks or GNews archives there seems little prospect of correcting the problem in the future. The article has been deleted twice before under speedy deletions on advertising grounds and in its current incarnation has been PRODded with a notability failure rational but this was quickly removed. I recommend this article is salted if deleted, in consideration of its resurrection track record. Fæ (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that sources are lacking. Warden (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per investigations by Warden and Fae. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete I think they have proper reference source cite. ivehien (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof.olivehien (talk • contribs) — Prof.olivehien (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete The references given are clearly not independent, published sources. There is no evidence given that this company meets WP:CORP which is Wikipedia's standard for inclusion for companies. Sparthorse (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete The references given by them are properly, let's improve this page.03:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)independent, published sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.95.18 (talk • contribs)
Delete The references given are to two press releases and a free hosting site - so not WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Idea Rover[edit]

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

This article fails to comply with Wikipedia notability guideline and is written like an advertisement. Fleet Command (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - www.idearover.com notability on search engine results page Query Avg. (Google): thesis writing software - 1, thesis software - 2, dissertation software - 2, paper writing software - 2, research paper software - 3, how to write a literature review outline - 3, literature review software - 3, example literature review outline - 3, writing a literature review outline - 4, literature review outline - 5. Atticagirl (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Atticagirl — Atticagirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You must be the person who wrote the article, since you have sent a copy of this message to my talk page too. Please carefully study WIkipedia:Notability and WP:GOOGLEHITS. Although I believe your most pressing concern is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a soapbox, since the latter is a pillar of Wikipedia, rather than guideline. Perhaps you are able to avert deletion. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. What's listed are all links to download sites and other useless sources. I looked over the Google results and I don't see anything there, either. Msnicki (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. My search results were the same as Msnicki's - nothing but download sites, nothing ABOUT the software. --MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solca Eduard[edit]

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

No reliable source is provided to support notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 13:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete autobiography by 14 year old, no reliable references. noq (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The lack of sources notwithstanding, there is hardly even any assertion of notability on the article page. His only claim to fame is playing at a notable football club. Master&Expert (Talk) 13:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails all relevant notability criteria. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Autobiography about a kid. No notability whatsoever. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no claim to notability in the slightest. Giant Snowman 14:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks sources and fails to establish notability. Folgertat (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not appeared for the first team; fails NFOOTBALL. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 08:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable youth player who has yet to play in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 10:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Design Otaku[edit]

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

The term does not come up in searches in English or Japanese, except as a rare case of meaning "fan of design". It does not seem to be a term or a phenomenon on its own (the two references not to companies only explain "otaku" not "design otaku"). Thus it lacks notability, and touches on WP:NAD or WP:NEO. The article could also be seen as a backdoor way of advertising the mentioned companies, thus violating WP:ADVERT (it seems like the creator of this article may be related to one of the companies: see here). Even if it can be found to be notable, it would be better off merged with otaku. Michitaro (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and at most this could charitably be called a neologism. Most of the hits were for 2-3 companies who had named themselves this and the others were for incidental hits where it was for any pairing of otaku and design. I agree that it could be seen as a backdoor for the companies, especially since two of the links are for the companies that share this name in some context. I don't see where this should be merged or redirected to otaku because I don't see any particular need for it. The page for otaku already mentions that the term can be used for any number of hobbies and interests and I don't think we need a list of all of the possible ways the term could be used. Besides, we don't have redirects for "techie otaku", "clothing otaku", or any number of (insert word here) otaku pairings. I didn't see where this particular term was really used all that often on google, to be honest. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete/Rewrite. I could find any references to this as a phrase in general. However, it is possible that the company by the same name is notable. So this should get deleted, or be rewritten focusing on the company. Millermk90 (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research and possible advertising. --DAJF (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gin, rum and tonic[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Subject is not-notable - only has a trivial mention in a TV show. No 3rd party coverage, as noted on the talk page and even in the article. AJ Cham 12:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Being a triviality from a popular TV show is not enough in itself to justify inclusion. Master&Expert (Talk) 13:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misleading because something fictional is presented as if it were real. Too trivial anyway. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not appear notable to me, lacking any third party (or even first party for that matter) sources online. Additionally, this article is supposed to be about a drink, so it is extremely innapropriate to have a section on health considerations with a clearly fictional and ridicualous claim about the failure of limbs. People expect Wikipedia to be factual. That kind of information goes in an article about the show it came from.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, a10 of Mobile apps. Jac16888 ^Talk 14:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

برنامه کاربردی موبایل[edit]

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

I'm not really sure what to do with this article. It's written in a foreign language, which prompted me to nominate it for translation. However, after I searched the article's title on Google, it seems like it might be spam.[13] I decided to bring it here for broader community input. Master&Expert (Talk) 11:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Mobile applications, software programs that are on mobile devices like smartphones and other devices (like tablets)" is the google translation. Seems to be a dictionary definition in Persian. noq (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:BLP where the (presumed) subject asks not to have an article and AFD would otherwise close as no consensus. v/r - T P 15:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Foltz[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability Bazj (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — This person seems to keep a relatively high profile and has obviously done some fairly significant things. Master&Expert (Talk) 13:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, refs do not establish notability. Hairhorn (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This person seems to keep a relatively high profile and has obviously done some fairly significant things.(adding more references now, thousands of references on google) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.146.85 (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anon, I appreciate your obvious agreement with my rationale, but that doesn't mean you have to copy everything I say word-for-word. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 16:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Master&Expert, I was trying to reply to your statement. I am just figuring out the Wiki ropes. Thank you for your reply

Haha, you didn't have to reply to me using the same term as I'd used (I've seen others using "dear anon" to address IP editors). And no problem. Welcome to Wikipedia! :) Master&Expert (Talk) 17:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, Credible sources, unbias information, referenced in other wiki pages, multiple search engine references and news articles for reference, notable and sometimes controversial client roster. Uncommon Ground —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Both Uncommon Ground and the IP appear to be the article creator. Hairhorn (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Appear to be" is putting it mildly. Uncommon Ground created the article, and 96.25.146.85's editing history leaves very little room for doubt that it is the same person. In the remote chance that they are not the same person, they are two people editing in support of one another in such a way as to constitute meat puppetry. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. The references all suffer from one or more of the following defects: only brief passing mention of Foltz; not an independent source; (e.g page on web site of business he works for, press release, his own web site, etc); not a reliable source (e.g. YouTube video). To answer the "keep" argument given by Master&Expert (and parroted by 96.25.146.85), neither "keep a relatively high profile" nor "has ... done some fairly significant things" comes anywhere near to relating to Wikipedia's notability criteria. As for Uncommon Ground's comment, nobody has suggested deleting because the sources are not "credible" or because the information is biased, so those are irrelevant; many totally un-notable subjects manage to get hundreds of search engine hits, we need to consider the quality of the hits, not just how many there are; how notable his clients are is totally irrelevant, as notability is not inherited by contact with notable people. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ This article is more sourced and living person has more credible client roster, and more notably and society impact across the entire country compared to existing articles of living people in industry: see - Cory Allen, Mike Paul (businessman), Ed_Niehaus, and more than half of the people on American public relations people category (in which I am only referencing 3 total in my thesis, 1 of which is Foltz). Uncommon Ground (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once you have said "keep" we know that is what you want, and putting three bold "keeps" is potentially misleading, so please don't do it. You are welcome to add further comments, but not to prefix them with bold "keep" notes. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I evidently failed to make it clear in my comment above, but "credible client roster" is not a reason for keeping. We need evidence that he himself is notable, and associating or working with other people who are notable does not establish that. As for the comparison with other articles, you may be right. A quick glance at the articles you linked to indicates that at least one of them is clearly not notable, and I have nominated that for deletion too. I have not yet had time to check the others thoroughly, but even if you can list 200 other articles that should be deleted, that will not mean that this one shouldn't. You may find it helpful to look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly the section WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I am in favor of keeping this page. I came across it on a google alert so I came to look. I have had a google alert on Christopher Foltz since he shared the stage with Bill Rancic (the Apprentice) at the BizNet Expo. I know he is in the news right now for two things of importance. He was instrumental in the name of America's "Greenest Restaurant" which is a huge deal in the green movement world. Also, I saw him on WGN national news a few weeks ago for being the one selected to do the rename of the worlds largest underground parking system. He also garnered much attention for helping create the United Basketball Federation as the governing body of all minor league basketball in America. He also is one of the main reasons why the Premier Basketball League made a huge come back after a PR nightmare that almost out them out of business. GreenEyeWriter —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC). — GreenEyeWriter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have looked for news coverage of the things you say he is currently in the news for. "Christopher Foltz" "Greenest Restaurant" comes up on Google with three pages at www.christopherfoltz.com and six on Facebook, and that is all. Other similar searches produce similar results. I can find nothing about the "underground parking system" and Christopher Foltz except several pages at www.christopherfoltz.com, Facebook, and numerous press releases, PR pages, etc. A Google search for "Christopher Foltz" "United Basketball Federation" produces all of 8 hits. Some of these are on sties such as FaceBook and YouTube. Others, such as this and this are identical copies on different sites of a press release from the Premier Basketball League. They give Foltz's name as a contact for that league, and otherwise do not mention him. I can see no evidence at all that he "garnered much attention" for his work for the league. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the person who this article is about. I am not sure if I am doing this correctly. Someone forwarded this to me today. I do not need to have a Wikipedia article about. Especially all of these questions to notability and such. I do love that it talks of my drug addiction though. When I speak all over the country I do talk about this every time. I hope to continue to do that in hopes it inspires people to not give up. It is crazy to see that Pete McMurray does not have an article seeing how he is the top radio personality in Chicago and on the WLUP wiki page he is the only one without a wiki and definitively meets the mark for article. - Chris Foltz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.27.191.42 (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was blank as copyvio. MER-C 08:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monetary Approach to The Balance of Payments[edit]

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

Dangerously close to copyvio (Deplication Detector) Besides that, a very British viewpoint. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:16, 10 December 2011 (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/2011 December 10. Snotbot t • c » 09:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the allegation is that the article is a copyvio of the paper by Ardalan I do not think that stands up on a superficial comparison of the two papers. I would expect to find some phrases in common and the plagiarism analysis provided by the nominator seems to contain false positives. As for the article being from a British perspective (which Ardalan's is not), that is true but if we start deleting articles because they have not been internationalised a great deal of WP would have to go. On the face of it the topic is notable but I will leave it to others to judge whether the topic is adequately covered elsewhere. --AJHingston (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I you don't see a copyvio-problem, that is okay. In my opinion, it came close to it, so I wanted more opinions. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page also copies from [14]. I have blanked it and listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. MER-C 08:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keiron Anderson[edit]

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

Not sure why he deserves an article on wikipedia. There are issues with referencing, including citations which have been made from his own website, which are not exactly reliable. Since early 2010 this article has been highlighted, but yet there are still issues. Feel therefore deletion is best option, and would like others to discuss this, or work out a way on changing the article. My viewpoint however is deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saariselka1 (talk • contribs) 15:36, December 8, 2011

Comment I have completed this incomplete nomination for the nominating user (it was not listed on the log page until now.) --hydrox (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has not directed any groups of significance. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find anything useful from web searches: primary sources, social media, brief mentions in local papers. And I agree with Dondegroovily about groups he's conducted--had a look at the two that are not redlinked and ended up flagging them both as unreferenced and of doubtful notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notobality seems low, a web search mostly turns up pages of associated ensembles, and even their notability is dubious. Millermk90 (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2011 (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/2011 December 10. Snotbot t • c » 09:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kooora Wrestling Awards[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails the GNG. I couldn't find any reliable sources, which discuss this non-notable professional wrestling awards. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 09:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) (Note: I couldn't add the AfD template to the article, because it's fully protected and I'm not an admin. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 18:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article that deals exclusively with a topic from a non-notable message board does not have sufficient notability for its own article. The complete lack of sources also makes it clear that this is not a notable award. I'd say this is close to a situation for WP:NOTMADEUP. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no AfD template has ever been added to the article, as far as I can see..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an award that is well known at the middle east and it is discussed all over the media, like newspapers and magazines, leave alone the internet wrestling society, this polls is widely known and each year thousands participates in it, please keep the page as I worked hard for it since 2008, and next month I'm releasing the 2011 awards. Tell me what do I have to do so you keep the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triplea1987 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 13 December 2011‎
You need to add multiple third party reliable sources, which discuss the subject of the article in detail (also not just a mention) to pass GNG. Note that forums, blogs, social networking sites and video sharing sites are not reliable sources. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 18:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article lacks sources which sufficiently establish the topic's notability. Folgertat (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main source is available here, www.kooora.com It is the largest Arabian Sports Website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triplea1987 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't independent from the subject of the article and one website alone doesn't constitute significant coverage. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 21:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here is another source, from a governmental newspaper(http://www.alwatan.com/graphics/2008/07jul/21.7/dailyhtml/sports.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triplea1987 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Armbrust. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Network Animation Editor[edit]

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

This is an instruction manual for product. WP:NOT Greenmaven (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not appear to be notable, and even if it was, the article is, as was stated, more of an instruction manual. Wikipedia articles should not contain the phrase "search Google for ..." Also dos not pass criteria in WP:NOTADVERTISING Millermk90 (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based upon Jack Greenmaven's nomination explanation. Folgertat (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 03:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shared Dreaming[edit]

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

No reliable sources, no evidence of notability, not an asset to the encyclopedia. Not every "Requested article" is encyclopedia-worthy. PamD 09:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's easy to find sources and evidence of notability such as Collective Dreams. Please see WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you and other editors have time to upgrade every one of the large batch of recently-created stubs of this type, then please go ahead and do so. In the meantime, the encyclopedia is damaged by the presence of these stubs which comprise a loosely-thrown-together series of snippets which appear to have been found in a Google search by an editor who has no knowledge of their subject area, does not make any wikilinks, is happy to copy typos from their sources, etc. (The average reader would be better served by the raw Google search). They are still dominating the Category:Stubs, even though their production does now seem to have ceased, because they need so much work to be left in any fit state for an encyclopedia by a conscientious stub-sorter. Many of them, such as this one in its state when nominated, would be better deleted, without prejudice to re-creation when an editor was prepared to make a half-way reasonable job of it. PamD 11:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not our editing policy. Do you have a policy-based argument, please? Warden (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was ready to say delete, but Google shows that some people are practicing what they call "shared dreaming," even though it is not quite what it is in the movies. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample news coverage. Click Google news archive search and read through the results. Its a real thing. Dream Focus 18:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete, as PamD says: The average reader would be better served by the raw Google search - Nabla (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merging Oneironautics#Within_the_dream_of_another into it and then renaming to the common research term of Dream telepathy. The subject is notable both in old and new mainstream fiction and as a parapsychological field of study, with plenty of coverage by prominent researchers and authors - Montague Ullman, Stanley Krippner, Stephen LaBerge, Keith Hearne, Patricia Garfield and so on. WP:Potential very much applies. K2709 (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 03:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caffenol[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: This article has no referneces and no reliable references can be found, just blogs, self-published websites and forum posts. Non-notable subject, it should not have an article on Wikipedia. Eeekster (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's one potentially reliable source and some brief video coverage from MAKE. — C M B J 10:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even though I was the one who PRODed the article as non-notable since it had no refs then and I could find none at that time, it has since been twice re-written and sources added since. I have just completely gone over the sources and removed all the blogs, forums and other WP:SPS junk and also combined paras, removed meaningless wording and generally cleaned it up. Since it does have a couple of reliable sources now I believe it should be kept as it meets WP:GNG now. The Williams academic paper is reliable, but it is troubling that while it deals with caffeine-based developing it does not use the term caffenol at all in the paper. - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Caffenol IS WITHOUT QUESTION a common photographic term in the alternative process community! It is VERY easy to determine this. Further, blogs in the case of matters of art or performance should definitely be considered when they detail technical procedure, since in many artistic communities they are the primary means of communications. (i.e. bugzilla and similar packages/formats used for documentation of software development, etc...)DrWhatIKnow (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC) - further, I would like to formally complain that user eeekster has on several occasions nominated pages I have written for 'speedy deletion' without regard for the informational content and as such is abusing his/her position. I DO NOT WRITE WIKI'S FOR A LIVING! I have a life, and a quite busy one at that, and do not have time to constantly revisit wiki to ensure my work is not deleted. I have not kept my work off-line, and find that I have had to recreate it several times. My page on NARCO Avionics (the first company in the US to standardize avionics width, and set standards which are followed to this day, was deleted over-night by eeekster! I am not happy. I have been a long time contributor to wiki, and am seriously considering finding better use of my time and money!DrWhatIKnow (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:DrWhatIKnow: this discussion is on whether the Caffenol article should be kept, it is not a WP:SOAPBOX for you to make "kitchen sink" complaints about everyone and everything about Wikipedia that annoys you. I would strongly suggest you re-write your comment above to be on topic here or else it will most likely be completely discounted by the closing admin. You should stick to policy and guideline arguments and avoid emotional opinions. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions will help you shape your points. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this seems to have shaped up nicely into a decently sourced stub since the PROD. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn

McGraw (chicken)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article about a chicken breed is not notable; the breed is not standardised and never has been, and is not distributed over a large area or number of people. Anjwalker ^Talk 08:17, 10 December 2011 (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/2011 December 10. Snotbot t • c » 08:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have just discovered that this article was already nominated for deletion, and the discussion closed with delete (see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McGraw (chicken). However the article was never deleted. Therefore I'm withdrawing my deletion nomination. Anjwalker ^Talk 10:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (WP:NAC) "Pepper " @ 12:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaso River[edit]

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

This was created more than a year ago and no content was added ever since. The article itself contains one sentence, with no reference proving its notability. I've done a quick search on Google and cannot find much information apart from the fact that it is a real place. I propose deletion per WP:N. Also, a lot of articles in List of rivers of Indonesia are similar one-sentence articles on non-notable rivers, so if this one gets deleted, those may need to be checked as well.

BTW, I arrived at this article via Random Page and I am by no means knowledgable in this subject. Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs) 08:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Places are definitely notable. Please check out WP:N and tell if there is any specific guideline the article fails to meet. There is a reference in case you hadn't noted.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 11:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG requires significant coverage. As far as I can see, the atlas proves that it exists, yes, but not necessarily notable. I admit that I am not familiar with the policies on places and locations, but does it say that we need a separate article for every place that exists? The article content, "Kaso River is a river in southern Java, Indonesia." is already covered by List of rivers in Indonesia as Kaso River is listed under the 'Java-Southern Coast' section in that list. So the article doesn't give the readers any new information. And as far as Google searches go, there isn't anything else to add. No notable events, geography or anything. So redirect it to the list or something. Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs) 11:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:N as real place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "A lot of articles in List of rivers of Indonesia are similar one-sentence articles on non-notable rivers." Once again lack of content is being confused with notability. The length of an article does not make a subject notable. The subject matter and number of reliable sources do. This river admittedly doesn't have many sources available on the web because southern Java is not exactly an Internet hotspot. But there are enough to verify its existence. "I've done a quick search on Google and cannot find much information apart from the fact that it is a real place". Exactly, try reading Wikipedia:Notability (geography). There might also be a different spelling to this or something... Also called Ci Kaso♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on standard "inherent notability" argument. But... there are several Ci Kasos in West Java. It is possible that this article combines information on more than one. For a while, I thought these notable waterfalls were on the one that is up for deletion. Sadly, they are on another Cikaso, one that has a good cc-licensed picture. And a not so good one Maybe someone will start an omnibus article for all of them, to clear up the confusion. Not sure what the best title would be. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand to counter systemic bias. Notable (and will be covered in sources), but I can't speak bahasa.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles needs some clarification on some points but the river is notable. Stormbay (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A named geographic feature is notable, and this one definitely has enough sources to stay as an article. "Pepper " @ 23:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alright, it seems that the article has been expanded, with more information and references. Now I agree that it should be kept. Can someone close this Afd?Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs) 00:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't resist insulting everyone involved in this discussion, including myself. We voted "keep" without knowing what we wanted to keep! We said "Duh, its a river - keep it". But there are several rivers by this name in the area, and it is not clear which of them the article is about. Whichever it is, the vote is to keep it. There is a largish river by this name, visited by tourists, some pictures, nice waterfall, a bit to the west of the present coords. I will arbitrarily re-vector the article. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will gladly userfy if requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Lu (author)[edit]

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

Non-notable author, largely (self?)-promotional article, PROD denied —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The books appear to be available via most regular booksellers but I cannot find any evidence of the claim to "bestseller" status, nor any reliable third-party, non-trivial sources to indicate that this subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for authors. A passing reference in the Gay Pride interview with bloggers is not enough.--CharlieDelta (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything reliable to show that she passes WP:AUTHOR. Everything I found falls along the lines of promotional material put out by herself or by her publisher.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Comment I have just replaced the AFD notice on the page, since it had been removed by an IP who has also made some minor edits.--CharlieDelta (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been cleaned up per removal of any text that may be construed as opinion. The author Kai Lu is well-known and respected in the West Hollywood, CA (and elsewhere) LGBT community not only for literary work but also for contributions to community organizations. In the process of gathering additional empirical evidence to enhance this article (and others which I will write about notable LGBT people) and am requesting that it be allowed to stand, as this person is living and thus the page will be dynamic.Starsforminerva (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CharlieDelta (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CharlieDelta (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is deleted before Starsforminerva can show evidence of notability, I have no problem with this being moved to her userspace for her to work on until it passes notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Userfy. There's some useful material there, allow Starsforminerva (talk · contribs) to make an attempt to improve the page further in userspace. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 03:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Richardson[edit]

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

Appears to be an artist's resume and advertisement for her gallery. 50% of references are broken, and the remainder are free ads about the Lynn Richardson Gallery, "Inter-Glacial Free Trade" I B d Shank (Talk Talk) 06:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a notable artist working in Canada. I have cleaned up the article and added (with no difficulty) some of the critical reception of Richardson's work. And removed the dead links. Notability is not judged by the state of an article but by the availability of sources (online or not). The external links go to a range of places; 'Inter-Glacial Free Trade' was an exhibition, not a gallery, and it travelled to different places over many months; it is appropriate for an article on an artist to include a link to the artist's own website for more detailed information and photographs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Chiswick's work. SL93 (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks Chiswick. It was on a Bot's hit list, so I reviewed the article, not the artist. I will remove the templates. Things break so quickly on the internet, it appears the Wiki will forever be dynamic. --I B d Shank (Talk Talk) 19:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For reference the Botlist was Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest from November 2007 --I B d Shank (Talk Talk) 19:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The tone of the article is promotional, but with coverage in the Toronto Star and Border Crossings, plus a significant exhibition record, this easily passes WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. freshacconci talktalk 18:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Printz_Board[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Questionable notability and non-neutral portrayal. The article is written like an advertisement evoking (in 2009) future projects that subsequently never materialized. Meanwhile all but one external source has gone dead. The remaining Link is the subjects Discogs biography. Ofosos (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom (refs checked). All other sources appear to mirror or have been populated from the Wikipedia page. A spammy article as part of a large publicity scheme to produce notability. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Known quite well for recent works, including the MegaUpload song^[1]^[2]^[3]. I'm in the process of updating refs. 108.82.100.8 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that User talk:Dave1185 likely does not have an objective opinion here. He seems to follow my edits and attempt to disrupt my acitivities under cover of semi-legitimacy when possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.82.100.8 (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE – per nom & WP:What Wikipedia is not. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What Kudpung says. Printz needs his resume deposited elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a resume so much as a sloppy job creating the article. Looks like it was pretty much taken verbatim from Printz's company website. I'm working now to source and re-write the article, and it looks like another editor is also making efforts in this direction. It's worth noting against this this producer is very well known, in fact Grammy nominated, and has been part of recent events. it's worth keeping in a more appropriately written form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.82.100.8 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NATURE- Art of God, MAN-The Visitor[edit]

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

Essay →Σ τ c. 05:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. There's nothing here to show that this particular essay or the person who wrote it are notable in the least.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no question, unverifiable, unnotable original research. I'd nominate it for speedy, but it doesn't really fit a category very well. If someone else thinks it should be speedy though, I'd say do it. Millermk90 (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant personal essay. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. JIP | Talk 08:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious copy and paste and possible copyright vio Planetary ChaosTalk 13:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find a copyvio when I did a search for it. Where did you find it possibly copied from? If it's a copyvio, I'll speedy delete it under G12. —C.Fred (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I searched as well and I couldn't find a source or I would have tagged it for G12 myself. It does have the tone and characteristics of something that was copy and pasted from a source. Also, if you look at User:Physalphysicist page, there is a ruff draft there with a sign that it was cp. "“Nature runs or came into existence by chance”. Italic textAs a matter of fact language and words are simply tools of communication." Note the "italic text". This is in several places through out the "ruff draft" indicating a cp from a source. However, 22 name listed shows as, "late" Saleem Khan Jadoon. If, this is the same person that is. It could be a coincidence in the same name? If it's not cp,original research and is soap boxing still apply. Planetary ChaosTalk 15:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Essay. SL93 (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Will Time and matter exist forever?" I'm not sure, but this article won't. WP:NOTESSAY. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there no speedy criteria for this sort of thing? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 05:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am with RublicanJacobite - we need a way to speedy articles that are clearly copy pasted (and not very good) OR. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Maybe this can go speedy under WP:SNOW? --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I agree. However, there isn't a criteria for speedy deletion for issues such as this. I personally think there should be to avoid an issue that does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. It's just common sense. Planetary ChaosTalk 09:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about a snowball delete. I've asked the original editor if he has an offline copy; once he's acknowledged the message, I'm prepared to delete the article, but I think it's polite to give him a chance to salvage it. —C.Fred (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree about a snowball delete. This article really has no chance whatsoever of being kept. JIP | Talk 06:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After reading this entry, I don't think the author fully understands what Wikipedia is and What Wikipedia is not. Planetary ChaosTalk 14:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article violates soapbox and original research guidelines. Folgertat (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dan O'Mahony. v/r - T P 15:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point nine nine[edit]

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

This only seems like a small non-profit group. Not listing for speedy because there is 10 links which need to be verified. Thebirdlover (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, the first 5 links are from the group itself. The 6th link is on another website, but links back to the group's website, so not reliable. Links 7-9 are links to other websites, but are Q&As that the group did with various politicians. Link #10 is another link to the group's website. All in all, none of these links can be considered to be reliable since they are released by the group themselves, even though they're occasionally hosted on other sites.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Reply. Does that mean I should nominate it for a speedy?

--Thebirdlover (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Doesn't satisfy G11 or A7 IMO. Best just to let the Afd run its course. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dan O'Mahony. The group in and of itself doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines at this time for its own article, but is absolutely worth a mention on O'Mahony's page. If/when it gets to where it has enough reliable coverage to get its own page, then go through the process of re-adding it to the mainspace. I'd see if the original contributor wants to userfy it, if possible.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD G12 Copyvio v/r - T P 15:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jintori-gassen[edit]

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

Likely to be copy and pasted from here. Most of the article is quoted from the back of the volume. I believe this violates copyright. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article, Tutuxor, has been doing same for many articles as seen here. If these articles are actually violations to copyright, I'd like an admin to delete his other articles also. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Not only does it violate WP:CSD#G12, but the site cited introduces scanlators who are providing illegal uploads of manga. I will tag the other articles made by the user. Michitaro (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per Michitaro. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the topic is notable, the template ((Copyvio-revdel)) can be used instead of deleting the article wholesale. --Malkinann (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hymen Records[edit]

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

Non-notable imprint of minor record label. Fails WP:Music and WP:ORG. No third party sources to establish notability. No evidence of major impact on the world of music. Some marginally (?) notable bands signed, but that is pretty weak. Contested prod. GrapedApe (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It has had notability and unref tags since Sept 2008. There are no sources online in English that would help it pass WP:GNG.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moa Lignell[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldnt !vote on your own AfD, you making this AfD is a !vote in itself.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Placing a bullet before an AFD rationale is not contrary to any community recommendations, does not imply a super !vote, and has no bearing on the conclusion of the discussion. In essence, you are objecting to the format applied by Alan Liefting. Different strokes. The result is the same. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 23:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The subject does not fail WP:MUSICBIO and also meets WP:GNG. She has released a music single and placed amongst the top3 in Idol 2011. I guess the person who put this article up for AfD isnt aware of Swedish Idol as the user lives in Christchurch, New Zealand and isnt aware of the persons major hit in Sweden and shouldnt have put it up for speedy deletion. This is a young singer in the beginning of a major career.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but BabbaQ should note that AfD arguments must be from evidence, not personal experience. The evidence includes:

Aftonbladet and Aftonbladet "Moa Lignell was lionised yesterday, and now the record companies are chasing her" (Swedish national evening newspaper)

TV4 (Swedish national television)

Dagens Nyheter (major Swedish national newspaper's TV blog)

There are other articles also in Dagens Nyheter. Notability is not in doubt, really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you are right Chiswick I find it strange that Alan Liefting placed this for speedy deletion and then AfD in the first place as it passes WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. As you yourself states Notability is not in doubt, really. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, if you can spare the time to add some citations to the article, that would be really helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject clearly meets the general notability guidelines. Topical notability guidelines covering entertainers and musicians indicate that individuals may be notable due to the large national fan base and placing in a major music competition. The summation here clearly supports notability. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 23:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oyster Fly Rods[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], and [20]. The second source is even CNN. Did you search for sources? SL93 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appear to be sufficient reliable sources about this company to establish notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So what are we building here? An encyclopaedia or a business directory!!! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So your position is that the business should not be on Wikipedia even with significant coverage? SL93 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. I have no problem with articles about businesses being on WP, it is just that I feel that they must have very significant coverage before being included. I know that "very significant" is a subjective statement that is difficult to work with in AfDs but we should set the bar higher than WP:GNG. Articles about small businesses are essentially SPAM since it is not likely that the equivalent competing businesses will all get WP article at any time in the near future. This gives them an unfair advantage. WP should be a level playing field for articles about businesses. Non-profit organisations are a different case. See also WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - My vote is based on both GNG and CORP. SL93 (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - And blindly following those guidelines introduces yet another systemic bias into WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the sourcing found by SL93. The subject has significant coverage in reliable sources and meets the notablity guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Weak keep per additional soruces. v/r - T P 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The International House of Mojo[edit]

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

Unremarkable blog that attempts to argue notability through inheritance of associated subjects. All coverage independent of site is trivial in nature or reported business activity. No sources provide in-depth coverage of the subject. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 09:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Similar as was stated at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adventure_Gamers, the International House of Mojo meets WP:WEB criteria #3 because the site's reviews have been quoted on adventure game box covers. Plus, two directors of high profile games started their writing career by writing for the site: Jake Rodkin, who co-directed Tales of Monkey Island, Poker Night at the Inventory, and Puzzle Agent 2, and Andrew Langley who co-directed Jurassic Park: The Game. JenniBees (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - message above by creator shows this is a textbook case of inherited notability or lack thereof (e.g. two now notable directors started their career there), as for meeting WP:WEB, a review excerpt on a game box stretches the notion of #3 significantly. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 16:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were also referenced in the print books Rogue Leaders: The Story of LucasArts and Graphic Adventures. That, plus the review excerpt on an official game release by Activision should meet WP:Web. JenniBees (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A game box is not an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.Vanadus (talk | contribs) 09:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that Activision would count as the online publisher part of that statement. Regardless, the fact The International House of Mojo was referenced in print books should meet WP:WEB criteria #1. JenniBees (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic Adventures is a collection of Wikipedia articles. There is very clearly no depth or breadth of coverage here. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 10:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notability issues should be cleared up now. I took the advice on the WP:WEB page and left the fact that Jake Rodkin started his career at The International House of Mojo on just his page. I removed the Graphic Adventures reference, as I agree it's not notable. I added a reference to an August 2000 PC Gamer UK magazine article on LucasArts fan games that included The International House of Mojo and featured an interview with a staff member of the site. JenniBees (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this would count, but Neil Cicierega's (or Trapezoid as he was known then) animutation site was originally hosted by Mojo as can be seen in : The Wayback Machine and also mentioned by Salon.com over here. Davhorn (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This site is quite central to the community surrounding its subject matter — as much as a meeting place and for its content as for its newsfeeds. David Arthur (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The problems with the article have been addressed. There are now enough references independent of the subject to show notability.Mohojohn (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yetrigar[edit]

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

Delete - non-notable fictional character. Appeared in a comic book once or twice. Not notable. Lihaass (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – He literally only has four appearances. That's... not a lot of appearances, even for an obscure comic book antagonist from forgettable '70s tie-in comics. I do find it very poignant that he's listed in Category:Kaiju, though. Yetrigar, the worst Kaiju. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. We are ridiculously soft on comic book characters. I don't see any special reason to draw a line in the sand here and be accused of inconsistency as well. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This is a very weak keep borderline no consensus. Main article contributor appears to have a COI. However, article appears to assert notability very weakly per neutral editors. v/r - T P 15:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voted Most Random[edit]

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

band with no albums, all refs except one are forums, or wikipedia. One local news coverage. Won a few local battle of the bands. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judgement suspended. Some of the things mentioned (Warped Tour, Bamboozle) MIGHT give just enough notability to allow keeping, but more sources must be provided first. McMarcoP (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response: There are further sources available to insure credibility in this topic. I am currently in the process of locating them and properly citing them. Furthermore, the article is not written as a promotion tool, but an informative piece. Voted Most Random is listed on both the websites for The Bamboozle Roadshow and Warped Tour 2010 as well as on multiple other already credible and monitored wikipedia sites. Pictures at both of these festivals can be added once the 4 day trial period is concluded. Few bands have accomplished what this band has in this amount of time, and this is worthy of noting. The band does have an album: "Everything You Want and More." It is composed of 7 songs so debate has occurred on whether this is to be considered an E.P. or a Full-length (full-lengths have occurred with less). I will continue to add credibility to this article, but I appreciate all feedback in how to do so. Thank you for your time and review. SDRG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdgunter (talk • contribs) 20:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC) — Sdgunter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what I can gather, there are several sources which would apparently assert notability, but have not been added to the article. Perhaps a look at these sources can shed some light on the best course of action. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 14:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Coverage in a few WP:RS. HurricaneFan 25 19:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have to express some concern over the article since the main contributor (USER:Sdgunter seems to also be a member of the band itself, Scott Gunter. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]

The Warped Tour does seem to show some notability, but I'm a little concerned that many of the sources in the article are trivial at best, such as routine notices of performances and such. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Neutral. The COI editing aside, I feel that this could go either way. The band has played at several notable tours, but I don't see any thing alone the lines of "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour" as far as their performances in these tours go. I'm not sure where HerCampus.com or NoiseTrend would lie as far as reliable sources go and that's the only sources on the page that mentions the band that wasn't a link to the Wikipedia page or to the tour sites. I'm leaning towards NoiseTrend being a reliable source, but I'm going to be neutral until someone can verify whether or not it's a reliable source. I did clean up the trivial sources, though. In any case, if by some chance this is deleted it should absolutely be incubated or userfied. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
keep sources indicates atleast a minimum of notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 03:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tabeer[edit]

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

A debut album that didn't chart, minor label and is ref'ed with blogs and forums. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :Album did fairly good,though not topped the chart,especially in Pakistan.One or two song of this album are famous(Google them..).Some more good reference added after nomination for deletion.Prav001 (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't required that they topped any chart, but I don't see evidence of it charting in any position, even at the bottom. Charting isn't the criteria but it would have demonstrated notability without much else. Claiming it did well in one country would require a citation of some type. I would also argue that much of the new sources fall very short of passing WP:RS, although not all. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple google news search gives Outlook[21], Indian Express [22], India Today [23], Daily News and Analysis [24]. User:Prav001 has already added the Outlook source, plus cites to The Hindu and the Financial Express. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Held over three times, no votes for deletion other than the nominator. There is very little stomach for blowing up pop-culture esoterica at WP, and that's fine. Carrite (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd delete for lack of notability, but I appreciate there is never going to be a consensus for that, so I am stuck listening to the sound of my own voice. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mbombe[edit]

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

This article was created by Diginerd84, a known sockpuppet for the PR firm Bell Pottinger (see Wikipedia:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations) and has been largely unchanged since its creation. If a decision is made that the vehicle meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, I would encourage deleting this article and starting anew. Gobonobo ^T ^C 03:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I thought we judged notability by sources? The article itself, and its subject, are very well sourced; and while the links to Jane's have broken (probably they were just for an exhibition) the other links are impeccable, detailed, and right on the subject. Easily passes WP:GNG, no need to look further. The article itself is informative, interesting and well-written encyclopedic content. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article is well written and well sourced. The topic is clearly notable. The article has been around for over a year now, and multiple editors have edited the page. We don't delete articles simply because the first editor is now blocked for socking. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It gets coverage. [25] Dream Focus 01:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was created in bad faith and its prose is full of peacock terms and other marketing-speak, but it's on a notable topic. I've had a go at further de-spamming the prose. Nick-D (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've chopped it back further. The claim that the vehicle can carry a heavy load over "all types of terrain without loss of mobility" I removed here is a good example of how spammy this was: it's obviously not physically possible for any vehicle to be unaffected by different terrain as this claimed! Bell Pottinger sure seem to be a very dumb company. Nick-D (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Coverage is not the same as notability, and I hate spammers. Nonetheless, I think it is a weak keep. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's worth noting that the text of the article as it stands is now significantly different to when the article was created by the spammer. I agree that most of the online references are basically recycled press releases, but this vehicle will also have been covered in entries in the independent Jane's Armoured Vehicles book and the like. Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - actually not too bad, as articles go. We can clean it, but let's salvage what we can. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Grasso[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The references are (1) a page that doesn't mention Laurent Grasso, (2) a page at http://laurentgrasso.com, the full and complete text of which is "Laurent Grasso", and (3) page on the website of a gallery showing his work, which includes his name in lists, and that is all. (Incidentally, creator of this article has stated that he/she is the owner of that gallery.) Searches have likewise produced mainly coverage on websites of businesses and organisations which sell or exhibit his work, or otherwise cannot be regarded as independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spam lacking support. reddogsix (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The majority of the very many reliable sources found by the Google News and Books links spoon-fed by the nomination process are far from "websites of businesses and organisations which sell or exhibit his work, or otherwise cannot be regarded as independent sources". Also passes WP:ANYBIO as the winner of the Prix Marcel Duchamp. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article needs a clean-up but the subject easily passes WP:ARTIST, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The nom fails WP:BEFORE. There are a lot of mentions in very reliable sources as Le Figaro, Washington Post, Libération, Corriere della Sera, Le Parisien, New York Times, Time... there are 259 sources in Google News and more stuff is available via Google researches. A nom-withdrawal is suggested.--Cavarrone (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the spam-link to Galerie Chez Valentinthe (the COI-author of the article) that was in the opening of the article, and I've done some more cleanup. --Cavarrone (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Need a good french speaker to bring some stuff over from the French wiki. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep Very strong exhibition record in major museums & galleries & plenty of sources Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. TigerShark (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Rodkin[edit]

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

I found zero sources on this person independent of the subject. The only references are either self-published or blogs. Google News returns no results. Subject fails the basic criteria of WP:BIO. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 23:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Interviews with Jake Rodkin: Joystiq [26], G4 [27]. Also: WP:BIO states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Jake Rodkin co-designed the re-release of Surfing the Highway which was nominated for the Eisner Award and the game Tales of Monkey Island which he co-directed won the PC Gamer adventure game of the year in 2009, the IGN best adventure game of the year in 2009, and the Adventure Gamers Adventure of the Year award in 2009. JenniBees (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One's a routine interview; the other's a timetable of events at ComicCom. Neither focus on the subject or provide more than trivial mentions. Also, the games, not the subject, won the awards. That does make everybody at LucasArts involved with the project automatically notable. Further, I cannot find a source for PC Gamer's award, the IGN award is just a "best of" list and not an actual award, and the subject worked for Adventure Gamers. How about finding an independent source that focuses on the subject? He certainly fails WP:GNG at this point. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 08:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PC Gamer's award was in print in the January 2010 issue (but is referenced in the link I provided in the article). Tales of Monkey Island was made by Telltale Games, not LucasArts, where Jake Rodkin works. He co-directed the game, which certainly should mean he is the recipient of the accolades that the game wins. A best picture award would go to its director(s), would it not? So, certainly a Best Game award would go to the director(s) as well. JenniBees (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ref you provided is an SPS. The Best Picture award is actually presented to producers, not directors. In this case, PC Gamer recognizes the game, not the individuals associated with the development of the game, unlike the Academy Awards which specifically recognizes the artists. Furthermore, in the video game industry, PC Gamer adventure game of the year award is probably not a significant award as it is the viewpoint of a single publisher, and almost every publisher has their own game of the year awards. Significant awards typically comprise of an aggregate panel across the industry and present a physical award in the form of a ceremony, not just a title. Most are listed at List of video game awards. But importantly, the only references that mention him trivially are SPS or interviews he conducted to promote his games. None of the third-party refs for the award nominations for Monkey Island even mention the subject. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 10:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the Self Published Source reference to a reference to PC Gamer using cite:magazine. Jake Rodkin was the season director of Tales of Monkey Island. In the case of Telltale, a season director would be like a producer. The season director oversees the entire project, and directs every episode in the season (Telltale's version of a project leader). Whereas an episode director would just direct one episode in a season. As for the awards, I think they'd fit as "a well-known and significant award or honor", as in the game industry it is indeed an honor to be recognized by well-known and respected gaming sites and magazines like IGN or PC Gamer. And I still hold the position that any honors a game receives are honors of the project leaders. JenniBees (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep limited RSes, but probably skates under WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER as argued by JenniBees Hobit (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for me too. Those are pretty big hits, even if he was only tangentially connected with them. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Adventure Gamers was the subject's employer and Steve Purcell was the subject's coworker. The other sources provided do not mention the subject. I scoured the web and found zero RS on this guy. Also he appears to be one of ten co-designers of Tales of Monkey Island. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 04:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Steve Purcell link is a link about the Eisner Awards. The reprint of Sam & Max Surfin the Highway collection was nominated for an Eisner for "Best Graphic Album – Reprint", and the design of the book is credited to Steve Purcell and Jake Rodkin. Also, Jake Rodkin is one of three season directors of Tales of Monkey Island (project leaders): Mark Darin, Michael Stemmle, and Jake Rodkin. They are the ones who oversaw the entire project and directed every episode, as opposed to episode directors who just directed one or a few episodes in a season. He's also the co-project lead on upcoming The Walking Dead game [28], and there's a bit of buzz on that. I'm adding references to the article. JenniBees (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan K. Barnes[edit]

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

This article is not sourced. I removed a link that was broken, in which was the only reference. It seems that the external links does not show any remarkableness. I would withdraw this nomination if there is a reference making this person notable. JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 03:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for WP:CSD A7 -JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 05:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If she had won the Pushcart prize maybe (maybe....). But a mere nominee for a minor literary prize? --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - her work sounds fun, but not really important. A children's book writer could be notable -- as I argued successfully for Amy Krouse Rosenthal. Meghan K. Barnes does not appear to be there yet. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. Nomination withdrawn by AfD creator as a result of work done to save the article. No delete !votes present at time of close and no new !votes added for a few days. reddogsix (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminiscences (film)[edit]

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

~~Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTFILM.~~ Given the work that has been done on the article by Schmidt, the article now meets inclusion criteria. I withdraw the nomination. If we can get Legis to change his !vote to keep, I'll close the nomination as a keep. BTW - I "tip my hat" to Schmidt, his work in saving the article is a wonderful example of his dedication to provide a quality Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article appears to lack significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for films. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per non-English sourcing added by MichaelQSchmidt. I believe it is sufficient to meet the general notability guidelines. And, as he pointed out, the film will more than likely receive more English coverage after the premiere in the United States. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. Keep. Happy to make it unanimous. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after my own work and research turning the stub article as first nominated into something better sourced and more encyclopedic. We do have the understandable difficulties facing us when dealing with an independent documentary film created in Peru and then screening in Peru and then France, but the film IS due to have its US premiere in less than two weeks at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan,[29] after which it is reasonable to believe we'll have Enlish language coverage to supplement the coverage I found in Peruvian and French sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Michael Q Schmidt. Good work, that. The US release is close enough to justify keeping, as we'll have lots of additional coverage. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Hornsby[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable shopping mall. The only apparently independent ref is link dead and apparently to a town-planning website. The closest thing I can find to real coverage is two articles on parking issues [30] and [31]. That's not enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - World's oldest operating shopping centre of the Westfield Group, I think otherwise. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] - all mention, one of Australia's largest shopping centres, (Westfield Hornsby) -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC) ~~Move to Delete, per discussion. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 03:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)~~ Like choosing between Strawberry and Vanilla icecream - I can never make up my mind. Same with this. As per the sources I have provided, and sources Till I Go Home has provided, Hornsby has notability. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets break those down Stuartyeates (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[39] is a local story apparently based on parking tips from the management company.

[40] (mentioned in my nomination) appears to be genuine coverage.

[41] Is local coverage of a promotion they ran, notice The displays were judged by representatives of Westfield Hornsby’s marketing team ...

[42] mentions it in a list, a bare passing mention.

[43] again, passing mention in a list of malls

[44] again, passing mention in a list of malls

[45] again, passing mention in a list of malls

In short, a collection of passing mentions, with one story in a regional paper. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stuartyeats is exactly right about the links provided - trivial routine coverage that does nothing to establish notability, and most are about the corporation itself, rather than this particular mall. The fact that every link that mentions this mall is the local paper is more indication that it's not notable. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Morning Herald - Is not the local paper; Used Australia wide. 2. Can someone please direct me to the WP policy which states that if a company/group whatecver the case, is mentioned in multiple reliable media outlets - does not make the group/company notable? Thanks -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) my use of the word local was in relation to http://hornsby-advocate.whereilive.com.au/ stories. That does seem like a local paper to me, but I'm happy to look a circulation stats or coverage stats if you have them.

(2) See Wikipedia:Notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for providing the whole policy - but I mean specific mention - if provided, I shall move to Delete. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point one under General notability guideline reads "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I hope that wasn't too difficult. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 03:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm still a little unsure what the phrase World's oldest operating shopping centre of the Westfield Group, above means, but the mall isn't mentioned in the Westfield Group article. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point being...? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point being that it may be an attempt to communicate a point of notability that I have failed to grasp. I have done what I can but I'm open to someone explaining it to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means that Westfield Hornsby is longest operating shopping centre in their chain, so it has been opened for the longest period of time. For this reason, Westfield Hornsby is particularly notable. Also, I found some reliable sources which may change your mind: [46] [47] [48] [49] Till I Go Home (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, TIGH, do you support a Keep of the article, or a Delete? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support a keep, especially now since I did a major cleanup and there are plenty of properly-cited references in the article. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any significant sources online. Wikipedia doesn't (and shouldn't) have an article on every mall, especially when there's nothing particularly noteworthy about the mall. Millermk90 (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even checked out the recent article? I see plenty of references... -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have looked at the article. Sources 1 and 5 are primary, 2 is a passing reference, 3 is really about the parent company Westfield Group, which may be notable, but doesn't affect this article's notability, 4 is in the press because of Apple's notability, not because of the mall's, and 6, 7, and 8 are about celebrities, who happened to visit the mall. It is my opinion that a couple of first party sources coupled with a few celebrities stepping foot in a mall and an apple store do not make an article notable. I will restate what was said above, and taken directly form WP:N: " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Millermk90 (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There are some sources, but as correctly analyzed by Millermk90 they appear partially primary sources (1& 5 are from the official site, 3 & 4 are anything else than press releases), partially articles about some local & promotional events of zero significance. It remains source 2, that could "suggest" some historical importance of the W.H. for Hornsby's suburb, but "if" these are all the sources currently there is not enough to pass GNG. --Cavarrone (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Property Council defines a super-regional shopping centre as one which "typically incorporates two full line department stores, one or more full line discount department stores, two supermarkets and around 250 or more specialty shops", and that the "total GLAR exceeds 85,000 square metres". To call this super-regional shopping centre, with a GLA of 100,000sqm and containing well over 300 stores, "non-notable" is ridiculous. Till I Go Home (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notability requirements for Wikipedia are at Wikipedia:Notability, I would encourage you to attempt to recast that argument in terms of Wikipedia notability.Stuartyeates (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPLACE, if it falls into the "largest" it is "generally considered notable" Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 20:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, thank you for pointing that out. Westfield Hornsby is the fourth largest Westfield shopping centre in NSW. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was pinged on my talk page by Till I Go Home to take another look at the current references, so I am. First off the article is now in a much better state, due to Till I Go Home's TLC, but for me the references still aren't there:

[50] the company's official page for the mall. Not independent

[51] local history site with three mentions. Opening stage 1, opening stage 2 and the opening of a fountain (+thumbnail of fountain). All good information, but not in-depth coverage.

[52] company press release. Not independent

[53] Apple opening a new store. Passing mention that it's in this mall. Not in-depth coverage.

[54] Public transport information. Not independent

[55] The company that installed the parking systems was so pleased with it they featured it in their in-house magazine. Not independent

[56], [57] and [58] are all very similar, as tours by notable people that visit the mall for a single day and are subsequently covered in the local newspaper. The first two mention the mall only in passing to to the coverage to the local area (i.e. they fail in-depth coverage), whereas the third mentions the name Westfield many times, apparently because the parent company sponsored the trip. All three seem to fail WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS to me, but the last is close.

So I'm unable to change my position. Stuartyeates (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per Stuartyeats. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Large shopping centre, Westfield's oldest, lots of sources. Easy keep. Rebecca (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Westfield Hornsby has even won a Historical Rider Hunt Award in 2003. [59] [60] And in my opinion this demonstrates notability. Till I Go Home (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this "Historical Rider Hunt Award" does not appear a significant award, has zero GNews hits, zero GBooks hits and only two Google entries, the first is the link you posted above and the other is the "Westfield Hornsby"-article. Cavarrone (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a prestigious award given to the best commercial buildings of the year, meaning it is significant. And by the way, you're not supposed to use the word "Historical"; just put in "Rider Hunt Award" and you will see coverage. Till I Go Home (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my mistake, indeed this award has some news and books coverage. I'm note sure that this award could, by itself, change the notability-status of a subject, but at this point I prefer remove my vote.--Cavarrone (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Rider Hunt was the sponsor, the awards are made by the Property Council of Australia and Property Council of New Zealand at their respective annual bashes. These appear to be unrelated to the Australian Institute of Architects awards which do seem to get quite a bit of press. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found another source, documenting its refurbishment. [61] Till I Go Home (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And your link is an advertisement for the concrete company that helped refurbish it. Advertising is never independent, never reliable, and never indicates notability. My vote remains delete. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was only to show that there could be more to build onto the page. Notability however, has been demonstrated with the 2003 Rider Hunt award. Also, WP:NPLACE says that larger shopping centres (such as Westfield Hornsby) are generally considered notable. Till I Go Home (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have !voted delete on most shopping malls brought here, but this is over the usual size that we accept, and is distinctive as the first of this major chain. The sources are sufficient for the purpose, with respect to this topic, DGG ( talk ) 11:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one is the oldest in the chain, not the first. This one was built in 1961 [62], but the first Westfield one was 1959 in Blacktown, Sydney (presumably it's not still in the chain). This one was acquired later. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Already speedied. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Davis Cup Americas Zone Group IV[edit]

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

Competition will not be held according to http://www.daviscup.com/en/results/group-iv/americas/2012.aspx MrYIndeed (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep, wasn´t announced at the time i created the article, can be deleted then. Kante4 (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per above. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW. At this point it's obvious that this article isn't going to be deleted. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Carter-Ruck[edit]

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

non notable person. Should be merged with 'carter ruck' law firm if left to stand at all. There are no notable cases from this lawyer or changes in law. He just started the law firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.46.187 (talk • contribs)

Query - Are IP nominations kosher? I thought they weren't. No opinion on whether this should be kept or nixed. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A registered editor completed this AfD on behalf of the IP user, so this nomination is not a problem. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't even need to search to see that this person has notability independently of the firm he founded; two full-length articles about him in major national broadsheet newspapers are already used as references in the article itself. I particularly like the Guardian one; "he did for freedom of speech what the Boston Strangler did for door-to-door salesmen", not to mention describing him as "the leading libel lawyer". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that there are some solid sources cited by the article, and a quick search shows a number of third party sites with info on him. Millermk90 (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shome mishtake, shurely?. Warden (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG and merger with Carter-Ruck is inappropriate since most of his career was not in that practice. --AJHingston (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. The IP was advised before he/she put this AfD forward that it did not have a snowball in hell's chance. And so it is. PCR has 20+ years of non-trivial coverage in Private Eye, and plentiful non-trivial coverage in more mainstream media. The existing refs of the article demonstrate compliance with GNG. It is difficult to see this as anything other than a bad faith (or at least a tremendously ill-informed, bordering on stupid) AfD, and I recommend a snowball-keep, so as to minimise time wasted on considering the matter further. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. Autarch (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very famous British libel lawyer. Hey, we lawyers don't have many celebrities: we need to preserve the ones that we do have... --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unfortunate that anyone saw fit to complete this nomination on behalf of the IP as it is thoroughly misguided. There are many sources covering him in detail and separately from the firm he founded, especially multiple obituaries. Fences&Windows 23:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known to Private Eye readers anyway, but the Guardian obituary swings it in the direction of notable for me. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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