< 11 November 13 November >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Construction Services Pakistan[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG. Moreover there are no reliable sources to cite the things said in the article and thus it fails WP:RS. P.S:-I had also nominated this article against G11.One of the prime reason being speedy deletion of another similar article namely Habib Construction Services Pvt. Ltd. by user Fastily in sep 2011. Vivekananda De--tAlK 05:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Neutralitytalk 01:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Leilehua Mules football[edit]

2007 Leilehua Mules football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A season recap of a high school football team's season. Nothing notable about it. Side note: I can tell its creator put a lot of effort into it, but that still doesn't make it satisfy notability guidelines. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Acevedo Butcher[edit]

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

This scholar-in-residence doesn't appear notable. The Carnegie award isn't a national one, and the Georgia writers award doesn't appear to be a significant one. I was unable to find any coverage in books or news archives. Bongomatic 23:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of the top ranking countries of the Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

List of the top ranking countries of the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very similar article for the Junior Eurovision Song Contest was deleted recently per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the top ranking countries of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest for reasons that extend to this article as well. Page is primarily statistics, which are trivial, with much original research included. Content could easily be summarised as appropriate (if it isn't already) in other articles. CT Cooper · talk 21:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean?--BabbaQ (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus to delete. Notability concerns have been countered by citations to sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Tiwari[edit]

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

Non-notable religious leader. She fails WP:BIO standards as to substantial coverage. While she is well published and quite active as a religious leader, there's very little written objectively or reliably about her. JFHJr (㊟) 23:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The hits show mostly 1) insignificant/trivial coverage; 2) her statements as a spokesperson for her organization, about the organization; and 3) her own publications, as opposed to people publishing things significantly about her. JFHJr (㊟) 23:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – That's some coverage, not substantial or multiple coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 22:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply She has also written for the Times of India Food sadhanas. There are also the many citations of her works in Google Books, and Google Scholar. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Larkin[edit]

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

meets no notability guidelines perWP:Notability (athletes)#golf EJBH (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. EJBH (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. EJBH (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Noah23. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cytoplasm Pixel[edit]

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

non-notable album, I tried a redirect to Noah23 but that was reverted, as was a PROD. I can find no RS to support notability, this fails WP:NALBUMS Jezhotwells (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Redirect no references. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Steele (Engineer)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intimate Contact Induced Surface Separation (ICISS)[edit]

Intimate Contact Induced Surface Separation (ICISS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Unremarkable concept. "Intimate Contact Induced Surface Separation" -wiki shows only three unique results, and they're all from the same author. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilder High School[edit]

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

For now, let's just set aside the article's very impressive list of accomplishments and WP:GNG. The school's website in the infobox is a dead link and my browser suggests this nearby school district instead, which has no record of the school in its search. This calls the school's very existence into doubt, but I'm willing to see it salvaged. Interchangeable|talk to me 22:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • further comment. The school district's new website here and the article's edit history indicate that Wilder High School and Wilder Middle-High School are one and the same. This school really exists and high schools almost always survive AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a little bit of information about the school from the source Gene linked just after "grades 6 to 12". Nyttend (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe the school fails standards 7 and 8 on that list - but I'm sure that it's going to survive AfD anyways. Interchangeable|talk to me 18:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Cities of Peace[edit]

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

This organization appears yet to receive any significant coverage in reliable sources. Unable to find any despite good-faith search. Bongomatic 22:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly a subject close to your heart, and it is for that reason you are not the person to be writing a encyclopaedia article on the organisation. Mtking (edits) 22:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White Friday[edit]

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

"White Friday is not actually a holiday..." Enough said. →Στc. 21:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check article source 2, second paragraph; it's definitively taken verbatim without one variation or paraphrase. Nate • (chatter) 08:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Neutralitytalk 02:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Vibrations: Crossing Europe on a Bike Called Reggie[edit]

Good Vibrations: Crossing Europe on a Bike Called Reggie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Press

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Dryden[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Day Of The Dinosaurs[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Last Day Of The Dinosaurs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It is not notable and lacks any references. A quick search for reliable references turns up nothing. PROD was attempted but was quickly taken down with no reason given. See WP:OR and WP:GNG. Also, bear this in mind:

If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

— Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
Chris (talk) 19:50, 8 October 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, —SW— comment 21:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you say the same after the links I posted?--Cavarrone (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) 00:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMAC (Industry Organization)[edit]

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

Only reference is non-independent. If they are the "global" organization as they claim, they'd have better sources. -Vaarsivius ("You've made a glorious contribution to science.") 21:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vaarsivius, why don't you propose that the article is improved rather than suggesting that it is removed? I am working on entering other references. --CaliViking (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this JFHJr, I appreciate that you are working hard to make Wikipedia a reliable reference site. Please be aware that this is an industry organization that is very well known among people who work with industrial automation systems. If you click here Google search for "Organization for Machine Automation and Control" you will see that the organization is referenced more than 12,000 times. I realize that it may seem to be a very narrow subject if you are not working in the field of industrial automation, but for people like me who are actively working in this field it is very important. Please also be aware that I am not affiliated in any way with the organization, I have no personal gain from creating their wiki page. Please also see the PackML page that is closely related to OMAC. If you want to do further research, then please call the editor of any of the industry magazines that dominate this space such as Automation World, InTech, Packaging Automation, Food Processing. You may also call any of the major automation suppliers such as Siemens Automation, Rockwell Automation, Invensys/Wonderware (the company that I am working for), ABB, GE Automation, Schneider and ask for the person responsible for industrial software product management, they will all confirm the importance of this organization. Another option to confirm the importance of the organization is to contact ISA - International Society of Automation, which I believe is the largest organization in this space. OMAC is also well known in the academic world. I know that we are all supposed to look into research, and I look forward to seeing this article being expanded in content. CaliViking (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read WP:GNG which is the primary guideline for inclusion in wikipedia or WP:ORG. As it stands, the article doesn't meet either criteria. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chadwick Lawrence[edit]

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

Non Notable, local law firm, fails WP:GNG and / or WP:CORP Mtking (edits) 20:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  14:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raleys Solicitors[edit]

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

No notable local law firm. Fails WP:GNG and/or WP:CORP Mtking (edits) 20:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Age, size, revenue are all unimportant in and of themselves when assessing notability, the question is has this firm revived the significant coverage in RS's and my searching indicates no, it looks like a run of the mill local law firm, nothing special, they exist in every major town all over the world. Mtking (edits) 22:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faux Pas (webcomic)[edit]

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

Unremarkable online comic strip. Google search on "Faux Pas" "Robert Carspecken" shows only 77 unique results, mostly Wiki mirrors or primary sources. Awards do not appear to be notable. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - more sources and a wider range, yes, but I've gone through the first ten pages of the search you posted and have yet to find anything that would pass WP:RS.... MikeWazowski (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Getting a lot of ghits is irrelevant since a lot of things can get a lot of ghits and still be considered non-notable. That doesn't prove notability per Wikipedia guidelines. Like Mike said, you have to have reliable sources to prove notability and at this point in time I can't find anything that would qualify as a reliable source. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:03, 16 November 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism in One Country[edit]

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

notability Darkstar1st (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

did you read the discussion on the talk page, Carr(the lone source for this term) also said this: The crucial point about Hitlerism is that its disciples not only believe in themselves, but believe in Germany. For the first time since the war a party appeared outside the narrow circles of the extreme Right which was not afraid to proclaim its pride in being German. It will perhaps one day be recognized as the greatest service of Hitlerism that, in a way quite unprecedented in German politics, it cut across all social distinctions, embracing in its ranks working men, bourgeoisie, intelligentsia and aristocrats. Germany Awake! became a living national faith Darkstar1st (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And so what? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
do you have the sources in Russian or english where the term was 1st used? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Utopian socialists and nationalists have advocated the theory of socialism in a single country before this time. In Germany today, the theory of an “independent” national economy, which progressively diminishes its connection with world economy to the vanishing point “autarchy,” as it is called – is the reactionary ideal of Hitler’s Fascists. Marx and Engels specific ally polemicized against the idea of a national socialist utopia in all their writings. Even Stalin was compelled to admit that the two founders of scientific socialism never entertained the idea, when he said that the possibility of building socialism in a single country was first formulated by Lenin in 1915, Max Shachtman Genesis of Trotskyism the Theory of Socialism in One Country Darkstar1st (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't. I'm neither historian, nor communist, and thus I don't keep this under my pillow. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  14:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animash[edit]

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

Contested prod and redirect. Non-notable neologism, see WP:NEO, only sources are YouTube, see WP:V. Google news search shows no significant results. Standard search shows a host of unreliable sources and social media, but no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Reply: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.105.89 (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC) (forgive my accent) I understand you're opinion but do not share it. Animashes are reasonably popular video's, not only on Youtube, but also being shown on DeviantART and others. The first reference was TVTropes, not Youtube. this page does miss references from DeviantART and other sites where animashes are displayed though. Compare it to the term brony which means that someone is a my little pony fan while he is a male older than 14 years. That term is unofficial and not seen in independent reliable sources. But it is added to wikipedia, because everyone agrees with it.[reply]

The same is for animash video's: officially, they do not exist. Same goes for Anime Music Video. But there are so many people that know about them, that outsiders call it Animash as well. (I am just an animash fan and made 2 short videos that almost no one has ever seen), but the page is good and objective enough for me: it tells about what an animash video is, how people normally create them (I do it in the exact same way as it is being described), and it gives a lot of youtube references to actual makers of the community (and not only the strong core but also some amateurs) to show what they create. There is no this guy is awesome you should watch this in the text. If it was, then I would agree with you. User: some anonymous guy. 21:33, 12 November 2011 (WET) — 81.205.105.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment: This falls under WP:NOTNEO for neologisms. It doesn't matter how widely or not-widely it's used. It's not really recorded under reliable second party sources that talk about the term, so we can't really justify its inclusion as a page to itself at this point in time. Also, Wikipedia is not a "how to" manual. WP:NOTHOWTO The reason why AMVs have a page to themselves is because the phenomenon has been covered in reliable second party sources. Animash just isn't there yet. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also, I don't think the term animash is as wide of a phenomenon as you claim it is. I'm a pretty frequent watcher of AMVs and I've not really seen this term dropped that often. Many people will still label their non-anime music videos with AMV rather than animash. It's too new of a term to really be included here on Wikipedia. Also, a point of note as far as namedropping goes: unless they're mentioned in a reliable second party source (ie, in an online news article and not in a blog or on youtube), they don't get mentioned here on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 21:51, 13 November 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 per consensus and per CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmarx[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morphia (Java library)[edit]

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

Subject lacks a significant amount of coverage in reliable third party sources. It appears the subject fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maserati X[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources. The article relies entirely on first party sources and contains a large amount of original research. The subject appears to fail the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish profanity[edit]

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

Is an article about Spanish Profanity that has had multiple issues for three years really need to be here? Lucasoutloud (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Munier, Alexis; Martinez, Laura (2008). Talk dirty Spanish. Adams Media; Newton Abbot. ISBN 9781598697681
—Northamerica1000(talk) 18:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BarrCatherine (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Catherine Barr[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Anderson Black[edit]

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

Being "great-grandfather" of a notable person is not enough claim for fame to make him notable. (notability is not inherited from others) Night of the Big Wind talk 17:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gathering Tree at Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church[edit]

Gathering Tree at Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The text of the article barely refers to the subject as given in the title. It talks a lot about medical experiments but the only use in the text is that there was an Oak tree in Shiloh. We can't tell if that is even an official name of a place/tree. I'm not convinced the references support the tree (rather than supporting that the medical experiments) existed. RJFJR (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to FreeDOS. However, I have restored the article given the improvement made to it. Black Kite (t) 00:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Villani[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a deceased software developer. I've been unable to find coverage of this individual in reliable sources to support notability. I suggested redirecting the article to the project he worked on, but the original author objected. WP:ANYBIO, WP:MEMORIAL. Pburka (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Villani was the author of the 2001 book Programming Win32 under the API. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Villani seems to have been the developer of something called FreeDOS Kernel, an MS-DOS emulator, PER THIS. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So far, none of those sources have any relevance to the GNG, which holds that a subject is considered notable if he is discussed in "significant detail" in multiple reliable sources. Ravenswing 17:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(EC: not directed towards the above) Which brings me to Wikipedia's page on DOS, which notes: "The FreeDOS project began 26 June 1994, when Microsoft announced it would no longer sell or support MS-DOS. Jim Hall then posted a manifesto proposing the development of an open-source replacement. Within a few weeks, other programmers including Pat Villani and Tim Norman joined the project. A kernel, the command.com command line interpreter (shell) and core utilities were created by pooling code they had written or found available. There were several official pre-release distributions of FreeDOS before the FreeDOS 1.0 distribution was released on 3 September 2006. Made available under the GNU General Public License (GPL), FreeDOS does not require license fees or royalties." Now look, there's not a single damned thing so far that counts as a "reliable source," but if you aren't getting very uneasy by now that this is a possibly an important freeware pioneer, you aren't paying attention... Carrite (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or that we haven't seen any cites saying so, which is the only factor which matters, as you know perfectly well. Speculating as to the fellow's importance because he's listed as a developer on a project is just that - speculation - and we can infer nothing from it. Failing the GNG, the only other applicable criteria are those of WP:CREATIVE, but the bar is set pretty high there, and it's near-to-impossible to pass WP:CREATIVE without satisfying the GNG. Ravenswing 17:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, checking the criteria given at WP:CREATIVE, I see points 1 and 3 applying to our case here. Pat has been important for the FreeDOS project, and if you check the various freedos-user and freedos-devel(oper) discussion forums (some of them are online, but this may not be the case for all the older discussions in the 1990s - I do have archives, but can't access them easily now). He is frequently named and cited in there by co-developers. This, beyond any doubts, proves WP:CREATIVE point 1, not because these were "reliable sources" as is, but simply because they exist. Nobody will question the existance of FreeDOS and these mailing lists. Also, it is without any question, that he was the sole developer and contributor of the original version of the FreeDOS kernel, and, with other developers, continued to work on it over many years. Nobody needs a reliable source to prove simply facts like this, because it is obvious, beyond any doubt. Anyone can look this up in the source code archives, if he likes. This is equivalent to the example given in WP:OR, that Paris is the capital of France. This is obvious and it is, as per WP policies, enough to assume that the fact is verifyable ("a source exists"). It is not necessary to actually bring forward sources for this. The ultimative proof of facts is the source code of the operating system. The discussions in the mailing lists can be seen as mere "reflections" on this, and it doesn't matter that mailing lists are not reliable sources, if the topics discussed there are about facts, which are beyond any doubt.
WP:CREATIVE point 3 applies at least to some extent, the person has created and played a major role in co-creating a significant and well-known work and collective body of work, FreeDOS. Besides Villani's own book about FreeDOS, the operating system has also been covered in other books (I think, I even have one of them in my library - will have to recheck this). The FreeDOS product / work also has been the subject of many thousands reviews in the net and (understandably to a much lesser extent) in printed magazines, and whenever there was an abstract about the system's history, Pat Villani is briefly named as the original author of the kernel. I would not count most of these reports as reliable sources in the WP sense, but again, reliable sources are not needed to proof obvious facts, such as 1 + 1 = 2, or Paris is the capital of France, or the FreeDOS kernel was originally developed by Pat Villani. It is enough to assume verifyability, and verifyabilty exists in the source code which is freely available to anyone to look at (although non-developers probably won't be able to make much sense of it).
WP:ANYBIO point 2 may apply here as well, although it is a bit too early for historians to write about DOS. ;-) (There was some coverage, when DOS became 25, and typically FreeDOS was mentioned there as well as a newer alternative to MS-DOS.) But if historians will do so in the future, FreeDOS will clearly be one of the DOS operating systems discussed alongside MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS, and if authors / developers will be mentioned, it is clear that Pat Villani will have to be named as the original author of DOS-C, which became the FreeDOS kernel, just as Tim Paterson will have to be named as the original author of 86-DOS, the operating system which became MS-DOS. There wasn't really much original or innovative in this work of Paterson, 86-DOS was basically a (rather buggy) clone of CP/M (which was originally designed and developed by Gary Kildall, a major innovator of the industry, who influenced the core design of operating systems and compilers up to the present). 86-DOS/MS-DOS had many drawbacks compared to CP/M, but it was cheaper and also came with some notable improvements, such as a different buffering logic and the introduction of the FAT12 filesystem (which, however, was actually based on prior work by Marc McDonald). Nevertheless, the product became important by circumstances and so became Tim Paterson as its original author. In analogy, there wasn't really much new in DOS-C/FreeDOS, an operating system with the intended goal to be a clone/emulator of MS-DOS. However, FreeDOS became important because it was free and open-source and stepped in when MS-DOS was abandoned (with the only other alternative being DR-DOS, arguably much more advanced in compatibility, stability and feature set, but a commercial product and closed-sourced). While not 100% compatible, for many applications, where DOS was and still is used today, FreeDOS is "good enough" (and in the tools/utilities department, it is even much better than MS-DOS). Finally, the fact, that a DOS kernel was successfully written in a high-level language such as C, is innovative and original, and this must be attributed to Pat Villani.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I had a look in my lib and besides Villani's own book on FreeDOS "FreeDOS kernel - An MS-DOS Emulator for Platform Independence & Embedded Systems Development", I found both FreeDOS and DOSEMU to be covered in numerous places in the book "The Multi-Boot Configuration Handbook" by Roderick W. Smith, published in 2000 by Que, ISBN 9780789722836. Villani isn't mentioned explicitly, but neither are any other people. As per WP:CREATIVE, if the work is covered in reliable sources, this makes its original creator ("a person who has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work") likely to be notable as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should explain why a DOS kernel being written in C instead of assembly language is important and quite an achievement, given that many other operating systems are written in high-level languages and nobody recognizes this as something special. The reason, why this is much more difficult for a DOS kernel, is that most "serious" DOS programs do not only use the documented APIs (which can be easily emulated), but retrieve and change data in internal data structures of the operating system. In some cases, software even starts patching code sections in the runtime image of the DOS kernel - Windows, for example, is known to do this to quite some extent. For this to work, even intrinsical details deep inside the DOS kernel become important to be properly emulated. This goes down to the exact memory layout and order of internal data structures and tables, calling conventions of internal functions, and the emulation of exact opcode strings in various locations. Once it is known, that some application depends or modifies such DOS internals, it is "relatively" easy to emulate this in assembly language, but in a high-level language such as C you do not normally have any control over the machine level representation. These problems do not occur in most modern operating systems, since their applications do not (and cannot) normally use internal structures of the operating system and communicate only via officially documented methods, but it is an integral part of the "business" under DOS. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Striking Delete recommendation. I have a hunch that this is an individual worthy of encyclopedic biography, despite being unable to find sourcing myself. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pat started to develop his operating system in the late 1980s as a vehicle for the development of device drivers. IIRC, it was called XDOS in ca. 1988, NSS-DOS in 1991, and DOS/NT in 1992. It was not originally designed for Intel x86 processors, but for Motorola 68000 CPUs (which have a completely different instruction set). However, because he wrote his OS in the C high-level-language, it was easily portable across different system architectures. His system was therefore called DOS-C, when it became part of the FreeDOS project (still called "Free-DOS Alpha 1") in ca. October 1994.
While the front-end API to applications was inspired by the MS-DOS API, the originally contributed version, though functional as is, was only loosly compatible with MS-DOS programs. Lots of internal data structures were completely different from those found in the MS-DOS kernel, so misbehaving programs did not run. However, prior to the integration of DOS-C into the FreeDOS project, this hasn't been a problem, because Pat didn't intend to run out-of-the-box DOS programs on his OS, but develop his own applications and drivers for it. Nevertheless, for FreeDOS, it now was a requirement to load existing DOS drivers and run DOS applications without recompilation, so over the course of the years lots of things were changed in the kernel and gradually the FreeDOS kernel became more and more MS-DOS compatible.
Back in 1994/1995 or so, I still remember discussions with Pat and others, where I stated, that an operating system written in a high-level language will never be able to become 100% MS-DOS compatible, since too many undocumented "hacks" are necessary to achieve full MS-DOS compatibility and support dirty applications, which cannot be emulated easily in a high-level language (MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS are all written in x86 assembler), and also because the output of a compiler is much less efficient as professionally written hand-optimized assembler code, and this counts quite a bit under DOS. While I still think that this statement holds true, FreeDOS has meanwhile reached a level of compatibility, I would not have expected. Been written in C has probably also been a factor in attracting more developers and make debugging much easier.
So, if FreeDOS is notable, Pat Villani is as well. The article will clearly need more work and references, but this is just a matter of time. FWIW, I can personally confirm the FreeDOS stuff written there to be fact, and I think I have recently read the bio details in his obituary, but I would have to recheck this. Also, I own his book "The FreeDOS kernel", and while I don't have the time to cite from it right now, I may do so later on. Therefore I recommend to not delete this article stub, but to keep and improve it. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blush. ;-)
AfD is not a voting process. If it can be reasonably shown, that the subject meets WP's criteria of notability, a single recommendation to keep should be enough. At least in my book, a key developer of an operating system, which is used on uncountable desktop and embedded machines worldwide, is quite notable. And Pat was not only that, but also one of the "fathers" of FreeDOS and for several years the project leader. From the arguments brought forward above, I seem to understand that it wasn't really clear what exactly "FreeDOS" and a "kernel" is and what role and impact Pat might have had in the project. With the additional information given here we might have helped the others to get a better picture on this already. I don't think it would be too difficult to find references to back up the stuff mentioned in the article, it would just need some effort to note everything down. I seem to remember there were also some articles in the printed press mentioning him when FreeDOS 1.0 was released, but it may take a while to track them down. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But for completeness, here's a rough Pat-related timeline (from what little I can gather from random searching on Google and Google Groups' comp.os.msdos.misc archives):
sometime in 1994 - MS claims to soon discontinues stand-alone MS-DOS in favor of Win95 (aka, MS-DOS 7.0 + Win 4.0 bundled)
June? 1994 - Jim Hall starts P.D. DOS project and publishes some utils (and manifesto, compatibility, todo, etc.) but no kernel yet
Nov. 1994 - Pat donates DOS/NT kernel as "non-commercial" closed source
May 1995 - Free-DOS alpha 3 released (now with Pat's GPL'd DOS-C kernel)
Aug. 1996 - _FreeDOS Kernel_ is published (in paper form)
1996? - DOSEMU [Hans Lerman?] succeeds in adapting to work with DOS-C kernel (instead of only proprietary MS,PC,DR)
1996? 1997? Caldera's OpenDOS isn't really "open" enough for most people (soon closed)
July 1997 - Pat defends GPL'd Free-DOS' bugginess, esp. since he works on it for free ("hundreds of hours")
the printed book made little money, took him "two years to write" (for personal gratification)
but he still has a day job working as (unnamed, DEC Tru64??) OS engineer
1998? - FreeDOS beta1
2001? - Pat leaves the project (colon cancer? and?) "disgusted with the bozos"
2001 - FreeDOS beta5, beta6, beta7
April 2002 - FreeDOS beta8 (last to have premade full floppy install set images)
IIRC still using Pat's very slow floppy accessing code
2003 - OpenWatcom 1.0 (which supports all DOS-specific compilation models, can build kernel)
2006 - FreeDOS 1.0 final (MS-DOS compatible) finally released
?? - dunno, I had never been in contact with him until Jim went on extended hiatus in 2009
which is when Pat stepped in again as head (and I really only barely jumped in after 2006)
2009 - Pat rejoins FreeDOS as head, lots of ideas (and notes), though no major release
(still lots of little updates, but there is little coordination, volunteers are extremely scarce)
April 2011 - Pat gets sick (unknown cause) and publicly leaves, Jim returns
late 2011 - some unfinished 1.1 test#3 work, Pat dies, not much else :-( --2011-11-15T23:31:20‎ Armslurp
Hm, perhaps I have found what we're looking for (but it's not online any more, unfortunately). At the time FreeDOS 1.0 was released in 2006, FreeDOS was also covered in the news - online, broadcasted and in printed press. One news on FreeDOS explicitly mentioning Pat Villani as the original author of the kernel seems to have been broadcasted in ZDF (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen), one of Germany's national public-sector television channel, on 2006-10-21. Google's cache still reveals a snippet of what appears to have been online, "Der Welt ein Debüt geben", heute.de Nachrichten, ZDFheute.de: "Dann meldete sich ein Entwickler, Pat Villani, der schon mal einen DOS-Kernel namens "DOS/NT" geschrieben hatte und bereit war, ihn freizugeben", which seems to have been online under the following link (but has been removed meanwhile): [17]]. I haven't seen it myself, so I cannot comment on it, but it obviously mentioned Villani. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Xiaodong[edit]

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

This article, then named "Zhu Xiao Dong," was previously nominated (not by me, who was at that time unaware of it) in 2008 for deletion, and the result of the discussion was "keep" (with only two people expressing opinion at that time). However, I still don't believe that notability was shown; the argument for notability was largely due to a single newspaper interview. The article was created by an editor who has made no other edits. There is no Chinese Wikipedia article. I don't see where the notability is. Delete. Nlu (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Paint[edit]

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

Article about a paint company. The only independent reference supplied, the book "Dutch and Flemish still-life paintings" does not contain any reference to "International Paint" according to a search on Google Books, so seems completely unrelated. This leaves only one reference to the company's website, which is not a independent, published source. So the notability of this subject has not been established. Sparthorse (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[18] Phil Bridger (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding the specific reference. However, I don't think this is referring to the same company. According to the article, the company International Paint was founded by brothers called Holzapfel in 1881. The reference is to a company called International Paint and Compositions Company founded by someone called Hartzman. If you look at [19] which is, I believe, the subject of the article, I think it is clear these are different companies. If we could get further references, it might be easier to tell. Sparthorse (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The specific reference, with the page number, was already in the article, and if you read it a bit more carefully you will see that the International Paint and Compositions Company was founded by someone called Holzapfel with someone called Hartzman. If you then, as I suggested when I contested the WP:PROD tag, use Google Books searches you will find that the International Paint and Compositions Company was later renamed to International Paint and acquired by Akzo. I have no interest in spending my time expanding this article, but it is pretty clear that plenty of sources exist that can be used by others to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Berger Paints Caribbean Limited[edit]

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

Article about a local subsidiary of a paint company. The only references are to the company's website, so there is no independent evidence this company is notable. Article in its present state clearly does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on articles about companies. Sparthorse (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Agents Alliance[edit]

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

Not notable. No secondary sources. No newspaper or magazine articles (except for one article about the founder in a local business publication, ref'd in article). The only mentions I can find online are either on company web sites, on web sites of MLM participants, or on scam web site forum pages. Jojalozzo 16:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  14:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rabih Najjar[edit]

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

Declined Prod. Prod reason was "Per WP:NFOOTY never played on a team recognized as in a fully professional league. No demonstration of passing WP:GNG." Decliner claimed " the fifteen years old he was chosen to participate in some of the first team games in the Lebanese Premier League." asserts that they appeared in a game on a team in a fully professional league. The Fully Professional League team list does not list Lebanon under any heading. The Lebanese Premier League does not claim fully professional. There might be Local Notability for this player, but this uncited BLP is woefully lacking in quality. Hasteur (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's update remarks: After the author has invested a significant amount of effort into this to attempt to bring this article up to the required notability standards it still fails. Updating to let the closing admin be aware that I am monitoring the work being done here. Hasteur (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  14:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lingua ac Communitas[edit]

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

Unreferenced 1x yearly journal. Declined PROD. Concern = Fails to meet criteria for notability at WP:NJOURNAL Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trip to the library was less easy than I expected: my university's library does not subscribe, and as far as I can tell the journal is not indexed in MLA, Ebsco, JSTOR, or Web of Knowledge. However, I did find the following articles citing other articles included in the journal. Like most of the citation I found, these are written in German or Polish.
  • Greule, Albrecht. 1999. "Sprachloyalität – Sprachkultur – Sprachattraktivität. Warum noch Deutsch lernen?" Informationen Deutsch als Fremdsprache 5(26) 423-431. (cites Greule, Albrecht. 1992. Aufgaben und Probleme der modernen deutschen Sprachpflege)
  • Eaniec, Wojciech. 2001. "Husserl bibliography." Husserl Studies 17(2). (cites Glombik, Czeslaw. 1999. Bronislaw Bandrowski i jego zwiazki z getyngeskim seminarium filozoficznym)
  • Zieba, Włodzimierz. 2007. "Filozoficzno-aksjologiczne zaplecze ekorozwoju. Philosophical and axiological basis of ecodevelopment." Problemy Ekorozwoju 2(1) 19-25. (cites Rosenthal, S.B. (n.d.) Language and reality: The alien paths of classical pragmatism and Rorty)
Cnilep (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately links or references to articles in the journal are not an assertion of its notability. The jounal either needs a high jounal ranking (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals), or articles published about it in the established press, and not being indexed in MLA, Ebsco, JSTOR, or Web of Knowledge gives me pause. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur; my findings are (contra my original expectation) not enough to satisfy NJournal. Cnilep (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Husserl Studies and The New Synthese Historical Library (and possibly some of the other references too (I cannot assess that)) seem to me to meet the criterion. Universityuser (talk) 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Notability is questionable. and the article is a puff piece--but the keeps have it. Keep voters are urged to prune the article and make it worthy of inclusion. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kapil Muni Tiwary[edit]

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

IMO, no proof that he meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Redtigerxyz Talk 12:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz Talk 12:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be highly unfair to even include this article for deletion. It would be a great disservice to the very cause for which Wikipedia stands. I have read the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria and I strongly feel that he meets not just one, which is the minimum required, but at least three or four--- no 1, 4, 5, and 6. Dr K M Tiwary retired as the Professor and head of the department of English of Patna University in early nineties. After that he has been working as the professor in various universities in Yemen till date, some reference for which has been given in the article. He also had worked as a professor in Some university in Iraq in the early part of his career, though this is not mentioned in the article. The very fact he has worked as a professor not just in a reputed university in India but has still been working (he must be nearing 80 now) in a university in Taiz in Yemen, that some of his articles published in international journals and his books are being quoted by the linguists the world over (the reference for which are available in the article) should be enough to close this discussion. User talk:Arunbandana 16:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC) 16:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Article satisfies WP:N. KM Tiwary is recognized as a notable linguist of India as per this book cited in the wiki entry. The article also satisfies WP:RS with reports from Yemen Times and his peer-reviewed articles. However, author needs to avoid Original Research, needs to wikify the article and needs to make the article more encyclopedic.

Veryhuman (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP On the basis of the points raised above in support of keeping the article and the improvements made in the article by adding the contents and the references I am sure the article will be retained. Moreover may I request the editors to help improve the entries made in the reference as per the wiki standards. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 14:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 8 - This one is from Cambridge University Press welcoming a new journal from India. Pmresource (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –MuZemike 01:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud computing comparison[edit]

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

I suspect that comparison tables such as this are probably not encyclopaedic material, even if all the tables were completed. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per availability of sources, and sources I have added to the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article created less than 30 days ago. A good start. It deserves a chance to develop. --Kvng (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we will be linking this with Cloud_computing --Ourhistory153 (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Neutralitytalk 01:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbells.com[edit]

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

COI article, non-notable. -Vaarsivius ("You've made a glorious contribution to science.") 10:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –MuZemike 01:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Break[edit]

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

Subject does not approach WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST standards. He's mostly self-published. JFHJr (㊟) 08:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I wasn't absolutely knocking SPS, but we can't base a BLP on it. His self-publications were most of what was turning up as far as any publication about the subject. As far as reliable sources go, self-publications certainly are no more reliable because he's an artist. Someone else should have said something about Break or commented on Break's own SPS. JFHJr (㊟) 17:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't been thinking of self-published sourcing. Of course you're right: sources must be disinterested. But as for self-published books (not used for sourcing), he says he has three books out at blurb.com. The last time I looked, [redlinked] Rafał Milach had two books out at blurb.com and only the promise of a third book from an apparently conventional publisher (Kehrer); but actually Kehrer, like most respectable photobook publishers, wants money from the photographer, and Milach merits a WP article on the strength of the commentary on his first blurb.com book (Black Sea of Concrete) alone. ¶ On the respective merits of Break versus Milach, I'm not sure that I have a comment but am sure that this wouldn't be the right place to utter it. On their relative degree of "notability" (as the word is used within WP), I think I can say that Milach is some way ahead. -- Hoary (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination was withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest Labs[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Tinton5 (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest Labs invented a new technology that is changing the way people use television. According to Wikipedia's policy on notability, "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." Hillcrest Labs has received significant coverage for its technology in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and many other influential publications, as cited in the article. The company has also won multiple awards for its technology. There is no evidence to support the claim of non-notability.Accurastic (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –MuZemike 01:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren LeMay[edit]

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

No particular claim to notability; in fact, she appeared in a non-notable film specifically about non-notable actors. The subject doesn't approach WP:BASIC requirements, let alone WP:NACTOR qualities. JFHJr (㊟) 06:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment – I've added "Ana Mathes." I'm not sure if she uses this name any more than the others, but she seems to have recently edited this article and its talk page under that handle. JFHJr (㊟) 18:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tough to hide a username. I will presume it a newcomer's angst and error in not understanding the seriousness of WP:COI concerns. Perhaps she should pay close attention to WP:NAU. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –MuZemike 01:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BAD Salsa Group[edit]

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

Fail WP:GNG: Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. Most web searches are related to India's Got Talent 3 officially or blogs/FB pages et al discussing them. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz Talk 06:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –MuZemike 01:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Marilyn[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNSTAR per its own claims and is entirely unsourced. I'd normally clean up BLP vios as I go, in case it's kept, but the whole article would be gone. JFHJr (㊟) 06:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I actually got a higher number by a few thousand using the same search method. Think the content of those photos is something on which to base notability? Plus, I'm pretty sure image hits don't figure into notability per wikipedia anyway. These images certainly don't count as in-depth coverage even if you can literally see all there is to the subject. Part of the reason is that they're published by WP:SPS and other encyclopedically unreliable sources. The other part is that they just don't give us anything of note or substance to say. Practically, I imagine it would be hard to muster prose about the number and content, based on google searches of the interwebs at some particular time. Maybe someday she'll pass WP:PORNSTAR and this can be undeleted at the request of someone who isn't closely associated with her. JFHJr (㊟) 08:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –MuZemike 00:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kristie VerMulm[edit]

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

Besides failing GNG, the only source for the information appears to be her bio on the KTIV website. Outside that, most of the information isn't really noteworthy. Your typical reporter at a mid-market station, not notable. Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC) 05:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –MuZemike 00:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Shaver[edit]

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

He played for one game, and pitched one inning in that one game, there are no references, and he hardly seems notable. Pilif12p 05:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – You'd think in a real encyclopedia, this would garner a footnote. Here, he'll be a stub until he ever does anything else. While I'm inclined to agree with the emerging consensus, might it be helpful to interpret notability guidelines as permissive, but not compulsory? That, and as Jethro points out, there's WP:IAR in case the rules don't serve wikipedia well. JFHJr (㊟) 08:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure I understand why his departure from the A's major league roster should require an explanation. MLB rosters are quite fluid, and players are promoted from and demoted to the minor leagues every day for a multitude of reasons, not all of which are related to performance. Can you clarify? -Dewelar (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, there might have been a presumption from Cullen that news sources exist explaining why there was a quick leave from the roster, and might support the notability of the individual. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Adam Penale (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shouldn't be discounted. There is obvious consensus here that is clearly going to win out, but I made a perfectly reasonable argument. Equating my argument as a WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a mischaracterization. WP:IAR is a reasonable, policy-based argument. Strictly follow this notability guideline for baseball players in this case seems senseless to me and doesn't improve Wikipedia. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:WIARM, it's not about whether following the rule isn't improving Wikipedia, it's about whether ignoring the rule would improve Wikipedia -- a subtle but crucial distinction. I don't see how your argument (or anyone else's) above addresses this. -Dewelar (talk) 09:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And also per WP:WIARM, following the spirit of the rules trumps the letter of rule. Multiple authors, even one support to keep the article, have expressed reluctance, because this individual doesn't seems to fit the spirit of the rule of notability for baseball players. And last time I checked, following rules that don't improve Wikipedia (i.e. it adds nothing valuable, or hurts the project) is exactly why WP:IAR was made, and it is why I am using it and my observations in this deletion discussion to support my reasoning. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 09:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. However, in order to invoke WP:IAR, you have to show why following the rule hurts the project in this particular instance, which you have thus far failed to do. You've just stated that it does. That's why others are claiming that it appears to simply be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT-based argument. Neither you nor JFHJr have made any statements regarding why the presumption of notability for MLB players doesn't apply here. Indeed, the article has been expanded with additional sourcing since its nomination. If anything, this AfD has shown why the rule should be followed, as it shows that even someone who only barely meets WP:BASE/N is likely to pass WP:GNG with little difficulty. -Dewelar (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because this baseball player isn't notable, and the guideline is being poorly applied. The source additions to the profile are just more stats, a Fredonia State Baseball website which is not independent of the subject, and a high school website with questionable reliability (e.g. saying that Shaver "played" for the Oakland A's for six years is extremely misleading). Some of the expansions deal with his minor league career. WP:IAR requires judgment calls, and I have made one-- Shaver's accomplishments wouldn't make it into a normal encyclopedia and it shouldn't make it into Wikipedia, either. You can call it WP:IDONTLIKEIT all you want, but that completely misrepresents my arguments. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason WP:BASE/N exists in the first place as a supplement to WP:GNG is that much of the coverage that would establish a player's notability is not readily accessible -- The Sporting News, for example, is available only through subscription, and not all newspapers have extensive online archives. Since notability does not degrade over time, a baseball player who played one game in the majors in 1988 is, via WP:BASE/N, presumed to be just as notable as one who did so in the age of easy digital access. It's a legitimate -- and, I would argue, necessary -- assumption to make.
You are correct that the school web sites are not necessarily reliable on the topic of his professional career, but the information for which they are used as a source is his performance as an amateur, for which I would call them reliable secondary sources.
Finally, if your standard is whether something would make it into a "normal encyclopedia" (by which I presume you mean something like the Encyclopedia Britannica and not a general baseball encyclopedia, as I have several examples of the latter on my bookshelf, all of which contain an entry for Shaver), then perhaps 95% (possibly more) of all Wikipedia articles should be deleted. Is that the position you're taking? -Dewelar (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not my position. Notability is not the only reason why there are content differences between Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias. One other reason is because traditional encyclopedias are written by experts in the field willing to do so and a small editorial staff. Obviously, there are issues of space in print editions, but even online edition have a great deal of editorial oversight that slows the process of adding new content. Anyway, I'm done with this, and I've bludgeoned this issue enough. My opinion is not gaining consensus, and there are more important things to do. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except I've provided one and you've provided no counterargument except to say that guidelines are hard-and-fast rules (which they are not). I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that guidelines are not hard and fast rules but I disagree that the argument you provided for not following the guideline in this case is a good one. Just because information on why his A's career abruptly ended is not readily available is not a reason to ignore the guideline. The same would apply to most 1 game or even a few game major leaguers. In all likelihood, no explanation for his short stay was particularly necessary because someone better became available to the team (either a player got healthy, they were able to trade for someone or pick up someone off waivers, or just decided to go with a different minor league call up). Rlendog (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –MuZemike 00:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EJ DiMera and Nicole Walker[edit]

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

The entire article is a plot summary of events in the TV series by the couple. The only claim to notability is, The coupling has gained a strong following on many forums and message boards, across the internet with a reference to a fan site. WP:PLOT. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 05:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree, yes the article is rough around the edges. However I do believe that once all of the right sources and refrences have been gathered it would the criteria for as an article. And I also believe that the claim for them as a couple or super can be made in the fact that the coupling does have a large fanbase of supporters. Know I now many couplings have fanbases but I do believe that theirs is notable especially considering that they have been togethered 3 times in the past three years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashak90 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –MuZemike 00:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Tapon[edit]

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

No real claim to notability per WP:ATHLETE; his writing career is likewise non-notable. JFHJr (㊟) 04:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –MuZemike 00:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Stanton[edit]

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

A biographical article about a British player of American Football in the UK. The one reference is thin, so the article is not fully verifiable and notability is not full established. Needs further sources to show the facts here are correct, that the subject meets notability and to meet Wikipedia's standards on biographies of living people. Prod was contested without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –MuZemike 00:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Jesus Wall[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Article does not have any third party sources. Tinton5 (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Stewart (politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. Appears to have some achievements; however, individual lacks GHits and GNEWS to support WP:NOTABILITY or WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Neutralitytalk 02:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Popular Flipnote Creators[edit]

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

This is unencyclopedic content. It's a list of individuals with limited notability of the concept itself. The phenomenon can be mentioned in the Flipnote Studio article but there's no reason to have a list of the individual creators on wikipedia. Shadowjams (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could change it a bit to make List of Popular Flipnote Creators more encyclopedic. I am knowledgeable in the subject. I even participate in Flipnote Hatena. But, how do you make a article encyclopedic? Greenble (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn (non-admin closure) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

180 Documentary[edit]

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

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTFILM. References/links are all blogs. reddogsix (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –MuZemike 00:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sicodelico[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Won 1 championship of doubtful significance. hasn't been the subject of multiple published secondary sources.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Jarkeld (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Jarkeld (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 13:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Art Space[edit]

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

No evidence of or sources for notability. Kelly hi! 13:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kill 'Em All#"Hit the Lights". Any content worth merging can be done from the page history. (non-admin closure) →Στc. 00:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hit the Lights (song)[edit]

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

This isn't a notable song. It fails WP:NSONGS due to not charting. It wasn't even released as a single. [38] 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film. (non-admin closure) →Στc. 00:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film Second[edit]

Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film Second (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Overcategorization of film awards. Individual page for first, second, third place seems excessive (See: WP:OC). Consider merging information into a single, sortable table and adding extra encyclopedia material. Also see, WP:NOTDIR, WP:WHIM. Veryhuman (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I concur with Veryhuman. Pages for individual awards, sure. For runners-up, no. DS (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 13:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle (Tokyo Heroes)[edit]

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

I think there are a lot of these for the same group....single that never charted. Fails wp:n for music. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 27 October 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, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ [39]
More