The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Domenic Haller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Biography of a living person with no sources, notability has not been established. Yworo (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a notable person, company only founded recently (in July, 2011). Supposedly a German, but company website registered to father in South Carolina. Product not actually available as far as I can make out. 'Net Worth' figure implausible (unless he inherited it or won the lottery). --Marjaliisa (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. At this point in time Haller isn't noteworthy per WP:BIO guidelines. He isn't in the news at this point in time, nor are there any other sources that would be considered reliable. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability, no coverage in reliable sources, no references for a BLP . . . seems pretty clear.--~TPW 16:09, 29 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. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan25 00:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric R. Bittner (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 claim of notability. No independent third party references. One specialist award and two mass-awards received. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: In view of this "articles for deletion" entry, I have updated the article on that he is now distinguished professor, and completed the lists of his awards. He has also authored a scientific book on his subject of research. --Chris Howard (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Howard asked me to re evaluate in light of the new distinguished professor information.: No matter what claims or information are presented, without independent third party sources notability is always going to be doubtful. I note in particular that much information is referenced to http://k2.chem.uh.edu/ which appears to the subjects own webserver, which is not a WP:RS. Some of the information is also on the webpages of his department, which is only marginally better. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No time to look into this myself right now, but if the claim of a named professorship that is made in the article can be substantiated, that would meet WP:PROF. In the Web of Science I get 82 hits with 1352 citations and an h-index of 20. Top citation counts 115, 109, 81. Although not outstanding, this is pretty decent, especially for someone at his career stage. The awards all seem to be rather trivial (an NSF Career Award is just a type of grant, not really an award). --Crusio (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The named professorship can be verified through primary sources. [1]. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but WP:PROF requires it be verified through reliable sources, and primary sources aren't in this case. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A primary source in this case meets verifiability. See WP:RS#Reliability in specific contexts. There is no reason to believe that the University's own web site is factually incorrect about the professorship, and requires no interpretation on the part of an editor to derive the information as it is simply a plain fact. As such, the use of a primary source in this case is acceptable. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep is my view as author of the article. By now, leaving aside his personal page at the UH, I have added three further references about the Moores professorship ([2],[3],[4]) – all from the University of Houston, but as indicated above there is no reason to assume them to be factually incorrect. --Chris Howard (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are entries at google books that refer to the work of the subject: https://www.google.com/search?q=Eric+R.+Bittner&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=Eric+R.+Bittner&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=ba38c07d8839507e&biw=1680&bih=812 providing reliable sources--MLKLewis (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Basically any academic will have some GBooks hits. It's the nature of those hits that determines whether they contribute anything to notability. --Crusio (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC in two ways. Above all, he holds a named/endowed professorship at a major research university (criterion #5). This is confirmed by the university itself[5]; such a listing by the university is in fact the primary way to confirm that someone holds an endowed professorship. In addition, his citations at Google Scholar suggest that he is important in his field. --MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF#C5. The citation record is probably also good enough for #C1, but that's not as much of a slam dunk. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 28 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. The consensus below is that the sources are sufficient to establish notability under the GNG. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Smothers, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet notability for Pornographic actors and models, he never won an award, has not unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, etc. Also, being related to someone famous does not make you notable. Saladacaesar (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: What the nominator writes is true (no awards, no inheritance of notability, no unique contributions), but the subject, nevertheless, passes WP:GNG as he received significant coverage in reliable indipendent sources as CNN, Philadelphia Daily News, Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer and more, available here and here. I could argue he also passes WP:PORNBIO#4, but it is not needed.--Cavarrone (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per meeting WP:GNG. Failing a SNG does not mean that one canot pass the GNG. User:Cavarrone has it correct in that we measure notability either through coverage in multiple reliable sources OR through verifiability of an assertion described in an SNG. Those two parts of WP:N are not mutally exclusionary. A topic can meet either or both and be notable. The article does need some sandblasting, but such addressable issues rarely require deletion of demonstrably notable topics. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good deal of discussion in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability for Porno and GNG. Any articles about him are only in relation his famous dad. He has no notability outside that. --Cox wasan (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. Notability is not inherited and he only has minimal coverage due to his father, none of the sources cited establish notability. JoshyDinda (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - "Notability is not inherited" means that being related to someone notable does not automatically confer notability. However, Junior has independent reliable coverage about him which satisfies the GNG even if the only reason is because he's someone's son. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while not truly famous, there is some notability. Vincelord (talk) 15:59, 30 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Datavo Communications (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 communications company. No evidence this company is notable. The only source given that even mentions Datavo is a press release, so is not a independent, published, reliable source. The rest are all about PCS1 not Datavo; its possible PCS1 is notable enough to sustain an article, but even that is not clear from these sources. Prod was contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This article has been previously deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Datavo. Also note that Datavo is salted due to multiple creation/speedy deletion cycles. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I origionally accepted this submission via Articles for Creation, as I felt the current sourcing was enough to establish the subject's notability. Currently, there doesn't appear to be any more reliable sources. If the discussion results in delete, can the closing admin please userfy the article, so that once the company does meet the notability guidelines, the author doesn't have to start entirely over. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the sourcing in the article is about PCS1, and even that sourcing is mostly in unreliable sources. I can find nothing but more press releases in my own search. Considering the state of the sourcing, I don't see how userfying would be helpful as it appears this company is not even borderline on the notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - Editor At4470 has placed comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Datavo Communications. I've left him/her a note that the discussion is here, but other editors should review the comments on the talk page. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and check to see who created the previous article(s) for this company. Make sure current creator is not a sockpuppet. creator is a SPA, of course, but may be well intentioned, if not WP savvy. PS, oh yes, absolutely no evidence for notability, and this company has a nice, unique character string for a name. if that name plus a fan/promoter cannot find refs, there arent any.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt as repeatedly re-created content. A persistent spammer. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I have no problem that this page will be deleted, but before accusing for spam or anything else please double check the history of this page why it is been recreated and how it come to a subject of deleting, and if you will come to conclusion that something been done incorrectly ,as a spam or this way or other the outer or the company tithe to any spa or any other page/company so please delete it. My believe that if you comparing Datavo to any other privately held telecom company that have a page in Wiki, Datavo is not less notable then the rest(don’t try to compare to AT&T because it is not apple to apple).--At4470 (talk) 22:15, 29 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. The analysis of the sources are that they are not substantial enough and that hasn't been refuted do asserting sources doesn't overcome the detailed analysis Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

per WP:NEO. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 21:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NEO, which says "to support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept", which this article does. JORGENEV 21:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per WP:NOR. I thought this was a well-referenced dictionary definition with the slightest bit of encyclopedic content. Then I started checking the content of the sources, and discovered they didn't back up the assertions in the article. While I'd be inclined to forgive the brief secondary-source coverage of the word if there were well-referenced encyclopedic content in the article, too much of it is original research sprinkled with somewhat-related citations. --Pnm (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tightened up the wording to be closer to the sources, I would appreciate reconsideration. JORGENEV 08:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. That did fix the original research problems and clarifies this discussion. See my transwiki/delete/userfy response below. --Pnm (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment by nominator: the article is kind of unclear on what brogramming actually is — it's a word and its definition is given, but the first sentence says it's a meme and the article doesn't explain what makes it a meme. If it is indeed a notable meme then it might belong in Wikipedia, but as simply a neologism I don't think it does. What exactly is the meme here? Translating things into brospeak? Is it a notable internet meme? Does it belong in the article called "brogramming"? — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 02:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been edited but my concern wasn't addressed. It appears that one of the topics, either the word or the meme (if it is indeed a meme), is trying to inherit notability from the other. I added a tag because the article is unclear on what the subject actually is. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 18:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki, and delete (or userfy) per WP:NOTDICT. The secondary-source coverage is too light and says too little to satisfy WP:N at this time. If this meme hangs on, it will probably attract more substantial coverage which can help generate an encyclopedic article. Anticipating more coverage in the future, I thought to look for a redirect target, but after doing some work on Category:Men today and finding this recent Afd of Bro (online subculture) I concluded the "bro culture" article I sought did not exist. --Pnm (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic has been the subject of three full news articles, two in Business Insider and one in BostInnovation (a RS, has editorial staff), as well as one full article in TechCrunch about a subsidiary event and then a whole host of minor mentions. That is significant coverage. JORGENEV 14:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be significant coverage the sources also need to directly address the topic. 1 does have a few sentences of content which do this. 2 and 3 (the video, not the text) are substantial but don't take the topic seriously – they seem to be primarily about providing humor and propagating the meme, not reporting on it – more like primary than secondary sources. 3 provides less than one sentence of coverage. The remaining sources 4 5 6 7 merely use the word; they don't address the topic directly. --Pnm (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep good article with sources to back it up. Askadaleia (talk) 09:11, 28 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Henson T. Dent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does nothing to assert notability. He is an ordained minister, but that alone is not WP:N. All external links are to a genealogy website, so perhaps the user meant to create it in userspace. Cowback23451 (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree that it doesn't assert notability. The only references listed are to a Family Search Website which is a genealogy research website. Which does not help assert notability. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - almost incomprehensible gibberish; no credible assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "in 1896 he helped more that 2 million people get married". That's 2740+ couples a day. Assuming he slept for eight hours he would have had to conduct a service every 19 waking seconds. Not sure why this is even being discussed. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I think it should read: 'He became a graduate of Howard University in 1891 and a minister in 1896. He helped more that[sic] 2 million people get married.' It does sound kind of amusing in its original form, though.--Marjaliisa (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it lacks evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO, and I've been unable to find any appropriate references. As a side-note: Orangemike, I think "almost incomprehensible gibberish" is unnecessarily harsh  Chzz  ►  08:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep (or userify) -- At present, all the sources are extracts from the US census records; I have removed one that adds nothing to the rest and located the rest properly in the text. The two million cliam sounds like an exaggeration, probably not referring to a single year, and perhaps the the work of his whole board, rather than just him. However, if the claims about him are correct he ought to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence of notability. Sources show existence, but that's it. The claim of "helped over 2 Million people get married in D.C." is extremely vague and seems implausible, and without any sourcing ultimately violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources. Askadaleia (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if someone performed or officiated at a million weddings, and if it could sourced properly, then that would be notable, but there is no such proof at this moment, and I can't find any online. However, saying that the subject "helped" two million people get married is patently unverifiable -- it is not even wrong. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noor Aftab (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)

Does not meet WP:BASIC WP:GNG. Originally a promo-only piece and copyvio provided by an editor associated with the subject. On its own terms, the BLP does not assert notability, nor does research yield significant coverage by multiple reliable third-party sources. JFHJr (㊟) 23:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom except I have no knowledge of any conflict between the subject and the WP:SPA who created the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The COI with User:Raana.rizwan is not particularly relevant in deciding whether to delete, but it does explain why the articles were created, and that editor's apparent WP:SPA behavior. A google search for "Rizwan" and "Noor Aftab" reveals he's involved in at least the facebook side of the Shahina Aftab Foundation. JFHJr (㊟) 01:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. WP:BASIC and GNG are satisfied. [6][7] Support rename to Shahina Aftab Foundation if necessary. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. First source is not really a secondary source. Second source about her helping people is hardly "significant coverage" and doesn't satisfy "Multiple sources are generally expected".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• are we saying that international womens days is a subsiduary or controlled by Shahina Aftab Foundation? If not, it looks like a legit indepth secondary source to me. --Joopercoopers (talk) 02:41, 22 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,  Sandstein  20:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete JoopersCoopers presents one weak RS (the second one). Weak, because of BLP1E. I'd want to see at least one strong source to go with it, if not two. Happy to return here and opt for keep if such sources exist. Please do drop me a line at my user talk if I don't notice. --Dweller (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC) NB I find the lack of media coverage of the award suspicious, and the citation looks to me like it's promotional material penned by the organisation, not the awarding body. All in all, very weak evidence of notability. A significant award should generate a ton of coverage in the world's media. --Dweller (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I agree with Dweller here. It's a non-notable award that could be mentioned within an article on a notable person, but the source is ill suited for underpinning notability in the first place because it's not a WP:RS. JFHJr (㊟) 22:48, 23 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. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan25 00:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste West (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 author. doesn't even have 50K google results, and none of her books are even hit many on google. Fails WP:AUTHOR easily. Cowback23451 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering that she has had a book written about her, I don't think she fails WP:AUTHOR as easily as you say. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three authors of that book have 35,000, 7 (exactly), and 17,000 google hits respectively. That leads me to think that the book about her isn't very notable itself. So while I admit there's more coverage of her than I thought, I still don't think she's notable. Cowback23451 (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're putting too much emphasis on g-hits. Whether or not the authors of a book used as a source are notable in and of themselves is almost entirely irrelevant. No, the book may not be notable enough for its own article, but it does seem to satisfy the "subject of an independent book" part of WP:AUTHOR. Whether or not that's enough is still to be decided. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. My point was simply that the book isn't enough to establish Notability. The google hits were simply an explanation of why not. And keep in mind, not all those google hits were about the book. Cowback23451 (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly a notable author/activist. [8] The article needs responsible and competent editing, not deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple books in hundreds of libraries WorldCat Authorities , including a German translation of one of them. Ghits in the thousands being used as an argument for keeping is a classic bad invalid; ghits in the 10s of thousands being used as an argument for deleting is even more absurd. We just don't work that way. We look at the actual sources. Personally, btw, I do not think that any one of the books individually is suitable for an article--even if they technically meet the guidelines, it's still better practice to discuss them in a combination article. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG! Askadaleia (talk) 09:13, 28 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 Delete - A7 (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fire 4 Effect Media (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:WEB does not assert the notability of WeekendScout.com and even if it did, it would fail WP:NOTINHERITED. Cowback23451 (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google [9] has five results, including the Wikipedia page. WeekendScout.com [10] has 3,540. So therefore delete clearly not sufficient notability coverage. Cowback23451 (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with Cowback23451 as per above. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per CSD A7 article does no assert notability. Tagging as such. Sparthorse (talk) 20:52, 22 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bioinformatics Building (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 building. It is just a normal classroom, not special. Fails WP:N Cowback23451 (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This building contains classrooms, offices and laboratories that support the Charlotte Research Institute and UNC Charlotte in general. I've provided reference and external links. It is a unique building. If it's a name issue then I can provide a more discriptive name for the building. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stanton49

Comment In the future, please sign your name with four tildes: ~~~~ Cowback23451 (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to above Not every building on every college campus is notable. Generally, individual building articles should be integrated within the main article about the school, with the exception generally of perhaps the library. See WP:UNIGUIDE for more info. Cowback23451 (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Which is the "Bioinformatics Building"? This or this? The latter looks rather historic and probably had a different name through most of its life if that's the correct one. --Oakshade (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable building, zero indication in the article of how it might be notable. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Not even anything there to merge into the main article on the university. RadioFan (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 24 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. The argument that this is ONEEVENT hasn't been debunked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Geddes (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 person. "Went on hunger strike, started eating again then died". A sad story but doesn't rate a Wikipedia article. Suttungr (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, only notable for one event, the manner of her death. PKT(alk) 20:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Stormbay (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Geddes' action had been noted in the national news before her death and may have contributed towards some later reinvestment in long term care in the province. --Big_iron (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I searched Google News and found three articles. The ProQuest database has six articles. All of them are related to this one event. I could find no relevant articles since then that mention her as having a significant or direct impact on public policy. The Camrose Canadian article in 2006 does mention her name but there appears to be no direct connection between the funding announcement and her death. Suttungr (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, even from the few entries in Google News Archives, it is evident from the dates that this woman's hunger strike was in the news before her death on May 16 and had succeeded in calling attention to long-term care in Alberta, so it definitely went beyond "the one event, the manner of her death". It is worth noting that this hunger strike does make it into the book The concise guide to global human rights. I would also cite:

• Fewer staff in long-term care facility - Alberta NDP call for action
• Marie Geddes - Alberta Liberals
• National Review of Medicine
• entries in the Hansard for the Alberta assembly on May 2 and May 18
• Marie Geddes hunger striker
• Strike permanently over - another archived news article not from Google News

If this person/event/issue is going to be judged not notable, then at least let it be based on a thorough examination of the facts. ---Big_iron (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a good array of sources provided by Big iron. The subject appears to be notable. Stormbay (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Assuming someone actually adds the found sources to the article, keep. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There may be exceptions, but almost anyone who dies of a hunger strike is per se notable. The fact that she was only famous for one thing is not dispositive of a failure to be notable. Neil Armstrong was "only" famous for landing on the moon.Sngourd (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Brought attention to the problem and a year later they made changes. Dream Focus 23:51, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Line West (Mississauga) (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 redirect. Not a notable topic. One of the older concession lines in Mississauga that is gradually being transformed into a local neighbourhood street as a result of urban sprawl. Redirect to List of numbered roads in Peel Region (best target available) or delete. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of numbered roads in Peel Region, and maybe include a blurb about the township roads in there. Psbsub (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find the bit of the road that runs "immediately north of Highway 407 north to Chinguacousy Road", and the other part of the road isn't even marked as an arterial road on Google Maps. It doesn't qualify for the List of numbered roads in Peel Region as it's a street with a number in its name as opposed to a roadway numbered by the Region of Peel, if you get my drift. PKT(alk) 23:27, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Basso (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 baseball individual. All sources I see are routine in nature, based on in-season beat reports and notes of hirings and firings. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BASE/N and couldn't find any coverage from reliable sources to establish WP:GNG. Sporting News archives has only two passing mentions through the end of the archive in 2003, and that's it. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 22:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator Agent Vodello, a self-proclaimed inclusionist, has with frequency voted to delete articles created by me, while voting to keep articles not authored by myself of similar or less notability. Agent Vodello's dislike of myself as an editor has been chronicled on Wikipedia, and his dislike of me is likely the cause of him vote "delete" - rather than the articles worthiness, or lack thereof. Please take this into consideration when making your final decision. Alex (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I spent 10 minutes looking for sources to try and protect the article you wrote, as I do for most AFD articles, regardless of who created them, and I couldn't find anything whatsoever. My AFD participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Hawley (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arena baseball in the past week were delete votes for articles you did not create. I vote on most articles created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Baseball. The article's creator does not decide whether or not I vote keep or delete. I will not respond to your repeated personal attacks anymore. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 04:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any closing admin should read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alexsautographs for more information. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 19 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, Drmies (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sourcing exists,
  • "Coach Basso Can Teach Quakes About Perseverance". Daily News of Los Angeles, 29 July 1994.
  • Todd Dewey. "Ex-Star tapped as 51s' manager". Las Vegas Review-Journal, 9 October 2008.
  • Todd Dewey. "Basso caught by surprise in firing as 51s manager". Las Vegas Review-Journal, 11 October 2009.

As well as a hundred other odd mentions via Google News. JORGENEV 18:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I found two of the sources listed above, one is at [11] and the other [12]. I still don't think this local coverage of him being hired and subsequently fired as manager of the 51s somehow establishes notability, or that he has a bunch of passing mentions and WP:GHITS, but I'll leave that up to others to decide. Thanks for finding these sources. I'll try and find something more substantial. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 18:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Jorgenev. Alex (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Alexsautographs (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.. In addition to the sources listed above, i found this one [13]. Seems to have enough sourcing to make him notable enough to include. Spanneraol (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there reason to believe this blog is considered reliable?—Bagumba (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources. Coverage that is reliable seems WP:ROUTINE.—Bagumba (talk) 02:20, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors about the September 11 attacks (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 previously nominated this page for deletion on the basis that this article is just a random collection of rumors and gossip, most of it not independently meeting notability. Despite a year and a half passing by it appears this article has undergone little change in this respect. I would add that I think WP:NOT#NEWS would apply in this case as well since most of these rumors had only fleeting notability (like the chain e-mail warning about the bombing of malls on Halloween). In the previous discussion a redirect or merge was suggested, but the material in the article runs the gamut from random conspiracy claims and allegations about links to Iraq to inaccurate casualty estimates and Internet memes. While some of the information could be reasonably accommodated elsewhere, I can think of no particular article where a redirect or merge would make sense. So I am once again nominating this article for deletion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I find it particularly telling that this is the only "Rumors about <whatever>"[14] page WP has. WP:NOTGOSSIP (1&3). Anything usefull can be merged to Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks before AfD's end. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should note there are two other articles I could find covering rumors, but those articles are similarly useless. One was created before Saddam Hussein was captured on rumors about him being killed. The article does not have any citations and basically covers information that is or could be included elsewhere. Another mentions rumors about Sesame Street, that again includes information that pretty much gets covered elsewhere. I think both of those articles should probably be deleted or redirected.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Blank and redirect to 9/11 conspiracy theories, which is where Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks redirects. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - merge statements that are referenced properly into other articles. This look's like a collection of material that was not suited for other articles because of lack of sourcing and/or bad sourcing.Moxy (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - mention of points can be placed in other articles, if need be, after careful scrutiny and proper citing. Kierzek (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If we merge content, don't we have to keep a redirect for author attribution? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I don't think there is any real need to merge any information. The only information I can think of that is worth keeping is already covered in essentially the same amount of detail, or was never considerable enough to justify including so much material anyway. However, the redirect would only go to one article and, if there is any information on here worthy of including elsewhere, it is most likely going to be distributed across multiple articles instead of just one.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2011

If no contributions are copied and pasted anywhere else, there's no requirement for a redirect. On the other hand, blanking and redirecting is easier and can be done immediately, and maintains the incoming links. The title Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks is okay, it's just the content that is problematic. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Smerge and move on with life. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 29 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 AfD. I'm withdrawing this , as there's a suitable merge to Arab Chamber of Commerce and Industry DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mosque Building Fund (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 for notability of this local organisation. Part of the large group of mutually supporting articles around Edwin Hitti, recently speedy deleted for promotionalism and copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 22 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 speedied G11 by Jimfbleak (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: no evidence of notability). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mambazhi (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 family. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable local family with no evidence of satisfying WP:GNG. Salih (talk) 17:28, 22 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 delete. Hopelessly promotional & incapable of being rewritten (& for that matter, not worth rewriting, with only one self-published book n worldCat) DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Chavez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Found this expostition of someone's poetry on the speedy queue, but it is also an unreferenced BLP. There are some publications by the person himself but probably not enough secondary sources to convert it into an article. Tikiwont (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 22 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decompression curve (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 name is inaccurate, Content is inaccurate, Subject is already more extensively and accurately covered in Decompression (diving) and is therefore redundant, Subject is probably not sufficiently notable for separate article Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the "curve" simply refers to the graph. The rest of the article is an unsourced version of decompression (diving). -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, Decompression (diving) is a synthesis of several minor articles and a lot of new material, and postdates Decompression curve. Also, though the curve in the WP article may well refer to the graph, the meaning in the George Irvine article (see below) is probably different, though what exactly it is intended to mean is never made clear, as the only use of the term in the article is the title. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Smerge the curve graph into the main article, and whatever watery non-crufty pieces you can find, and move on from there. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The graph has already been used in the main article. If you google decompression curve you will find one polemic by George Irvine, and several copies of the disputed Wikipedia article. This does not fill me with confidence. The George Irvine article is in serious conflict with mainstream decompression theory. The Wikipedia article does not provide a reasonable or useful description or explanation of the George Irvine material. I am unable to recommend any part of it that can be acceptably referenced for inclusion in the main article which is not already there. It might be possible for an expert to extract something useful, but I wouldn't put my money on it. Do you have any specific suggestions?Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I remember the to-and-fros at the time on the scuba boards ten or more years ago. What George was talking about is the shape of the depth vs time plot just for the ascent. For him the plot had to have the right 'curvature', which changed as you switched gases. He was advocating first stop at 80% max pressure (an RGBM stop rather than a Pyle stop) and aggressive off-gassing all the way up. You might find a place in Decompression (diving)#Thermodynamic model and deep stops for a brief word about the WKPP experiments on accelerated deco ascent profiles (which Decompression curve actually means) if one of us can find some reliable sources describing them. In the meantime, there's nothing in the current article that isn't already covered better elsewhere and I'd be content to let it go. --RexxS (talk) 22:47, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fringe theory supported by a mix of synthesis and unreliable sources. The more reliable the sources are, the less likely are they to mention "Erverh" at all. Not a single relevant Google Scholar hit. Currently there's not even enough to justify turning the page into a redirect to Hebrew, which would be a better place for this information if it could be reliably sourced. Huon (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a reasonable search term. Content is not salvageable.  --Lambiam 18:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm finding nuthin. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not Delete. If Wikipidia is fair then deleting this entry which is the proper pronunciation for "Hebrew," in the original tongue then you should consider deleting entries on Wikipedia that has Hebrew pronunciation as "IVRIT." For the simple reason that "IVRIT" is nowhere in the original text of the Bible. It is a Yiddish pronunciation of IVRI but is accepted on Wikipidia as a Hebrew word. It is not and patently false. Thus by deleting the proper pronunciation for "IVRI" and allowing IVRIT which is a falsehood, Wikipedia inadvertently suppressing the truth but is retaining and propagating falsehood. Therefore, if Wikipidia will a allow the false Yiddish pronunciation of Hebrew then it should allow the correct Hebrew pronunciation. That is only fair.

Also note that if this entry is incorrect. Bible scholars will easily spot it on the Internet. Therefore, leave it for Bible scholars who can write and speak Biblical Hebrew to challenge the entry. After that, wikipedia can consider it for deletion. But as it stands now, deleting this entry without any authoritative evidence is bad judgement.Anetta41 (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. I have yet to see a reliable source mentioning that "erverh" is the correct pronounciation. Self-published books and random websites do not count. We also do not need to wait for experts in order to delete it. (Besides, how can we tell who's an expert and who isn't?) The burden of evidence is on the editor who wants something included, not the other way round. Huon (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research, without reliable sources. (A pronunciation with a "v" exists in modern Hebrew, but it seems that the "b" was original. It is a common error to assume that the name of a language, people, or place used in the modern language must always be more "original" than the form used in other languages.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTMADEUP; WP:NOR; WP:NEO. IZAK (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NEO. Yoninah (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. This should have been speedily deleted. It's just plain silly. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:13, 30 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aksheyaa College of Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Although this article may be under WP:OUTCOMES.Yet I cannot a single reliable source for this Institution's actual existence in real life.Thus it fails WP:RS and WP:VERIFY Vivekananda De--tAlK 12:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC) I take back my nomination.The source given below correctly shows as an independent sources that the institution exists.I sincerely apologize caused by my inexperience.But I had only nominated this article in good faith as I did not find any independent source.Sorry againVivekananda De--tAlK 09:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I removed promotional text earlier, details provided suggest to me that it is real. We keep articles on colleges and high schools. Unless someone can find evidence of a hoax, then await proper sources to be added at a future time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Yes I was also thinking of the same.But I think WP is quite clear on the lack of reliable sources.It says "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists".This particular zero independent source concept prompted me to push this article for deletion.Details provided may be misleading that too which is written from a username blocked under WP:UAA for being promotional.See this User talk:Aksheyaa College Of Engineering Vivekananda De--tAlK 03:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep [15] exists under Anna University, Chennai. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:29, 26 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Yates (Restaurant Entrepreneur) (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. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. None of the pages on the article establish notability for either Mark Yates or any of his companies. (Although even if they were, notability is not inherited.) There are no reliable sources to prove notability on the internet either. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sounds as though he could be notable, but not established by sources. Happy to change to keep if creator can provide something more convincing. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:40, 23 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dundurn 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)

no indication of meeting notability guidelines. Only source given is a directory entry. Google searches not finding anything significant. Contested prod. noq (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The major imprint of this company is "Dundurn Press". A search for this particular imprint shows this article behind a paywall, but the article is clearly substantial (712 word), and features this press as the primary subject. Their expansion through acquisition is covered in trade press. A google news search shows many of the books they publish are reviewed in newspapers, and authors publishing under them have been nominated for book awards (e.g., [16]). Even reissues garner notice. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, great analysis by Whpq (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Not a major award, but it still received coverage in a mainstream daily, Dundurn Press won the first Wilson Prize. -- Whpq (talk) 14:09, 24 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Habitat (software) (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 seems to be non-notable software, with only one significant usage (WenQuanYi). Yaron K. (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Google News comes up with zilch. And this text is unambiguous advertising: an extremely compact content management system.... supports a number of advanced features.... light-weight, fast, easy-to-install and highly customizable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no reliable references to establish notability. Article was created by an SPA with name similar to developer's, and is likely promotional in nature. Dialectric (talk) 00:36, 23 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 speedied G12 by Sphilbrick (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.bucksfire.gov.uk/BucksFire/News/2006/Control.htm and http://finance.yahoo.com/news/firefighters-demand-senior-officers-come-161500104.html). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency 999 Fire Control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Copyright infringement (retagged for speedy deletion)—>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 13:29, 22 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. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan25 00:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm (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 reliable sources for the article exist, nor are any used. CHEEZBurger, Urban Dictionary and Know Your Meme are NOT reliable sources. An entry on the OED exists, but so what, so do lots of other words, I wasn't aware of any mergers between Wikipedia and Wiktionary... because if a dictionary entry exists, send it to Wiktionary. Arguments on the basis of the existance of an OED entry do not take into account the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

This article does not meet the GNG, it lacks significant coverage, fails to assert reliability, lacks secondary sources that are reliable and no presumption for inclusion exists. The article is not applicable for criteria 2 or 3 of the guideline for web content, however, it has not been the subject of non-trivial published works and as such fails to meet criterion 1 and the notability guideline for web content. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 7:01pm • 09:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now people are !voting keep wholesale due to the addition of trivial sources which do not and fail to assert the web-cultural importance. The references inserted pertain to the gesture's usage, not about WHY it's important, nor about it's etymology or anything else of some significance. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:22pm • 06:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Facepalm —Tom Morris (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've found one vaguely reliable source: 'Bigotgate' goes viral as UK PM says *facepalm* on the CNN UK Election Blog. The blog post is attribtued to CNN Supervising Producer, Linnie Rawlinson (thus negating WP:SPS concerns). This isn't enough to establish notability nor does it negate the fact that Wiktionary may be the correct place for the word if the concept isn't notable, but is a pretty reliable source that uses the term. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I didn't expect to see this back here so soon after my nomination went down in flames, but the nominator is correct in that notability has yet to be established. I've tried in the intervening weeks to find reliable sources, but I have been unsuccessful. This article makes my eyes bleed.--~TPW 12:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Pacifier gesture per source that was introduced. Excellent job on the rewrite; I didn't think it was possible to make this encyclopedic; once we move the page it will be.--~TPW 18:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually considered that while working up the rewrite. However, "pacifier gesture" is even less widely attested than "facepalm" -- it appears to be a unique coining by the Body Language Institute. I want to assume that there was some term used to describe this gesture prior to the introduction of "facepalm" circa 2008, because the gesture itself is attested from antiquity (and, if anything, the article still needs more historical discussion). So far, there doesn't seem to be, but I'm not done poking around quite yet. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, keep as it has been twice before Askadaleia (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't it generally better to use policy-based arguments that discuss the article, rather than claim that the fact that the article has not been deleted is a sufficient rationale for keeping it?--~TPW 13:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article was deleted at first AFD. Mattg82 (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can someone rape the other eight or nine interwikis for extra sourcing? Lugnuts (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Give me a little bit. I'll have a rewrite with better quality sourcing up later today. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and done. This isn't going to be featured content by a large margin, but at least the sourcing and notability concerns should be taken care of. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Still seems like a dictionary definition. Edison (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep After rewrite, is far more than a dictionary definition. The action is placed in a broader cultural context beyond just being a recent Internet meme. Kansan (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Rename to 'Submissive gesture' - neither Facepalm nor pacifier/pacifying gesture seem to have much going for them, but ethology (behavior science) has talked of submissive gestures for years (as you can see if you search Wikipedia for the term, let alone Google). Then there will be a) numerous other WP articles to link to and learn from, b) scores of solid citations, and c) a whole raft of interesting submissive gestures to list and describe, in many different species, including H. sapiens. Actually I'm kind of surprised there isn't an article on it already. Hmm, could write one... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...maybe will have to, as not sure 'Facepalm' fits neatly into submissive really, suspect it's an overlap. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think these are different topics. A facepalm can be a submissive gesture, but submissive gesture is a fairly expansive category of body language with quite a bit written about it; it deserves separate coverage. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of secondary sources available in scholarly sources, as well as discussion in books, and also news media sources. — Cirt (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well sourced already and has its own OED entry. Deserves separate coverage as suggested by Cirt. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sourcing appears to be adequate as shown by others above. Tarc (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Cirt and others. Adequate sources have been provided that establish notability. It's also starting to look awfully snowy. Cyrus Andiron 19:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see that there are better sources now and many feel it is a good page to have. ReginaldTQ (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are more than enough sufficient sources out that confirm that facepalm is more than a dictionary definition. --Effer^AKS 03:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While it could use more historical perspective, that is not grounds for deletion. Also, this article actually has sources now. Chris857 (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone actually bothered to check the relevance of the inserted references? A reference on the end of each of the purported uses does not assert notability whatsoever as no one has bothered to explain the gesture's web-cultural significance. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:25pm • 06:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - let us use common sense, folks. It's clear this is sourceable, and efforts to delete this have been rejected repeatedly. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per Bearian. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It ended as keep on 18 September 2011. And I agree this should be common sense. The gesture exist and it should be covered. Dream Focus 23:48, 29 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Huh? Epeefleche (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Possibly a hoax? Aequo (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At worst this is a hoax, at best this is a dictionary definition of a word in Malay. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so either way it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Wikipedia is not a dictionary, seems like a hoax, does not cite reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. This probably should have been tagged ((db-hoax)). —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 15:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Someone (with a sense of humor?) did put it in the category hoaxes. It is disturbing not only that this got by whoever checks new articles, but that a number of editors (some senior) edited it as though it was an appropriate article, without tagging it. Leaving it up on wikipedia for 8 months now. Embarrassing.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Clearly a hoax. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—Fascinating. It seems to actually mean something in Maba, but I'll be damned if I can tell what.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:48, 23 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 speedied G12 by Sphilbrick (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.notinthemalls.com/vendors/diana-francis-designs). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Though this person certainly exists, I'm having trouble finding sufficient RS coverage that is non-trivial to indicate notability. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for notability for the past year. Epeefleche (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've tried and failed I'm afraid. Article reads like an unsourced CV. thought the olympic connection might provide notability, but I'm coming up empty handed for in depth independent verification. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've nominated this for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement: the text is mostly identical to [17] and to her own website. Some sections have been moved around but the sentences are identical. freshacconci talktalk 13:47, 22 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malini Yugendran (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 can't find sufficient non-trivial RS coverage of this person, though they do exist, to confer notability under our standards. Tagged for notability for two and a half years. Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 22 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 merge. m.o.p 23:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counterfeit Revival (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 in doubt. Basileias (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It didn't look very promising from the article itself (which is unreferenced and fails even to say why the book is notable) but Google Books shows that some other books are talking about it. Somebody even wrote a book refuting it. There are a few, but not many, Google Scholar hits as well. I think it is borderline whether this book deserves its own article but if it does then it deserves a better one than this. At the moment, I can't see that the article adds much to what we already have in Hank Hanegraaff#Counterfeit Revival and there is a POV issue in that it completely fails to cover the criticism of the book. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with author as implied by DanielRigal. The author's article already contains a somewhat similar piece of text. This is an article about a book, apparently arguing that the Toronto Blessing and another recent movement at Brownesville are not revivals. I would have expected an article with this title to be about a concept or subject, but it is only about a single book. Accordingly if the article is retained, it shoud be renamed with the suffix "(book)". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• merge as suggested above. Not particularly more notable than his other books, and a merge would be more helpful. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historia scholastica (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 not established Basileias (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC(

• Snow Keep 500,000+ hits in google books and 275 cites in Google scholar. If you think it needs more references, add them yourself, don't just nominate it for deletion. Francis Bond (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perhaps this quote from a 1946 scholarly article sums it up - Anyone who familiar with the program of theological studies at the University of Paris during the Middle Ages will recall the vogue of Petrus Comestor's Historia Scholastica. That was not difficult to find on even a cursory Google search. Notability is very clearly asserted in the article; as Francis Bond says, if you disbelieve it check first before nominating for deletion. --AJHingston (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is frankly a pretty good place for an IAR/SNOW close, as the Historia scholastica is a historically important Biblical paraphrase. I've added the reference that AJHingston discussed above to the article so that it is no longer single-sourced (although more can probably be cited to that article than my drive-by one-off revision), but quite frankly a significant rewrite wouldn't hurt; there's a lot that has been said about this book. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I also added more refs, so this article is gaining multiple refs through AfD (though that isn't the purpose of the process). Clearly notable for the 12th-16th century and now as a historical ref. AllyD (talk) 23:10, 22 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Colonization (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 academic essay clearly violates WP:SYN. It does not merely describe Stanley Deetz' theory, (but offers an evaluation of it and related work; there might be a possibility of an article on the general subject, , but it would best be done by starting over. A more likely possibility is an article on Deetz. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination; an essay of original research. Prose like this is one of the reasons we don't have a viable political left in the USA: Organizational identity is developed through a process of your 1) self-identity, based on reflective narratives of one’s perception of one’s self; 2) identity regulation, the discursive processes and practices that effect social identity construction; and 3) identity work, the interpretation of the discursive practices that produce an identity, interacting with each other in order to produce a cohesive and substantial identity. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination; clearly original research. Not the place for manifestos. --Cox wasan (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merely an essay, not suitable for Wikipedia in its current state. JoshyDinda (talk) 19:00, 27 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 delete g11, advertising for "Heart of a Champion" program. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Values based ethics (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 a paper rather than an encyclopedic article. Should be deleted per WP:NOT Yankeesrule3 (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as copyvio. Carrite (talk) 04:44, 22 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 deleted under CSD A7 by User:RHaworth. (NAC) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Zarinegar Travels America (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 at all, only source is self-published blog and other source proves nothing. Rest of article is crystalballing and OR. Delete. StandFirm (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete I can find no evidence outside wikipedia which would allow this article to meet GNG. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Indeed, appears to meet criteria for CSD:A7 as non-notable web content. --DGaw (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete — Fails WP:GNG and seems to meet CSD:A7. —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 15:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under G7 and tagged so. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:16, 22 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anamorphic Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Methodology which has no references in reliable, secondary sources and does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Contested PROD. Pnm (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems promotional and related to the marketing strategy of a single company which is also the sole source. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Also unreadable original research related to someone's vague "philosophy" of computer programming: This methodology is not widely used or approved of, as it allows for many modifications; but since there is no hard plan, this is not thought of as modifications, but more as morphing to more closely suit the needs of the end users, to more completely satisfy the concept as a whole, and to provide a better product with higher end user satisfaction and usability. By this methodology, it is better to have a more generalized and dynamic concept which you can adapt to as you go, as opposed to starting out with a static idea and a rigid and thorough plan, as problems arise each time a need changes or is realized. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only one reference and it doesn't work. Have read article twice and am none the wiser as to what it's subject actually is. Hoax? Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This sounds like a methodology for disaster. From what I can tell, it essentially does nothing up front, and kind of just wings it based on user feedback. I can find no coverage in reliable sources about this "methodology". All references to the term relate to biology/zoology -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete just an ad for the company. The world is full of these "methodologies" that are just excuses for managers to be disorganized but sound like they are following something trendy or disciplined. Amusing that one of the few links is to anamorphism, a very particular mathematical concept that seems like it has little to do with the idea of disorganized management proposed. W Nowicki (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Single-sourced promotion. --Kvng (talk) 18:05, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Touched: The Jerry Sandusky Story (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 book was not notable before the scandal; and is just pile-on to the scandal based on the wording of the book being odd in retrospect. I thus conclude the book has no notability independent of the scandal, which already is a large article. Kansan (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes Wikipedia:Notability (books) as the subject of 8 in-depth and serious articles by a variety of major news outlets. The nominator's supposed requirement that the book have some kind of "super notability" outside of the controversy is nonsense and not supported by any policy or consensus.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Article is rather less about the book and more about the man's actions and the darkly ironic title. Both are proven notable, so suggest a merge to the Jerry Sandusky article. --Joopercoopers (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems that the book itself has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Therefore, it is notable even if that coverage was motivated by the recent criminal charges. However, because of WP:BLP concerns, experienced editors should ensure that the article doesn't degenerate into an attack article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It may not have been notable before, but it is now. There's no requirement that a book's notability cannot be attributable to an event occurring after its publication. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a punch line, not an encyclopedic topic. There is no serious coverage of this book as a significant literary work, nor does the title meet inclusion criteria for books. Carrite (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that a large number of major media outlets have seen fit to write about the book makes it notable. The book's qualification as a "literary work" is not relevant. It's certainly not just a "punch line" when a book written by an accused serial pedophile is used by the media to provide a glimpse into the motivation and history of said pedophile. --GrapedApe (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Allegations that the book constituted good advice that he just didn't take do not override notability policy. Nevard (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Hard to ignore the multiple sources that specifically cover the book, and not just the scandal or the person. The extra-lulzy title is a bonus. Tarc (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I mentioned this in the talk page:

I think this article is a candidate for AfD, unless you can establish notability before the whole Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal broke. This would include articles published around the time the book was published (use Lexis-Nexis or Newsbank to find citations), citations in media prior to November 2011 when Sandusky was charged, or other reviews that provide critical commentary per WP:NB and not just a rehash of the double entendre or other aspects, which are all Sandusky-scandal related. Calwatch (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read that comment when I first started working on the article, and I don't see how it holds water. Was Lee Harvey Oswald notable before he visited the book depository? No, but his life prior to that moment has since received significant coverage. I appreciate that this book may not be notable (I'm not yet weighing in on that score) and that the article is already an original research magnet, but claiming that its notability must have been established prior to the allegations coming to light simply doesn't make sense. Mind you, I am not convinced that this book needs an article, but this argument falls flat. If there's a policy or guideline to back it up, please provide it, because I'm clearly missing it.--~TPW 12:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Graped Ape. Criterion 1 under Wikipedia:Notability (books) appears to have been met. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial newspaper articles, including critical commentary that allows the article to grow past a simple plot summary. Cbl62 (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sometimes people, places and/or events become notable through controversy. This happens to be one of those instances. Like it or not, the book has received sufficient outside coverage to pass notability for books. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Same reasons as others.--Yankees10 03:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant coverage in numerous secondary sources independent of the subject. — Cirt (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and semi-protect. 71.192.117.233 (talk) 01:43, 25 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Max Bollinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Submitting this AfD in accordance with WP:AGF, as an anonymous editor prodded the article but it is ineligible due to a past AfD. Concerns include WP:N and promotion. A more full explanation is available on the article talk page. I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While his acting and narrating work seems to be filled with roles where production took advantage of his being a native speaker of Russian,[18] and so fails on WP:ENT, if his books he has written, co-written, or narrated[19] have been reviewed, he might be seen to pass WP:AUTHOR. Article could greatly benefit by cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am the editor who originally suggested the deletion. Subject appears non-notable and article is probable self-promotion. Google searches indicate subject is a bit-part actor, appearing in a minor role a single episode of a UK science fiction TV show (Doctor Who - he appears 11th on a cast list of 14 in my BBC episode guide), and a handful of blink-and-you'd-miss-them walk-ons. On this basis, seems not to meet WP:ENT Subject has web site promoting his self-recorded audio-books and Russian language courses. The "bibliography" in article links to these audiobooks: he is the narrator not the author. Does not seem to meet WP:AUTHOR Article written by one author and one other ISP - possible/probably self-authorship.

Followed up MichaelQSchmidt's excellent idea re looking for reviews of subject's work as a narrator. The only reviews I could locate were on subject's personal web page. ((http://www.interactive.eu.com/chekhov_story_1_reviews.html)) While there are several reviews, all but one are personal comments from individual readers. Only one is from a recogniseable source The Observer and gives a one-sentence mention of his reading style.

Per a previous editor's suggestion, I have tidied the article. 81.148.218.37 (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• With respects, and understanding your opinion that the topic is non-notable, your removing the entire bibliography and all the external links might make it a bit difficult for others to research and judge the fellow's body of work for themselves, so I have moved them to the article's talk page in the hope that other editors might find the information useful in their researching this individual without them having to look through earlier versions. As the article asserts his being an actor, writer and producer and voice-over actor, I think it reasonable that others see why the assertion exists even if no longer covered in detail within the body of the article.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With hindsight, I concur (although my intention was to improve rather than weaken the article) and I appreciate your actioning. Thank you! :) 81.148.218.37 (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full understanding of the good faith efforts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as completely lacking WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting rationale: The best argument in favour of keeping that I can see is that he might meet WP:AUTHOR, but nobody seems to have expanded on that or provided any evidence. This relist is to allow an opportunity for such evidence to be provided, failing which, it is likely to end in a "delete" or "no consensus". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to expand on it (see above) but, despite some hefty googling, there wasn't anything to expand upon. What scant 'evidence' there is, it's on his own website. 81.148.216.102 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete minor actor not notable and no reliable independent sources (imdb wasn't the last time I checked). --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:52, 22 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 Women's Footy#In Australia. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Cula-Reid (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:ATHLETE and WP:BLP1E. StAnselm (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Women's_Footy#In_Australia where the court case she was involved in, is mentioned. The-Pope (talk) 12:39, 28 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 Princeton, New Jersey#Private schools. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton Academy of the Sacred Heart (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 school with no content. Could not find reliable coverage. Tinton5 (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An elementary school, grades kindergarten through eighth grade, with total enrollment of 229. Fails WP:ORG, the applicable notability standard. Edison (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Applying the same notability standard to this as to everything else, this doesn't make the cut. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Princeton, New Jersey#Private schools, where the school is mentioned, per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools. Deor (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as Deor. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Princeton, New Jersey#Private schools, where the school is mentioned, per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools - the standard procedure. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:43, 26 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 Victorian Women's Football League. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Lee (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:ATHLETE. Being President of the Victorian Women's Football League does not confer notability, and there is not sufficient media coverage to pass WP:GNG. StAnselm (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Victorian Women's Football League, as not independently notable. The-Pope (talk) 12:40, 28 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Memetic Warfare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Likely original reseaerch. Google books gives me four hits on that term, nothing very clear or reliable. The article itself uses the term three times, and no reference seems to talk about it clearly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if I wasn't so tired I'd use a line of memes as reasoning, but I am, so I'll just say clearly OR if not MADEUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to propaganda. There really isn't anything out there to base an article on. In fact, most of the current article consists of Propaganda in Foo forks. But there are a couple references to the term in halfway decent sources, so it's plausible as a search. And, as always, redirects are cheap. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination and The Bushranger. Anotherclown (talk) 03:07, 26 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Batchelor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Apparently not notable, but enough claims to pass speedy deletion. The references are all to his own websites or other self-written sources. . DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Non-notable in a very WP:BASIC way. I found nothing as far as coverage (that is, excluding the subject as the author). Also, I don't see a way to keep most of the text in the article as it's either WP:SPS or unsourced in a way that violates WP:BLP (WP:SELFPUB, WP:BLPSPS). If this becomes a notable individual, he'll deserve an article re-written from WP:RS. JFHJr (㊟) 02:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The references are to websites which contain self written material, but that is one of the ways he is notable, because he is a journalist! The websites themselves do not belong to Will Batchelor either. Article pased speedy deletion so it must have some credibility. As with all articles, it can be reworded or improved as time goes by. Kiling articles in their early stages is not the answer, otherwise Wikipedia would be doomed from the start! Cexycy (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wikipedia would also be doomed if every local dj and columnist had a poorly written article like this one. I'm not seeing how this subject might meet WP:BIO, without 3rd party references, he's just not going to pass notability guidelines. This article escaped speedy deletion guidelines because it had references, those references must pass scrutiny here and they just dont. Unless some source can be found where this person is the subject of the article and covered in some depth, it should be deleted. RadioFan (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I said this article can easily be improved with time. Also why do the references not pass scrutiny? Sorry but what you're saying doesn't make sense. Cexycy (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there are not reliable, third-party sources about the subject for purposes of verifiability or notability. The general notability guidelines are quite clear on the topic. - Dravecky (talk) 00:08, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Lehrer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Previously deleted several times (most recently after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Z. Lehrer), and recreated under this new title with similar content. There is still nothing to establish notability in general, as in Wikipedia:Notability (academics); as discussed (especially by Shyamal) at previous nominations, it is unlikely that the subject's work in taxonomy would be enough for him to be sufficiently notable for a biographical article. The only reliable source still is a review of his work which says it should be treated with great caution (Rognes 2005). The article again appears to largely be written by single-purpose accounts of either presumably of the subject or close to the subject; there is nothing to verify most of the biography. Lehrer has been "at war with others" in his field promoting his ideas, as put by Shyamal at the latest deletion nomination, and has taken this to trolling on Wikipedia, enough to be blocked on the Romanian Wikipedia. —innotata 00:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- according to the usual mode of gauging nobility per WP:PROF, this guy fails. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt for the same reason I gave in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Z. Lehrer: the only third-party source with any nontrivial information about the subject, the Rognes review, is highly negative, and WP:BLP applies. Speedy deletion G4 could be considered, but the article differs enough from the previously deleted version that I'm uncomfortable tagging it for that. And given the history of repeated recreation of this article in defiance of past AfD results, it should be protected against further recreation, as Andy Z. Lehrer already has been. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tagged this article for speedy deletion, but the request was turned down by an administrator. I'm pretty sure it's close to the final version of Andy Z. Lehrer, and nothing really substantial has changed, but this probably should be resolved for good through articles for deletion. —innotata 15:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. He is a "researcher", not a faculty member, at Tel Aviv University (see the TAU list of faculty members here which does not include him). His citations at Google Scholar are minimal. The only claim to fame offered in the article is a taxonomy dispute; this does not make him a leader in the field. Since there is a history of multiple deletions and recreations under various names, it appears that interested parties are not willing to abide by Wikipedia consensus, and the subject should be blocked from further recreation. --MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Postbeat Poets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unencyclopedic; appears to consist entirely of original research; very little external verification of this movement's existence, let alone of the specific trends described in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DelphinusMach1 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment—The movement is at least real and discussed in academia. See here for an review from J. Am. Hist. that mentions it twice as if its audience knows what it is; possibly the book under review will explain everything. This review itself isn't a hook to hang notability on, but it shows that the movement isn't just made up. Also, it seems that it's usually hyphenated, as "post-beat". This may improve other editors' searches. There are a few other hits on JSTOR for "post-beat", but I don't have time to go through them now and at least some of them are about cardiology (scary!). I'll be back.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:36, 7 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:18, 14 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, →Στc. 00:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]