< 17 September	19 September >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Variations of purple. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thistle (color)[edit]

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

Just another not-notable, poorly-sourced (only source is a dictionary) article on a color that is basically a dictionary definition. It's similar to this AfD nominee and the most of the other articles linked in that AfD. This one happens to be a X11 color, but it should stand for AfD based on its own notability- and if it isn't individually notable then it should just be part of the X11 colors article. Slon02 (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Slon02 (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we should keep all X11 colors, it is better to have complete coverage. I have made more complete arguments for other colors from well defined groups (such as crayola) Francis Bond (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't pointed out what makes this specific color satisfy the notability requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia. Is there significant coverage of this specific color- in detail- that can satisfy WP:GNG? If there is, it can have a separate article. If not, then it can't and should remain part of the X11 article.--Slon02 (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage about the specific individual X11 colour to establish it as notable for an independent article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - X11 color. Merge into Variations of purple. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I merged it into the variations of purple section of the Purple article, so there is no need for a separate article. Keraunos (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keraunos has indeed merged to the Purple entry, and has included X11 spec & attribution (and that nice photo!). --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:54, 25 September 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. Courcelles 22:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Horizon League Men's Basketball Tournament venues[edit]

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

The content of this list simply reiterates a portion of the table at Horizon League Men's Basketball Tournament#Horizon League Tournament Results Jweiss11 (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article served a purpose until the more complete Tournament article was created. Rikster2 (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rikster. Once good, now unnecessary. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I made the changes to the tournament article and thought this one had since been deleted. It's certainly past due to be deleted. City boy77 (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Variations of white. v/r - T P 00:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost white[edit]

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

These articles are basically just dictionary definitions of not-notable colors. These all happen to be X11 colors, but the notability of X11 colors should not determine the notability of every individual X11 color- they should stand on their own merits. They're already all listed on the X11 colors article. We don't need to have separate articles on them, they don't have enough content to be anything than stubbish dictionary definitions, and they're not notable enough to have separate articles. Slon02 (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following X11 color articles:

--Slon02 (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Slon02 (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is virtue in having all the colors from a standard color chart, even if some individual colors are not so notable. I don't think there is an explicit policy based argument for this, so I will have to fall back to Wikipedia is not Paper and Ignore All Rules. Note that other X11 colors (such as Wheat (color)) were not deleted in recent AfDs. There is no consensus that they should be deleted. Francis Bond (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous issues here. Although we might not be a paper encyclopedia, let me refer to that same policy- "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies". Conveniently, the appropriate policy here is notability, which determines if topic should have its own article. You even just stated that some individual colors might not be notable! There must be significant coverage of this specific topic in detail- not a trivial mention of it as part of the X11 colors. If you can find those sources, it can pass our notability guidelines. WP:IAR isn't a tool to just override consensus and inclusion guidelines, especially in this case where the encyclopedia isn't really being improved- there's basically no different in the content between the X11 article and the color article.--Slon02 (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - No coverage about the specific individual X11 colour to establish it as notable for an independent article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - X11 colors. Ghost white and Old lace (color) could be merged into a Variations of white article as has been done for other basic colors (e.g. Variations of blue). Tomato could be merged into Variations of orange. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All X11 colors should have articles in Wikipedia because they are widely used by web site designers. All X11 colors are notable. Otherwise, another possibility as stated by VMS Mosaic is to Merge Ghost white and Old lace (color) into a newly created variations of white {off-white} article. Keraunos (talk) 06:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources that provide significant coverage of each individual color in such a way that it would satisfy WP:GNG?--Slon02 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Sandy brown is already included in the article on Desert sand, so in this case, you are right--there is no need for a separate article for it. Keraunos (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tomato (color) should be kept because it is a color name that has been in use since 1891. Keraunos (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does being used for a long time in any way satisfy our notability requirements?--Slon02 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - These colors should have been nominated separately so each color could be voted on separately. Keraunos (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - WP already contains several articles that are lists of colors: Variations of red, Variations of blue, Brown, etc. For minor colors like the four in this AfD, the best solution is just to put the material into those existing List articles. Some important colors that do have lots of sources do have their own dedicated articles, but minor colors do not. --Noleander (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I merged Sandy Brown into Brown article.
I merged Tomato (color) into Variations of orange
I merged Old lace (color) into Shades of white.
I merged Ghost white into Shades of white.

So, if the consensus is merge/delete, the deletion can happen now, and no material will be lost from the encyclopedia. The closing admin should replace the articles with REDIRECTS to the indicated articles. --Noleander (talk) 06:50, 25 September 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. This one should probably be closed no consensus per !votes, but I feel the discussion very clearly argues that the keep !voter's rationale is all bark and no bite. Rumors of reliable sources do not help the discussion. WP:ONUS puts the responsibility on those who wish to keep the article to research the sources and include them. Further, Northamerica1000's copy/paste rationale refuting the delete !voters and article nominator's rationale is useless to this discussion and a waste of database space (yes, all 2kb of it). Had he read the nominator's statement he would've seen "Search for refs turns up only the proponent website". v/r - T P 00:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobson Flare[edit]

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

Spam article on a non-notable subject, virtually unheard of in aviation. Search for refs turns up only the proponent website currently in the article's external links and a few forums. The Wikipedia article seems to exist just to promote the website and the theory/technique. This article was successfully PRODed without comment in May 2011 and then restored by an Admin at the request of the original article creator. Ahunt (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, if any secondary references of notability are found it can be added as a sentence in Landing. MilborneOne (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that - if proper refs can be found it should be a sentence in the article Landing as it is not a sufficient or large enough subject for its own article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup/despam. Articles in Flight International magazine (February 1998) and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Flight Safety magazine (July 1999) address the subject directly in great detail. These are more than trivial mentions, therefore it meets WP:GNG. The claim of "virtually unheard of in aviation" is systematic bias. It is well known in Australian aviation and taught to commercial pilots. ShipFan (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you have access to those refs by all means do add them to the article to show exactly which text can be supported by third party refs, as that will help our discussion here whether to delete, keep or merge into Landing and redirect. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The presence of reliable sources within articles is not a valid argument for article deletion. Rather, Wikipedia: Articles for deletion, Section D, “Sourcing Search”, #3 states - “In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination.” Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree and at the point of nomination for AfD I was unable to find any reliable refs, as the nomination notes. But that said, all we have is the rumour that a couple of sources may exist. They may not exist or they may just be passing mentions that do not confer notability or enough material for a standalone article. The two "refs" that have been recently added are just passing mentions that do not show notability. At this point in time we have an article that seems to just exist to promote a website, two refs that are vague passing mentions of the topic and an unsubstantiated statement that there maybe some paper refs available that may support some of the text in then article. I ask that if the paper refs exist then please add them as footnotes in support of the text that they actually do support and then we can see where we are then for notability. As it stands today the subject still does not seem to be notable. - Ahunt (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that these are a little bit more than passing references. Jacobson Flare is not the topic of the ~~Flight Safety~~ ARIC article, but it does state that ...the Jacobson flare method seemed the most suitable to provide flare initi- ation and flare control cues. Offline, linear simulation results indicated that the Jacobson method was robust and its performance was comparable to an automatic landing system, which is more than a passing mention. The Flight International article appears, from the abstract, to use Jaconson Flare as its primary focus, and hence is definitely notable coverage (although if anyone can find the full article text, it would be useful). Yunshui (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to explain in layman's terms what the technique actually is, even after visiting the subject's website I'm none the wiser. No sources/inline citations have been given, in the external links section there is a link to a self-published website, one to some kind of non-accessible paper and another that says that the technique has been mentioned in Flight International. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The presence of reliable sources within articles is not a valid argument for article deletion. Rather, Wikipedia: Articles for deletion, Section D, “Sourcing Search”, #3 states - “In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination.” Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You have said that twice, but we still haven't seen any sources that establish notability. - Ahunt (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000, the sources mentioned are already in the article - quoting this bit of policy is pretty irrelevant. Ahunt - see my reply to your comment above. Yunshui (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per reliable sources stated above by user ShipFan. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ !vote withdrawn dependant on inclusion of ShipFan's sources. Merely claiming that sources exist doesn't mean they do. I'm going to see if I can locate them myself now. ~~Sources are already in article~~. Yunshui (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually the two refs that have been added are not the ones User:ShipFan mentioned and the ones that were added are just passing mentions that do not establish notability. - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must have my easily-confused head on toady - you're right, of course, although the proposed Flight International article appears to be the same source as the CSA one already listed. Yunshui (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources added to the article are far from passing mentions. They are articles in an academic journal and an avaiation magazine about this precise topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Here's a PDF of the July 1999 issue of Flight Safety magazine - it doesn't mention Jacobson Flare at all as far as I can see. Yunshui (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That pdf only contains pages 11 to 15 of the magazine. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it does. Anyone got the rest of it?

On a related note, I've now changed the link in the article to direct to the full Flight International article, which is most definitely more than a passing mention. Yunshui (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that link was very helpful. I have read the article carefully and as the article itself says Jacobson "stresses that he is not promoting any radical departure from current practice" and "Users affirm that it is in no way a radical departure from current practice - it defines what they are already doing, making it more precise." I think this Flight International article provides enough detail to clearly state that the "Jacobson Flare" is just a refinement of normal airplane landing techniques and confirms that it should not have its own article, but as indicated above should be a sentence or two in the Landing article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in notability guidelines does it specify that for us to have an article about a procedure it should be "a radical departure from current practice". The important thing is that there is significant coverage in reliable sources, and the information provided by those sources, such as what you quoted about this being a refinement of existing techniques, can be included in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the ref makes it clear the subject only has the potential to be a sentence or two as a stand alone encyclopedia article if the article is to avoid WP:NOTMANUAL and therefore it is not a large enough topic for a separate article from Landing. - Ahunt (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it: [1]. Definitely only a minor passing mention, not really useful as a source at all. Yunshui (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what I can see from my search results and what has been presented herer and what is currently in this article, is more of an attempt to get the expressions notability raised rather than a reporting of such current or historic notability. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 00:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-vegetarianism[edit]

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

Abstract idea that is impossible to be defined by reliable sources to concensus Muleattack (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is basically just a list but without a specific definition can include any diet. No references specify or concur as to what exactly defines a 'semi-vegetarian' diet. The term does exist but wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:NAD Muleattack (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with vegetarianism as a subsection, as there are several sources to back these definitions up. Sources: Flexitarian-1, Pescatarian- 2, Macrobiotic-3, Freegan- 4. Pollo-pesca can be removed for being sourceless, and I'm not sure about Ethical Omnivore. Do these work? 174.117.248.144 (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through Google News and Google Books it appears that "Semi-vegetarianism" is often used to refer to Flexitarianism and Pollotarianism, and Pescetarianism. Perhaps we should turn this into a disambiguation page? I suppose redirecting it here would be a sensible option, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the second idea. 174.117.248.144 (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dr meetsingh Talk 08:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references and notability of this article can be found in books and on google search. It is a type of diet habit that most of the people in world adopt[2][3]. Also this article is not related to vegetarians and non-vegetarians its the mix of both and it has its own various types so no need to merge. Dr meetsingh Talk 16:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge It is not difficult to find sources which say things like "Recent Gallup surveys done for American Health show that semi- vegetarianism is a major trend." or "On the basis of studies conducted in the United Kingdom, semi-vegetarianism (or a somewhat less extreme reduced meat eating) may involve between 20 and 40 percent of the entire adult population.". There are other terms for this such as demi-vegetarianism and so it may be that there is scope for merger but this will not achieved by deletion. Warden (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For those saying delete, did you click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD? Seriously, do that, and read through the results. Most articles are hidden behind paywalls, but you can read their title and summary. The first result is OVER, BEEF - TRENDS SHIFT TOWARD SEMI-VEGETARIANISM Daily News of Los Angeles - Mar 17, 1986, "At the same time people are consuming more chicken fish and green vegetables in a trend that could be dubbed gradual vegetarianism or semivegetarianism". Dream Focus 23:52, 25 September 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. Courcelles 22:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historical and philosophical interpretations of the Holocaust[edit]

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

This seems like an essay with a bit of synthesis. Most of material is unreferenced which is not helpful for a sensitive topic like this. Mattg82 (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Something is wrong with the way you placed the AFD notice on the article; the link pointing editors to this AFD page is a red link. Yoninah (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly why that happens; but clicking on the redlink does take one to the discussion page, and you can turn the link to blue by simply making a null edit to the article. Deor (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced and fails WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT#ESSAY. Yoninah (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this mishmash, per WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOR. IZAK (talk) 00:42, 22 September 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. assertion of notibility improved with additional reliable externals - consensus leaning towards keep. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Townsend[edit]

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

Biographical article of a school headmaster which does not demonstrate notability. Previously ProD'd but this was removed with only one of several issues contested.

Dr Townsend may be notable within a small academic circle, but there is no demonstrating of overall notability.

Being a headmaster of a school is not, in itself, notable.

While Dr Townsend has been involved with several wider programs, none of these have been large or influential organisation. For a headmaster of any school (public or state) involvement in these programs is simply part of the job.

While I recognise this is not enough to rule out notability, a Google search for Ralph Townsend does not provide any sources beyond those from the school, from social media sites, or from articles mentioning Dr Townsend in passing.

As it stands at the moment, a majority of the article is either a) providing an unsourced description of his teaching career, or b) listing the 10 schools involved in a partnership program. The single source in the article simply confirms that he is the Headmaster of the college.

I am sure that Dr Townsend is a good headmaster who has a positive influence on those around him. But sadly he does not have the notability required for a Wikipedia article. Guycalledryan (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Guardian article referenced in the article has significant coverage of Townsend, being about his reform programme for the school, and the Tablet article has him as its subject, but I don't know how much coverage there is beyond the one fact sourced to it (a snippet can be seen here). There is also an article in Country Life about him [4] and some coverage in these news sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Headmaster of the second most famous private school in the world (the first being Eton College). Adequate notability. I don't have access to the Who's who (UK) but if he is in it that is an unambiguous keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nominator. Are you going to tell us if he is in Who's who (UK)? You should know as you presumably checked that as part of WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:37, 7 September 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stub. Headmaster of three schools is enough, and can be sourced. But the text of the article is essentially the same as his staff bio at Winchester. Archive.org only has the winchester page back to 2010 but it has been included as a link here since the creation of the article in 2007. I'm not certain it's a copyvio (if I were I'd tag it for a G12 speedy deletion) but I don't think it's appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:31, 11 September 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, causa sui (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — he is in fact listed in Debrett's People of Today, which is at least as important as who's who, and possibly better, as one can be removed from it as well as added to it: "Dr Ralph Douglas Townsend." People of Today. Debrett's Ltd., 2011. Gale Biography In Context. Web. 18 Sep. 2011. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Headmasters of major public schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Debrett's People of Today includes him in their list of Britain's most distinguished figures, then he is notable. Dream Focus 10:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Debrett's People of Today is a vanity publication with over 25,000 British entries - surely we are a bit more selective. People of Today's selection parameters are far more liberal than Wikipedia's notability criteria. The main problem with this article is that it is a direct copy from the school website. Some independent (of the school) content would solve many of its problems.John beta (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

query— i'm not disputing what you say, but i'm wondering in what sense you mean that debrett's is a vanity publication? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is he is the UK Who's Who, which nobody has accused of being a vanity publication? The copy-vio is an issue, though. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

He is in Who's Who, yes, and that is certainly not a vanity publication (although I have seen ill-informed editors describe it as such in AfDs). One is invited to be in WW - one does not apply or pay to be in it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the same goes for Debrett's People of Today. John beta seems to be confusing these publications with certain others. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Phil Bridger, I'm not confused - you nominate yourself for inclusion in Debrett's People of Today (unlike Who's Who) Under this type of business model there is an expectation that people listed will buy a copy. That said, I'm not saying that this isn't a legitimate business model, and certainly not a scam. John beta (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per reliable sources already in the article that establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:53, 20 September 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. Merger,r ename, etc. proposals should consider outside of AFD. Courcelles 22:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cdrskin[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this software. SL93 (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Disclaimer: I earlier tagged the article as needing sources.Stuartyeates (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neither cdrkit nor dvd+rw-tools are actively maintained anymore which makes cdrskin along with the non-GPL cdrtools the last remaining optical disk writers for Linux and alike operating systems (especially when it comes to Blu-ray support). It's included in Debian, Fedora, and AFAIK also Ubuntu and IIRC Debian's Blu-ray installation media were created using cdrskin. With optical disk recording fading away, this software's popularity may not set the world on fire but it should be enough to justify an article. I try to find sources as reference. Give me a few days time, though. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I suggest we do is come up with a suitable article name and merge all of these together to retain the content and refs. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By “all these” do you mean cdrtools, cdrkit, and cdrskin? If yes, it would not make any sense. Except for being an recording application, it has nothing to do with the other two. I've extended the cdrskin article to cover all libburnia components. Whether or not the article should be renamed/moved to libburnia is not of any importance to me, though.
After some digging I found out that libburn is used as sole recording back-end for Xfce’s Xfburn. Since Xfce is a pretty popular X11 desktop environment, the notability should now be proven. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that Wikipedia's notability guideline has nothing that says that an article like this is notable. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the notability guidelines say that “editorial judgment” would justify a separate article if it were “unwieldy” elsewise. cdrskin/libburn acts as sole back-end for Xfburn and optional back-end for Brasero, K3b, etc.
Xfburn is discussed shortly in Xfce, while Brasero and K3b have their own articles. It would be – as notability guidelines say – “unwieldy” to discuss all possible back-ends in each article, so the “editorial judgment” is that the front-ends are discussed where they are fit (either in their own articles or as sub-chapter of the organization that produced the front-end) and that the various back-ends are discussed in their own articles. So the only question would be the name for the article. Should it stay cdrskin or rather libburnia? --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I'd make it only a subsection of an article on libburnia (which doesn't exist yet). The website seems to be currently broken, though. The cdrskin is actively uploaded to Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora and Arch Linux at least (e.g. Ubuntu 1.1.0.pl01 changelog, Arch 1.1.4) and the project seems to be more alive than cdrkit and cdrtools. It is commonly said that the Linux distributions will drop cdrkit at some point in favor of libburnia (and cdrskin is the compatibility wrapper afaict) to get a codebase independent of cdrtools. The conflicts of the cdrtools maintainer are all over Wikipedia, too. For the sake of the sensibility of this subject, I'd avoid debateful deletions. --Chire (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Cdrskin#libburnia_overview discusses libburnia; when looking for notability, you should include libburnia which is also covered by this article. If you find libburnia more relevant, you should propose a rename and help rewriting the article accordingly. It's a editorial matter whether or not to put the libburina project in front or the probably more user-visible cdrskin wrapper. --Chire (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A side note: The main web presence ran on Trac which was compromised with lots of spam. Other services like for example SVN are still up. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 17:18, 13 September 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, causa sui (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per arguments posited by user KAMiKAZOW and user Chire. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 00:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing Jackal[edit]

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

I could not find a single reliable source providing significant coverage of the subject. Delete per WP:GNG. Note, the subject of the article is a game development company, not a video game itself. Nor is the subject a list of video games, although it does contain one. See WP:PRODUCT and WP:CORPDEPTH. Odie5533 (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A lot of the references I had intended to add have been contributed by Gurt Posh since the nomination for deletion. I am currently working offline on Laughing Jackal's games that are of note within the field of PSP Minis for thier high sales figures and critical acclaim, particularly OMG-Z which currently ranks 4th highest scoring game on Metacritic for all PSP games. I do hope these additions will meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Eldopian (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how you believe the additions now meet the WP:GNG? I do not believe they do. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I have to note that this article is not finished, the “newpage” tag was removed before I had fully evidenced the notability of the subject. The developer and its titles have received significant coverage within the videogaming industry from a variety of reliable, independent sources. Even as a smaller UK developer they have received international attention. A Google News search will display reviews and reports from French, German and American websites. Researching further I can find reviews from Australia, Italy and Spain among others, including coverage in major newspapers like the Toronto Star and The Independent. The fact that Laughing Jackal’s games currently have no Wikipedia pages do not immediately infer they are not notable – you’ve probably heard it argued to death, but “Wikipedia is never finished” – I am currently working on the articles for the titles I consider notable and have plenty of appropriate sources available for them. If it is simply the present quantity of reference sources and/or detail in the article that has resulted in this nomination for deletion then I can continue to work on the article to develop and improve it then I will consent to it being userfyed. However, I in turn fail to see how Laughing Jackal lacks the notability to warrant an entry in Wikipedia. Eldopian (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is about the company, not the games. I agree, some of the games are notable and should have articles. I do not believe the company itself is notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Userfy per WP:PRODUCT: "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." and WP:CORPDEPTH as I don't feel the references provided describe the company itself in enough depth.
I do recognise the creator's ongoing work and believe this company could in future become notable so I suggest userfying the article to the creator's namespace so that work can be continued and if/when the company can be demonstrated to clearly meet WP:CORP/WP:GNG the article can be recreated. This is a borderline case, IMHO, which is why I suggest this. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:16, 17 September 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, causa sui (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article and keep the games produced by Laughing Jackal within the article. Notability is established per Eldopian's citations and arguments above. It is reasonable to have an anchor article based upon the company, and include various software, games, etc. within the company article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to a reference that provides significant coverage of the subject of this nomination? Unless such a reference exists, I don't see why this company is notable. The fact the company's products may be notable is not inherited by the company itself. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Game companies are like record companies, notable based on how successful the things they release are. Eurogamer and others do comment on the developer also at times [5] saying "developer Laughing Jackal seems to know exactly what buttons to press to get its audience nodding along appreciatively." I see two games of its which have articles now with references found reviewing them, and a third one can be created with that link there for their game Vibes(see the previous page of the review at the bottom for it). Dream Focus 04:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the GNG requires significant coverage. From WP:N, "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." --Odie5533 (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning favorable comments about a company, covering what they produce, announcing what their next product or thing they are doing is, is significant coverage. Dream Focus 11:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 00:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Moss Cider Project[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. a small local volunteer organisation, with a mere 2 gnews hits [6]. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Irrelevant event and organisation. Probably self promotion. - DonCalo (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This local initiative does not make for a notable topic. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:ORG, as it is just of local interest and has not received substantial national or international attention. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The BBC is national coverage. They allow you to sort through their results to show things that happen in specific areas. And the other link isn't just some small town local paper but for the community of Manchester. "Greater Manchester has an estimated population of 2.6 million." Dream Focus 00:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but there is not significant coverage. a one off appearance in BBC is not enough for an article. nor does it mean 2.6 million read that Manchester paper. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage, not trivial mention, in two reliable sources. Dream Focus 01:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It did get significant coverage in two major reliable sources, and that meets (barely) the WP:GNG requirements. However, I am personally underwhelmed by the results obtained by this group. All that effort for 9 gallons of cider? I organize bigger community projects than that every year. --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 17 September 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, causa sui (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wiki articles aren't needed for every group that makes the news. Notability for encyclopedic articles depends on significant coverage by independent, reliable sources. The "significant coverage" is lacking, but if someone decides to mention the group in other articles, there are two whole cites to back it up. That's three times the wiki average. JFHJr (㊟) 07:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Significant coverage in significant mass media sources. See references section of article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 references is not significant. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a policy-based statement. See WP:Articles for deletion/Radio Sandwell. Unscintillating (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the coverage is "significant" or not is a bit of a judgment call here, but the article is fully sourced and cited to coverage in reliable sources--and there seems to be enough here to build a decent article. So on balance, count me as a Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like a one off event. If it has legs then maybe it might be worth an article. Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 references is significant. Unscintillating (talk) 20:40, 25 September 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. --Slon02 (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teddybear6900[edit]

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

This page should not be in wikipedia mainspace Thekillerpenguin (talk) 18:11, 18 September 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 Variations of blue. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Federal blue[edit]

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

A bunch of articles about colors, such as this one and the most of the ones linked in that AfD, were just deleted. This is an unsourced stub about a non-notable color. It fails WP:GNG and I'd say that it might even be a WP:DICDEF. Slon02 (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Slon02 (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A particularly vague dictionary definition. There are countless names thought up by sellers of appliances, paint, and other products for the same colors in a schema such as Munsell or Pantone. Edison (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication this colour is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Variations of blue. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Variations of blue which could have been done instead of an AfD. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:41, 22 September 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. Clear consensus that Fran Wagstaff fails to meet the notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Wagstaff[edit]

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

I have attempted to find reliable source coverage of the notability claims made in the article and have not turned up significant coverage. I have found some passing quotes in local papers, but have been unable to turn up significant coverage that focuses on her individually. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Take another look; I just did a complete rewrite to put the article into encyclopedic style. She gets seven pages of hits at Google News; unfortunately most of them are behind paywalls so I couldn't cite them. Most are not "about" her, but I think the awards make up for the relative lack of news coverage which is specifically about her. --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about numbers of hits. It's about substantive, independent third party coverage. [7] is the only reference that comes close. I'll be more than happy to reverse my vote if more coverage comes to light. In particular an official reference with citation for “Woman of the Year”, California State Legislature would be gold. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: MelanieN's argument is not persuasive. The pertinent guidelines explicitly state that a source quoting an individual can neither be used to support the individual's notability nor that of the organization which she might represent. As such, rafts of Google News hits that merely quote the subject are worthless. That being said, there is no criterion under which Ms. Wagstaff winning awards confers notability absent coverage in reliable sources of the same. Ravenswing 10:43, 18 September 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, causa sui (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not satisfying the general notability guideline. 11coolguy12 (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO excellent point made above about lack of in-depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 10:40, 19 September 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. Since the last delete !vote the article has been improved out of all recognition. The valid concerns of the nominator and deleters have now been met with the addition of commentary and sources leaving a clear 'keep' consensus. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FC Steaua București in Europe[edit]

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

Duplicate informations from here: FC Steaua Bucureşti statistics Jjmihai (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove the statistics from FC Steaua Bucureşti statistics and provide a link to FC Steaua București in Europe. I'd say that the larger page is too large to read comfortably. According to WP:SIZEGUIDE, 100KB is the point where an article should "almost certainly" be split, and this one is at 93KB. The separate article is useful, but the duplicate material should be removed from the main article.--Slon02 (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced and a stats overload. Not needed. Giant Snowman 20:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, A lot of clubs have these articles needs improved and sourced not deleting. The parent page is too large and does need split so i believe this article is necessary to do that. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful page, similar to several others, but remove the duplicate information from FC Steaua Bucureşti statistics. --Carioca (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a violation of WP:NOTSTATS, as it's an excessive series of statistics and that's all it will ever be. Plus it's unreferenced and borderline violation of WP:NOR. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 05:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Jmorrison230582 turned this statistical mess into a decent article. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 15:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with the comment above "that's all it [WP:NOTSTATS] will ever be". It's quite easy to add substantial prose to an article about this, say describing some of Steaua's more notable games in European competition. That's like saying any team season article is a violation of NOTSTATS. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But for the fact that no one will actually do it, because it requires some proper research, some decent writing, some care, and all of that for the sake of duplicated content... at best. Dahn (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is necessary because all clubs have a special page devoted to European competitions. It should be noted that FC Steaua Bucureşti in Europe article refers only to European competitions (all time statistics, opponents and competitions), while FC Steaua Bucureşti statistics article refers to statistical data in all competitions, player statistics, club presidents, number of goals, etc.. Mortifervm (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article completely passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are looking at the wrong guideline. See WP:NOTSTATS. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 15:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not one sentence in the whole article, which is merely a list of sports statistics. Fails WP:NOTSTATS.- Andrei (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Andrei notes, this looks like machine script more than anything, and it merely brings together stats that are more intelligently sorted elsewhere (though so many are actually irrelevant anywhere). Dahn (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is very useful.All clubs have a page with european competitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.188.92 (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Will those voting on the basis of WP:NOTSTATS please consider the article in the state it is now? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks neat. Great job! Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 15:18, 23 September 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. Despite a 3-2 !vote, the keep !voters have failed to prove anything more than trivial sources that prove existance but not any actual software or development. v/r - T P 00:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GNOME Office[edit]

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

Delete – There simply is no GNOME Office suite. The whole article is about a Wiki page on live.gnome.org that merely lists a few GTK applications for office use. KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient third-party coverage. Delete as non-notable. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some coverage in multiple books. This may be somewhat historical, but notability is not temporary. Gnumeric still recognizes itself as part of the GNOME Office suite & there have been efforts to standardize some libraries between the applications. It is poor form to construct a strawman article after an AfD article & unlinking the page before deletion has been agreed upon is also somewhat questionable. --Karnesky (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no GNOME Office suite. That's a fact. Telling people otherwise would be a lie. Just look at the supposed GNOME Office “website”. I was removing allegations in articles that claim that GNOME Office is actual software and not just a list on some random website. This has nothing to do whether the article stays in Wikipedia or not.
Why do you call my actions “questionable” and refer to some books when even the GNOME Office “website” says otherwise? Maybe the books are based on wrong info from Wikipedia… Considering that most books listed in your Google search are by Richard Petersen who seems to have just released derivatives of one poorly researched work multiple times as „Handbooks“ for Ubuntu and Fedora (a rerelease for new Ubuntu/Fedora versions), your claim of “multiple books” breaks down.
Again: Not even http://live.gnome.org/GnomeOffice claims that GNOME Office is an actual office suite.
I have some questions:

1.) What were those standardization efforts?

2.) Why does a library standardization effort result in an actual office suite?

3.) What was the outcome of those alleged efforts? Some talk on a mailing list and that's it?

If you can prove that there was actual and notable work done, write a thorough History section. But reverting honest edits by me without even attempting to prove anything, is the actually questionable action… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article accurately describes GNOME Office as being loosely integrated applications. There are no lies in the article & you've failed to claim any (please feel free to do so with "citation-needed" tags if you think it will improve the article). The GNOME Office development efforts predate OpenOffice.org (and, some claim, the successful open sourcing of star office is one reason GNOME Office waned). Many of the articles about GNOME Office are therefore from ca. 2000 [8][9]. But, again: notability is not temporary. Many of the books in that search are from one author. But many are also not [10]. --Karnesky (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

https://live.gnome.org/GnomeOffice says nothing that supports your claim that there is or ever was a GNOME Office suite. All the “facts” you so far presented, are ideas for an office suite that never came to fruition and poorly researched books (probably based on Wikipedia’s false info). Today there is no GNOME Office which is why your edits in several articles, claiming that app XY is part of GNOME Office is simply inaccurate. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There, I now even wrote a History section (something you should've done instead of simply reverting my accurate edits), using your own sources that objectively prove that GNOME Office never was anything but a vague idea with lots of chit-chat around it but no actual resulting office suite. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree that it was/is a real project and that reliable sources exist, please withdraw your deletion nomination. --Karnesky (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I agree on is that there once upon a time were some discussions that resulted in nothing but hot air. That's hardy worth mentioning in an article. Even the goffice library is a Gnumeric sub-project as proven by the README file I linked as reference – therefore a sentence in Gnumeric should cover it. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there is any evidence that GNOME Office intended to release the traditional all-inclusive suite that would be a single download (which is how MS Office and LibreOffice are distributed). Nevertheless, this does exist on debian [11]. GNOME Office was and remains a project that provides some loose amount of sharing for both the development and interoperability of the individual applications that are included. This is what is in the books and articles and is what is written in the article. No more, no less. --Karnesky (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No GNOME Office project exists. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I have a short look at the references and found some reasonable things: Starting with The Register I found three additional reports: [12] [13] and [14] - so until April 2001 only speculations. A "review" or first look was posted at http://web.archive.org/web/20050101055043/http://www.linuxorbit.com/features/goffice.php3 (July 21 2000) so there was really a project, although it seems to be (at least to me) that this is/was only a collection of applications combined under the name Gnome Office. mabdul 19:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that some scribblings from 2000 are enough to keep the article as notable, does that mean that Karnesky can continue to claim that GNOME Office currently exists and that specific programs are currently part of it? That guy does not even accept the words from GO’s website which clearly that “There are a bunch of GNOME/Gtk applications that are useful in an office enviroment”. There is no single word describing the current existence of some GNOME Office “project”. Heck, of all listed applications, only two even have the note to be part of GNOME. AbiWord etc. are 3rd party applications. AbiWord’s own website http://www.abisource.com/information/about/ gives no indication of any official relationship to GNOME. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I see little benefit from having an article on this. It's not much more than a list of GNOME office applications. --Chire (talk) 16:56, 23 September 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. Courcelles 21:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kissing Point Sports Club[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for inclusion because my searches found a lack of reliable sources. Prod removed by Author. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable local club that appears to field only amateur teams. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I usually support in stubs being able to prove editing skills, this is one of those exceptions. I believe that this article may be able to merge with another article, however. If there are any articles on South Turramurra or any locations surrounding the Kissing Point Sports Club, I suggest merging this page withing one of those. --Rhain1999 (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable by any stretch of the imagination. Giant Snowman 19:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree kpsc is non-notable, only formed of amateur teams etc. Have asked for it to be merged with the article on South Turramurra as many hundreds of the local residents use and support the club, do not want it to be treated as high end sports club - no point, its where our children have fun & grow up.{Trish Lynch (talk) 11:51, 21 September 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. Courcelles 21:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Abkhazia[edit]

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

Delete and create a separate "Further Reading" section on the main Abkhazia article or with WP:WikiProject Abkhazia. This is just a random list of books related to the subject. It is not notable in its own right; it is just loosely grouping related texts and is thus WP:OR. Such a bibliography is useful, but does not need its own article. Ignorant Armies^?! 16:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the nom's statement makes editorial sense, this does not appear to be a sufficient rationale for deletion per policy. It would be a decent reason for an editorial merge, but that should be proposed separately. Note that this appears to have been accidentally DELSORT'ed to fictional elements when it is not. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Abkhazia. As the nominator suggests, this is suitable for a "further reading" section in the Abkhazia article, and is better presented in there than as a spinout article. But we don't need an AfD to do this! In the future it would be easiest to merge/redirect the work yourself. Them From Space 03:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I probably could get away with it for a place like Abkhazia (ie. not that well-known), but what about the 44 other bibliographies of countries or regions? There isn't really another place to begin a discussion for merging and redirecting all of these, and I think there would be at least some objectors to just merging these. Ignorant Armies^?! 08:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article completely passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly do you think this should be rescued? It is already very well sourced. Its appropriateness as a stand-alone article is why it is at AfD, not its notability or verifiability. Mistaggings such as this is why the ARS has a reputation for canvassing. Them From Space 21:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does not have a reputation for canvassing, only for people who regularly try to delete something getting upset when things don't go their way. Happens all the time. Anyway, if you aren't nominating it for its notability or verifiability, then you need to close this entirely and stop wasting everyone's time. Do a merge discussion if that is what you are after. Dream Focus 17:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the books come from a legitimate educational press, or are published by experts in the field, or official government institutions, then it is fine to list them all. I see Oxford University Press put out one of them. So it belongs on the list. I added to the list a book funded by the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affair and published by Columbia University Press. Google book search for just "Abkhazia" and you get 56,300 results, but search for "Abkhazia" "university press" and that narrows it down to 5,120. University presses only publish reliable educational material of course. Dream Focus 17:35, 25 September 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 one company's products. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Immersive book[edit]

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

Delete This is thinly disguised advertising for Squeaky Oak, an ebook publisher that is probably closely linked to the author (see also this edit). Of course, the term "immersive book" is used every now and then but it's not, as the article suggests, used to refer to this company's concept. (As far as I can tell the company isn't notable in the Wikipedia sense of the term) Pichpich (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Also WP:NN product. A great example of why Wikipedia needs a speedy deletion criterion for articles about products that do not assert the product's notability or importance. Toddst1 (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11, if doesn't qualify - simply delete on the basis of WP:NOTPROMO and/or WP:N. Ipsign (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is marketing, not anything notable. An article might be justified on immersive books but this isn't it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:18, 18 September 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Singh Lodhi[edit]

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

Notability concerns per WP:PEOPLE. Subject appears to be a lecturer and also "General Secretary of "Star Taruni"-Senior Teacher Association of Rajasthan." However, does not appear to be otherwise notable. RA (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find evidence of notability per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ACADEMIC. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 19 September 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty of the soul[edit]

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

Article about an individual theory, unsourced. There are sources for the term Poverty of the soul, but not one defines it in the same way this article does. Per WP:RS and WP:NOT#OR. A CSD was declined. Ben Ben (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Ipsign (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced personal essay, see WP:NOR. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research. SL93 (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly OR.--JayJasper (talk) 17:23, 21 September 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic poverty[edit]

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

Personal theory witch goes from Human health to Botany to Economics, unsourced. Couldn't find any source for this. Per WP:RS and WP:NOT#OR. A CSD was declined Ben Ben (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Ipsign (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no biological theory to this either in textbooks or on the web. Worse, the term has derogatory connotations as in poor benighted people in so-called g.p. Speedy deletion is right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I think that the CSD should have been accepted on WP:NONSENSE grounds: "2. Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it. If the meaning cannot be identified, it is impossible to accurately copy-edit the text." (emphasis added) Completely unsourced. Anyway, to the miniscule extent that this phrase seems to exist, it mostly seems to refer to a lack of genetic diversity within a species or ecosystem, which I don't think is what the author meant, but who can tell? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced original research. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear-cut case of WP:OR.--JayJasper (talk) 17:26, 21 September 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 World MAX 2011 −70kg Japan Tournament Final[edit]

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

Non-notable per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 World Grand Prix 2003 Preliminary Moscow. Also see redirect: K-1 World MAX 2011 -70kg Japan Tournament Final. RA (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete these kickboxing result pages get no indepth coverage in third party sources. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per LibStar, no significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 03:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. Fails WP:EVENT in every respect. No independent sources; no resonance in sources. Not all sporting events are notable. BusterD (talk) 10:53, 25 September 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 TSV 1860 München. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Abdullah Mohamed Ismaik[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people); could not find mention of this person in the news outside of their relationship with 1860 Munich. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1860 Munich, no evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 20:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)--Cox wasan (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1860 Munich - There is no evidence of notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Borderline disruptive nomination; see also WP:SNOW. T. Canens (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women's clothing in China[edit]

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

The subject is not important enough to warrant an article of it's own. Colofac (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep (merge can be considered if reasonable target is provided, but this can be done outside of AfD). "is not important enough" argument is not important enough to warrant deletion (potential valid argument is WP:GNG, but it doesn't fly here). Ipsign (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and source and expand. This potentially could be written like Tang Dynasty.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; currently bereft of sourcing but it's a worthy and notable subject in an area where wikipedia currently has sparse coverage. bobrayner (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Campbell (documentary photojournalist)[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion Can find nothing to support WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 9 September 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, The-Pope (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per individual's and career being sourcable and per WP:FILMMAKER. I learned that his documentary film Wolves in Paradise was the recipent of a 2008 CINE Golden Eagle Award as well as a 2008 Regional Emmy Award nomination. More to do, yes, but the article is now undergoing expansion and improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn as the article is now much improved. Good work, Schmidt! Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per reliable sources already in the article that establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Nominator also withdrew his or her nomination. The availability of reliable sources nullifies the basis of the nomination too. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:15, 20 September 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Les otages libanais dans les prisons syriennes, jusqu'à quand?[edit]

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

Non-notable book. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SPAM - DonCalo (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original PRODder per lack of reliable sources. Would also support a merge per DGG.--Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not explain why the book might be notable under the book notability criteria. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. I'd support a merge into an article about the author, but I don't think that such an article exists.--Slon02 (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable book. SL93 (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a non-notable book. Unable to locate significant reliable source coverage to establish notability per WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:37, 19 September 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. Courcelles 21:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Biddle[edit]

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

Fine art photographer. Insufficient evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Develop. Just enjoyed a visit to the website Luminous Lint, which is absolutely reputable with famous photographers like Don McCullin. Paul Biddle, on this evidence, is a witty and creative photographer making interestingly surreal artworks. The website Public Republic shows a different side of Paul Biddle, making engaging and strong artworks, and coming across as an original and inventive photographer.

Looking further, Biddle has exhibited widely, is represented in the Permanent Collection of the Royal Photographic Society, London, and has won at least 6 international competitions. (Trierenberg Super Circuit (Photographic Contest), Austria. http://www.supercircuit.at/halloffame.cfm) Obviously the WP page needs to be developed with a list recording and referencing these achievements.

I am left wanting to hear more on him on WP, please. -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of the sources added to the article today the only one that clearly seems reliable is the Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia "Leonardo da Vinci". Unfortunately the reference only goes to the home page of their site, and searching the site for Biddle finds nothing: [15]. Could you (Chiswick Chap or anyone else) please point to the the specific page where Biddle is covered. The other sources are all either Paul Biddle writing about himself (including the Luminous Lint source) or a piece of gushing puffery on a web site based on citizen journalism, which is a euphemism for the process of publishing anything that anyone submits without any fact-checking. If better sources can be produced, particularly for the unspecified "numerous awards", then I'm willing to be convinced of notability, but currently we have nothing. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. On a quick search this looks like a potentially good source, if anyone has access to the full text. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence Hi, I've located proof of the Austrian Super Circuit prize and put it in the article. Since the RPS website doesn't list past winners (?) it will take time or experts to collect citations, but I have no doubt the prizes were real. Hope this helps.Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How prestigious is that award? I see that the first prize is €5000, but I don't know enough about this world to evaluate whether that is considered a large or a small amount (I certainly wouldn't sneeze at it, unless the euro collapses even further). Phil Bridger (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More Evidence I've also added proof from Photog. Journal that Biddle did indeed win their Gold Medal.

Sorry I don't know how big the Austrian competition is, but it is certainly annual and long-established. Prize seems big enough.Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources added by Chiswick Chap, along with the British Journal of Photography coverage that I linked above, are enough to demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per reliable sources and availability of them. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:18, 20 September 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, does not assert any actual notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz Lintott[edit]

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

General notability concerns per WP:PEOPLE. RA (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The same editor also created an article at Polly Parsons beginning, "[Person's Name] AKA The New Recruit..." --RA (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced. Imdb and google searches indicate a handful of small roles in non-significant TV. Does not meet notability per WP:NACTOR. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, was probably a candidate for Speedy IMHO. --Deadly∀ssassin 21:01, 18 September 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. Author has returned article to user space at User:Fatty2k10/Thurmaston Shopping Centre JohnCD (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thurmaston Shopping Centre[edit]

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

Small shopping centre with no indication of WP:notability. The only relevant reference is to a small local paper story. Other refs are either to the developer or the store that existed on this site before. noq (talk) 08:38, 18 September 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. The points about SALAT do not strike me as relevant or accurate. This article can be fied with ordinary editing. Courcelles 21:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide bombing in Sri Lanka[edit]

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

This article has no new content. The list is copied straight from List of attacks attributed to the LTTE and the narrative has been copied almost word-for-word from Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. All but two of the links to this page come from the Template:Sri Lankan Conflict. obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is in the under development, List of attacks attributed to the LTTE is a article listing the various types of attacks attributed to the LTTE, where as this list Suicide bombings in Sri Lanka. These are two separate lists. Cossde (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can they be separate when they contain the exact same information? Are you planning to remove all the suicide bombings from List of attacks attributed to the LTTE?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As last substantial edit was 2 weeks ago, I don't think that "under development" argument really flies. Ipsign (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think Suicide bombing in Sri Lanka as an article would be a valued one but not in the current form for the reasons Obi2canibe has quoted. If the article is under construction then it shouldn't be up for deletion.--Blackknight12 (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are two topics with inter lining facts, if a weapon system is used in Army A and Army B, you list it in both with same details since it is the same weapon system but used under two different topics. Cossde (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:No new information introduced to the topic. Intoronto1125Talk Contributions 01:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:24, 12 September 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 08:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT. Ipsign (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:SALAT does it violate. Cossde (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ipsign.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 12:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid cloud[edit]

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

While the title "hybrid cloud" is arguably notable, "hybrid cloud file servers" are most certainly not. The article was created solely to promote Egnyte (per original version) and adds nothing over the cloud computing article. As such it should be deleted or redirected to Cloud_computing#Hybrid_cloud. WP:N WP:V WP:NOT WP:COI etc. -- samj _in^out 12:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Use the Google news archive link at the top of the AFD. Easy finds.
The Register When hybrid clouds are a mixed blessing, Aiming for the best of both worlds By Alan Stevens, 29th June 2011 10:00 GMT
Business Insider [IBM Embraces Juniper for its Smart Hybrid Cloud]
TheStreet.com HP Accelerates Customers’ Path To Open, Hybrid Cloud

So this is an important thing, big tech companies going to it, and major news sources writing about it. Dream Focus 00:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per nomination, I don't dispute the notability of "hybrid cloud" (which is covered in cloud computing) but the subject of the article is effectively "hybrid cloud file servers". -- samj _in^out 00:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference. The cloud computers are always used as file servers. Dream Focus 21:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Cloud Storage Gateway which means the same thing. The topic itself is notable but we already have an article about it. Marokwitz (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Hybrid cloud is not at all the same as Cloud Storage Gateway — if anything we should merge & redirect to the hybrid cloud section of the cloud computing article. -- samj _in^out 15:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. One source with a single four-line paragraph about the subject is not even close the enough, even from the NIST. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Keep, could this artical be expanded? or further referenced, if so keep, if not merge – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:38, 16 September 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 08:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Topic's notability is established per reliable sources listed above by user Dream Focus. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:26, 20 September 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. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yasin Soliman[edit]

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

No evidence of notability and appears to be an article about the author. Pascal (talk) 08:33, 18 September 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Shark Valley[edit]

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

General notability concerns per notability of books. RA (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even close to WP:NB. Google search shows nothing of note. Google Books shows no reviews. Current Amazon sales ranking = 5,228,733. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to be notable, with no significant coverage. Note that article may be a spamming attempt by publisher.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 19 September 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. strong consensus that the subject is not a duplicate and that the species and a genus are different (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asian leaf turtle[edit]

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

bringing this to afd, this is a repeat article. article was duplicated with Cyclemys. tried to csd yet a circle jerk is apparently needed to get rid of a duplicate. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Talk:Asian leaf turtle. A species is obviously not equivalent to a genus. Jeez.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as pointed out above. In bird names such issues are avoided using capitalization - using capitalized names for species and lower case names for groups. Shyamal (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~with a WTF~~, no duplication here. One article is a genus name for seven turtles, while the other is for an individual species. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck? This is what the fuck I'm talking about what does the Asian Leaf Turtle cover that the Cyclemes doesn't. Ther are repeats at a bare minimum it could be redirected but if you sit and actually read the article they are duplicates with one actually being better written. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asian leaf turtle is the common name for one particular species - Cyclemys dentata. But that common name is also applied to their "holding group" if you may (I'm assuming you don't have any experience at all with taxonomy), the genus Cyclemys. Which in turn includes six other species, each of which is very distinct from Cyclemys dentata.

This is the reason why biologists use scientific names to identify species. Because common names are unstable, often applied arbitrarily, and are more or less quite useless in identifying the exact organism, much less their relationships with other organisms.

While we do redirect species pages to genus pages when a particular genus contains only one species (a monotypic genus), and we also redirect species pages to genus pages when very little is known about their member species (or else their member species share most of the same characteristics), this is very seldom true in higher animals. And this is certainly not true in Cyclemys dentata. If you examine the article I expanded on Cyclemys more closely you will realize that I only covered C. dentata very briefly. The article is devoted to the entire genus, not Cyclemys dentata alone. Admittedly C. dentata is little more than a stub at the moment, not for want of actual material, but simply because no one has expanded it yet. There are plenty more information that can be placed on C. dentata that can not be placed on the genus page Cyclemys.

It is not a duplicate. Stop repeating that. Saying Cyclemys dentata is a duplicate of Cyclemys is like asserting that the species Homo sapiens should redirect to the genus Homo. If you're going to start speedying biological articles, I suggest you learn a bit more biology first.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't introduCe any specific or new information it's a duplicate and not worthy of a stand alone article. What does it bring to the table that Ceclemys doesn't? The answer is nothing Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, understand where you are coming from now. We have here a main topic(Cyclemys) with seven subtopics. You divide them up in this way for ease of access and ease of understanding. You could put them all in one article and create a bigger main topic. We don't do that normally because it does not make logical sense, navigational sense or enable ease of search but instead you end up having to explicitly state and reorganise the information presented. This results firstly in information being condensed into an infobox which it's not designed to show(in this case conservation status for each of the subtopics, maps etc.), and then itemised section for each uniqueness of the subtopics. The structure is commonly know as a list. I have encountered this suggestion once before in an AFD where the nominator wanted to merge a song into an album article. You could copy all the information for each song into the corresponding album it came from. But it would make a confusing article. A search for a song would not work well and the structure of the article would be like a list. I'm against merging into a main article when there is a logic seperation in naming and identity. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as someone sees the logic behind my actions, agreement is not always nec. but I at least feel a small amount of vindication that I'm not the only one that has felt this way. If the article is not merged or deleted as seems likely the wording in the intro can be improved to be more clear. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A species of a genus so it it not a duplicate. The article can be expanded with sources like [16]. This species is near threatened while the genus has not been classified by the IUCN. SL93 (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per topic notability, and rationales above for article retention, which nullify the basis of the nomination for AfD. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A species and a genus are different. Dream Focus 03:54, 21 September 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. Strong consensus exists for redirecting to Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks without merge due to completeness of primary article (non-admin closure). Moogwrench (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of 9/11 memorials[edit]

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

Much more detailed article on similar subject already exists (Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks). Was originally a disambig page, but the disambig page has been recreated with better disambig styling (9/11 memorial (disambiguation)). | ^help _dןǝɥ | 06:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty clear duplication, but I don't see why you can't just do a merge/redirect? 86.164.110.80 (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Because all of the information in this article is included in greater detail on the other page. Plus, I think that if Wikipedia has gone 10 years without needing this redirect, it definitely doesn't need it now... | ^help _dןǝɥ | 17:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks -- a straight redirect, with no deletion and no merge needed. I do think that Wikipedia needs this redirect, because apparently the person who created List of 9/11 memorials didn't know about or couldn't find Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Good point. | ^help _dןǝɥ | 17:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Metropolitan90. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final Destination 6: The Final Stand[edit]

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

Not a crystal ball Bihco (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You want to delete something that doesn't hurt anyone. Please this is necessary, come on give an opportunity to this guy. He's talking about his work. Honestly I read their article and is good I know that this are rules from here but he deserves a chance. I check his profile on Wattpad and is trustworthy (http://www.wattpad.com/user/GDGS92). Please reconsider this! WP:RFD#KEEP (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2011

deserves a chance is not a valid criteria on Wikipedia (if may want to convince NYT journalist that the guy deserves a chance, if then NYT writes an article - only then we'll be able to consider it). Ipsign (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GJUSTIN, this doesn't hurt anyone. In my opinion I think that this is article is well written has reliable references and sounds like an interesting story. Also I verified their account on Wattpad and is reliable source too so this page deserves to stay right here. If you want to see his profile check here (http://www.wattpad.com/user/GDGS92). WP:RFD#KEEP (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2011

Delete Unless I've misunderstood, this is not even an article about a future Final Destination sequel, but about a screenplay someone has written without any official approval or recognition Moswento (talk | contribs) 07:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTCRYSTAL Ipsign (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability criteria for future films, and per Moswento. Future films aren't supposed to have articles until they begin filming. Furthermore, contrary to what GJUSTIN and GJOHTO wrote above, this article has no reliable sources at all. The only sources provided are material that the screenplay writer posted on Wattpad (a free file-sharing site) themselves. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. SL93 (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: GJUSTIN and GHONTO were identified as sockpuppets of article creator, and IMHO we're very close to WP:SNOW here. Ipsign (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Topic is not featured in reliable sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why are we even arguing about this? I COMPLETELY agree with what Moswento and Ipsign said. It's just a spec script from wattpad. And the fact that it's "not hurting anyone" is not a valid reason. That's not how Wikipedia works. And the script has terrible grammar and spelling, as far as I'm concerned this page is just irrelevant. And yes, it does include 1 reliable reference, but this isn't even involving New Line Cinemas or Warner Bros. It's just a fan-made script. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.201.162 (talk • contribs) 20:00, September 19, 2011
There's no argument about it. There is only one person defending the article, the creator, and he used sockpuppets to pretend there is support for the article. All these accounts have been blocked. The article will be deleted per WP:SNOW soon. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is not an exception to WP:CRYSTAL. Contrary to the sockpuppeteer's assertion, as a precisionist this article hurts me by breaking the guidelines!!! (was that over-the-top?). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hi, I am here to protect my work from vandalism. I create this account to clean out my image, because I never authorizes to create this article about my screenplay. The only official pages that I have is on Facebook and Wattpad. Furthermore someone hack my Wattpad account, because I never put my script there, just an introduction of my work. Unfortunately they stole my introduction too. Please delete this immediately and my apologizes, because I'm very embarrassed for all the conflicts that this cause to the Wikipedia Community. GDGS (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2011
- The thing is, Wikipedia will not seek your permission to cover your work if it meets our notability requirements, nor will we delete an article about your work just because you're asking. There is no such thing as an official Wikipedia page about anything, and any page that portrays itself as such is deleted on sight. Think of Wikipedia coverage as something that shows how others are describing your work at face value once they see it, without seeking any input from the work's creator. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While what you've said it technically correct, we need to consider possibility of copyright violation, which (as we all know) is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Wording by User:GDGS (specifically: "they stole my introduction too") might imply potential copyvio (it is not clear if this allegedly stolen introduction has made it into the article). Due to extreme sensitivity of copyright issues, I've tagged the article as a potential copyvio, and listed the page on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, to let specialists discuss it with the author. Ipsign (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...this said... Delete. No evidence of pre-release hype in reliable third-party references. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes! I'm complaining about the copyright, but I don't want conflicts with this guys. They contacted me on my official page in Facebook asking for forgiveness and I forgive them. The main reason why this is in Wikipedia is because one person in Facebook create a fan page about my script and one of them create the article right here without my permission and then this happens. However my Wattpad account was not hacked it was a mistake from my assistant. She published the unofficial first draft of the script instead of the introduction. I know this because she contacted me one hour ago. As I said before I don't want problems and this is just a unfinished screenplay in which I'm working. The only thing that I really want is the removing of this page and that's it! GDGS (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well... we're not Wikileaks (nor are we affiliated with them in any way). Copyright issues are dealt with quite seriously here, and if an article is found to be by itself in violation of someone's copyright, then that alone trumps all other considerations, and the contentious material gets removed, no questions asked. But this discussion is headed where we won't even have to look into that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also consider the page a copyright violation against Warner Bros. and New Line Cinemas, as well as any other parties assosciated with The Final Destination series. If a sixth film were to actually be created, then it would be confusing to have two Final Destination 6 articles on Wikipedia. Unless I've misunderstood, the article is about a fan-made script, meaning that it has absolutely no relation to the actual series, making the article confusing and a copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3193th (talk • contribs) 23:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 12:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paamonim[edit]

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

no sources, not notable and reads like an advert Soosim (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable non-profit organization. I'd have preferred a 'prod' template to give more visibility before an AfD. I'd have slapped on some I would not mind to improve the article but don't have time now. Will try at least a bit. --Shuki (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is true, as nom said, that there were no refs. I've added a few from high-level RSs, reflecting notability. Generally, we should only delete if refs could not be added -- we don't AfD solely on the basis of whether the refs have in fact been added to the article. I also agree w/nom that the article could be cleaned up, but that is an issue for normal editing focus, not a reason for deletion.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Indeed, the presence of reliable sources within articles is not a valid argument for article deletion. Rather, Wikipedia: Articles for deletion, Section D, “Sourcing Search”, #3 states - “In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination.” Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Noteworthy organization.--Sreifa (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks for trying epee - one of the sources is highbeam and not the jpost itself. one of the sources does not say anything at all (the greer fay cashman gossip column). and the rest of the entire article has no sources. there are many non-profits which are indeed notable - not convinced that this one is. see WP:notable, from which i will quote here:

“

General notability guideline:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1] "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4] "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.[5] A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

”

sorry. Soosim (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Soos. FYI, as you are the nom, it is better for you to title your above note "Comment". Otherwise, people might think it a double-vote; just one of the non-intuitive wp conventions. As to the general issue, I focused not only on the few refs I added, but on the others, including those discoverable as ghits and gnewshits. IMHO, they are sufficient to show notability. It certainly is not famous (and I had never heard of it before), but in my view it is notable within wp standards. As to your hesitation with the highbeam reference, that is a well-established site that lists articles from thousands of newspapers and magazines -- such as this one from The Jerusalem Post. See here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Soosim. Perhaps noteworthy, not notable. Currently, the article references two dedicated articles from a single source and one passing mention from a second. This does not show significant coverage approaching Wikipedia:N or Wikipedia:ORG. Articles on non-notable subjects aren't encyclopedic. JFHJr (㊟) 08:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per reliable sources now in the article that establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – See also Google News results. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and I apologize if I wasn't sufficiently clear above. We should not limit ourselves to refs in the articles, but also look at the ghits, gnewshits, and references in books such as this one.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see there are sources now. Marokwitz (talk) 08:09, 21 September 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. I chose criterion A1, due to the lack of clarification of what Fresh Chicken is as opposed to other chicken, but it could've gone A10 or G2. —C.Fred (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Chicken[edit]

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

This article has absolutely no reason to be here. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 12:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logitech MX-510[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reason to be here. -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Logitech, products section. A notable product that can be easily merged. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why merge one of their thousands of products into that list. It is a basic computer mouse. It would be an odd list if one random product had a description. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 12:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union in Curaçao[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability No independent sources. No indication this league is notable. Unexplained PROD decline by article creator. Delete. Safiel (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we should have "Rugby union in ____" articles for all countries and dependencies, assuming there is actually something to write about, which in this case there is. 86.164.110.80 (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your personal opinion, but it is not in keeping with Wikipedia's notability standards. If you want to try to get the notability guidelines changed in that way then you are free to start a discussion on the issue, but this AfD will be decided on the basis of current policies and guidelines, so it is unlikely that the closing administrator will give much weight to the suggestion. If you want the article kept you need to give evidence that the subject is notable according to the present guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. The article says that Rugby union in Curaçao is a "minor" sport, and the whole tone of the article suggests that it is not yet notable. No independent sources are cited at all. My searches have produced little in independent sources beyond passing mentions. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proper references. Intoronto1125Talk Contributions 22:51, 22 September 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Niv Antman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Since he has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, he fails both relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to added except support for what has already been said. --Jayron32 19:32, 20 September 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) Off2riorob (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Elbaz[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NFOOTBALL, per this. Giant Snowman 19:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - having played in the fully pro Israeli Premier league, he passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played at a notable level. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Per Snowman (appropriately). Suggest nom w/draw nomination, or that it simply be snow kept.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:51, 20 September 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahad Azam[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence he meets WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Since he has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, he fails both relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has never played top-flight football. --Jayron32 19:34, 20 September 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) Rcsprinter (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instigator (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album by a non-notable artist. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteunable to find any serious WP:RS coverage for the album --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Support Redirect per TPH below; was not thorough enough with this !vote as I did not search the artist. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kaci Brown. The artist article was redirected to the album in April for a WP:PUTEFFORT failure, but further digging shows that the artist herself meets WP:MUSIC by having a Top 10 hit on the U.S. Dance/Club Play chart. I have restored the Kaci Brown article with a source indicating the chart positions. Ten Pound Hammer and company • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to drag this out too far as this is not a discussion about the Brown article, but WP:MUSIC only says charting may make an artist notable. I personally would like to see more reliable sources demonstrating her notability. IMO going top ten on a chart where some relatively low-notability artists and songs have gone #1 in the past doesn't demonstrate a lot of notability to me, especially when it isn't the main chart for said country. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Allmusic biography is a pretty authoritative source, wouldn't you say? Ten Pound Hammer and company • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I've added multiple sources just now. There's significant coverage in multiple newspapers, enough to meet the general notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul Erik. Ten Pound Hammer and company • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per reliable sources now in the article that establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It appears that the nominator may not have followed the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which, if true, nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. There's no mention in the nomination regarding the availability of reliable sources. As it's worded, the nomination's basis, along with the nominator's comment afterward, is upon opinion, rather than upon searching for reliable sources, as required per WP:BEFORE requirements. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable album. No notable singles off the album, no notable sales figures, no notability in any way. Redirect/merge to the low notable singer. Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. It only has to meet the GNG OR the secondary guidelines, not both. Dream Focus 20:13, 20 September 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghettotech[edit]

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

Imaginary music genre using youtube as a crux. Cheekytrees (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not quite my cup of tea, but I must disagree that this is an imaginary genre. See here and here for example. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Def. not "imaginary." Keep this article as it represents a part of Detroit's localized underground music scene. These sounds existed long before youtube, guay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.200.249.66 (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Actually a valid music genre and a well-written informative article. werldwayd (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Refs meets GNG. Suggest nom follow wp:before and look for refs prior to future nominations.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 12:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas H. Carter[edit]

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

Article is about an unelected candidate for US Senate. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Multiple, independent, non-campaign related sources do not exist. 2 of the four links on the page are to his campaign page and the other four are WP:ROUTINE announcements on the campaign. TM 02:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. This is a textbook case of why we shouldn't have articles about otherwise non-notable unelected candidates. People like this should be covered in an article about the race. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No other claim to notability. Blueboy 96 12:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur. --Kumioko (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My experience has been that major-party nominees for U.S. Senate have been considered notable simply by virtue of having been nominated by a major party. I realize that this is not a "good" argument in Wikipedia terms, but it does explain why this article hasn't been nominated for deletion previously, despite having been around since 2008. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:42, 24 September 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Musa Aziz[edit]

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

Co-founded Poverty Reduction Foundation in Afghanistan. Unable to find anything about him connected to the Foundation. I'm not sure the Foundation exists. Foundation website is dead. Some IP from Afghanistan continues to update the article... has him as 26, a medical doctor and has a postgrad degree. Lots of fluff added about the environment and OLPC. Bgwhite (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a rule, I don't like to vote delete on entities with names written in non-Latin characters unless we know the spelling in the original language to search on. How is his name spelled? I mean, newspapers from Afghanistan are a lot less likely to be accessible online, and I do doubt the guy's notable, but we need to try this first. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reading your original post, I was thinking about trying to CSD it as a hoax to save a week of discussion, but some poking around showed that he's at least listed on OLPC's wiki. It's an open wiki but he's been listed there for years surviving edits by OLPC people, so presumably it's a real affiliation. No comment on his notability other than that really, but at least he's probably not a total hoax. MD and a postgrad degree seem pretty unbelievable, but I guess it's always possible someone got his age wrong or something. I haven't turned up sources confirming any of his details, but haven't tried hard enough to feel like I should comment on notability. 98.248.194.216 (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 8 September 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 12 September 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, v/r - T P 02:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion in the article or in the search results or on this talkpage that the subject is wikipedia notable. Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 12:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FlyBack[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows this software's notability. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable but needs more sources. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One source does not equal notability. SL93 (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If I Google for the link to the site you download it from, I get 15,300 results [17] If one place reviews it then there are surely others. For software, its hard to find. http://code.google.com/p/flyback/ Dream Focus 01:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added more sources to the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant verifiable coverage from multiple independent sources. Yaksar (let's chat) 23:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blog posts and GHITS do not provide evidence of notability. Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 03:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mac Observer Article. Just one, but it was "found". Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To those voting keep: which sources actually make this topic pass the GNG? It would be a lot more helpful if we could actually look at those, rather than read vague statements that assume sources probably exist somewhere.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:14, 14 September 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, v/r - T P 02:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mac Observer Article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ~~Check out this book from Google Books. Another find.~~ Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC) It's from a Wikipedia article about the topic, though. Oh well. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another source, not in the article: "Creating Snapshot-Backups with FlyBack On Ubuntu 7.10". Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another source, not in the article: "Quick and easy backups with Flyback". Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are sources in the References section, giving the coverage significant coverage. The subject passes the general notability guideline. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:45, 20 September 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Panse Group[edit]

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

I found zero significant coverage for this. The creator's username is Jrpanse. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:44, 4 September 201--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)1 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Purpose is clearly promotional. No coverage on reliable Indian media focusing on business or otherwise. As the nom pointed out, possible COI.— Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 13:35, 5 September 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, Wifione ^Message 17:51, 11 September 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, v/r - T P 01:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself provides no sources and I can find none to support notability per WP:CORP. Google hits are to the company's web sites or to WP:ROUTINE company listings by region or industry, that sort of thing. It just seems as though someone decided to put a version of the company's "about" page onto WP. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:26, 18 September 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. I originally closed as merge per Jclemens. However, per Sanstein's appeal on my talk page and Reyk's disagreement with a merge, it seems consensus is against merging. v/r - T P 13:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kushiel's Legacy characters[edit]

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

Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the criteria of appropriate topics for lists, this list of characters is a topic that is trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge since it falls into what what Wikipedia is not by being a summary-only description of a fictional work, so it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Also, notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists, and the subject of this one, a list of characters from a fictional series, has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, so the topic of the list does not meet the general notability guideline. Because of this, I think this list is an unnecessary split of the several Kushiel's Legacy-related articles, where the plot and main characters are already mentioned, so it should be deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge the other AfD'ed character lists here. List of Characters articles rely on the notability of the fictional franchise, rather than independent notability, so unless there's an argument that there's no notability for the main topic Sandstein's and Jfgslo's notability arguments simply don't match practice. Further, the nominator's arguments are much more applicable to a merger than a deletion, which should have been tried first per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 18 September 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, v/r - T P 00:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with Jfgslo. This article cites no sources whatsoever. Per WP:LISTN, there would have to be sources discussing these fictional characters as a group- this list simply does not inherit notability from the work of fiction. The verifiability states that if there are no reliable third-party sources that discuss a subject, we shouldn't have an article on it; and an article is not exempt from this just because it is written in a list format. Since there are no independent sources for this topic, it is impossible for it to be anything more than pure plot summary. A merge has been suggested, but the obvious merge target already contains a character list of appropriate length. Since this article is unsuitable for a stand-alone article and a merge would accomplish nothing, deletion is the only option. Reyk _YO! 12:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article cites no sources, thus failing the general notability guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:21, 20 September 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. I originally closed as merge per Jclemens. However, per Sanstein's appeal on my talk page and Reyk's disagreement with a merge, it seems consensus is against merging. v/r - T P 13:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Characters in Kushiel's Legacy[edit]

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

Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As with a related AfD, this list of characters is not appropriate as a topic per the criteria of appropriate topics for lists since it falls into what Wikipedia is not by being a summary-only description of a fictional work, so it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and the subject of this one, a list of minor characters from a fictional series, has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, so it does not meet the general notability guideline. This is an unnecessary split of the several Kushiel's Legacy-related articles, where the plot and main characters are already mentioned, and these minor characters are not important to understand the plot of the series, so I do not see why this article should be kept. Jfgslo (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Kushiel's Legacy characters per my arguments there. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 18 September 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, v/r - T P 00:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This article has no secondary sources so it can never be more than pure plot summary and indiscriminate in-universe trivia. I argued at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Kushiel's_Legacy_characters that that list was unsuitable as a stand-alone article or as a merge, and I think this one has even less validity. Reyk _YO! 23:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks independent commentary that would allow this to be something other than WP:PLOT which is what Wikipedia articles are not. Also needs independent commentary to meet the general notability guideline. But none can be found for these minor characters. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:26, 20 September 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cassiline Brotherhood[edit]

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

Consists only of extensive content summary from a series of novels, contrary to WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This aspect of the series has no third-party coverage in reliable sources that is substantial enough, per WP:GNG, to be the basis of an article. If deemed necessary, the content can be briefly summarized in the article about the series, Kushiel's Legacy. Otherwise it is best presented in the Wikia wiki dedicated to the series, which appears comprehensive enough to assume that this content, or its equivalent, is already present there. Sandstein 08:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As with other Kushiel's Legacy-related articles, this one is an unreferenced content fork and an unnecessary split that does not meet the general notability guideline as a stand-alone topic and which content can only be a summary-only description of a fictional work, so I do not see a valid reason to keep the article. Jfgslo (talk) 00:25, 17 September 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, v/r - T P 00:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced content fork that does not meet the general notability guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:13, 20 September 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis Empire[edit]

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for elements of fiction. Neelix (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. It is a good page like the other villain group pages for the Kamen Rider series and to keep the main article from getting too long. Three of the Kamen Rider villain group pages had already been merged to the show page. Rtkat3 (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator - If there are not reliable, secondary sources that can be used as references in the article, as appears to be the case, the article should not exist on Wikipedia. If primary-source-only material on Kamen Rider articles is making those articles too lengthy, that primary-source-only material should be compressed. Neelix (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced, in-universe fancruft. Listing and briefly describing the main villains in the main article for the series is all that is really warranted. Why not make a tokusatsu fan wiki or fan site for this kind of information? Time has clearly been put into this and I'm sure it is of interest to enthusiasts, but Wikipedia is not the place. Ibanez100 (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The fictional organization does not meet the general notability guideline as there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that make analytic or evaluative claims about the fictional group from a real-world perspective or beyond the plot of the TV series. Also, any article about it can only be a summary-only description of a fictional work, which is appropriate material for a fansite, not Wikipedia. I believe that this article is an unnecessary split of Kamen Rider Black RX that does not meet the general notability criterion as a stand-alone article and it's completely unreferenced. Therefore, the article should be deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 00:06, 17 September 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, v/r - T P 00:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Inherently fails many content policies. It is a pure plot summary with no reliable, independent sources. There is no compelling reason to want a split of this stuff from the main article. Lastly, I question why this debate was relisted since consensus had clearly already been reached. Reyk _YO! 12:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOT#PLOT and general notability guideline due to lack of sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:10, 20 September 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. I've completely ignored Northamerica1000's opinion as it's not based on policy. "Book sources may exist" can be said about anything. If you think they exist, do the work to find them. v/r - T P 12:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan International University[edit]

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

There seem to be no books or news items discussing this institution, despite the claim that it was founded in 1990. ~~Possible hoax?~~ This does not seem to be the same as Sudan's International University of Africa, which has a different website Aymatth2 (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked further. There are enough mentions on the web of people who have worked at the university or studied there to confirm that this private university exists. [18], [19] and [20] show that Dr Bakri Osman Saeed is President. But I cannot find anything online that discusses or describes the university, so it does not seem to be notable. I am not 100% comfortable with that conclusion though. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:37, 4 September 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - verifiable, degree-awarding instituions have long been considered to be notable. African educational establishments generally have a poor Internet presence and time should be given to find local sources to avoid systemic bias. The nominator should be complimented on his search for sources and his refreshingly open approach. TerriersFan (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well... I am thinking of starting my own university. Home study, very reasonable prices, excellent degrees on handmade parchment suitable for framing. In this case there does appear to be a physical school, but no evidence of any form of accreditation. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perhaps book sources can further qualify notability of this topic. What user TerriersFan stated makes sense, that "African educational establishments generally have a poor Internet presence and time should be given to find local sources to avoid systemic bias." Wikipedia is intended to cover global matters, not just matters that are available on Google searches. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "university" has a very professional-looking website, but in English only, which is strange. Every other university in Sudan has an Arabic main website and then maybe an English one, often poor quality. The website claims that it has been open since 1990, but the Sudanese Ministry for Higher Education and Research does not list this university. Check http://www.mohe.gov.sd/ in Google Chrome, accept "translate", scroll down and click on "Sudanese higher education" in the right-hand menu bar. Sudan International University is not in the ministry's list of accredited higher educational institutions. And it is not in other lists like [21], [22] or [23]. I have started a fair number of Sudan-related articles lately. This one has an odd aroma. Since there are no independent sources that say anything about the school, the article relies entirely on self-published material. I don't see that it qualifies for retention. If, after it was deleted, independent sources were found, it could always be recreated. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:59, 15 September 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, v/r - T P 00:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't been able to find enough reliable sources to confirm anything but its existence and administration: nothing about its reputation whatsoever. Our information should be based in reliable sources, with at least a chunk of it coming from outside the subject itself. This isn't the case here, and we shouldn't assume that these sources exist just because the university is located in a third-world country. Them From Space 01:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone done a search for the college under its Arabic characters? There may be additional sources to be found there, for any bilingual Wikipedian to find. I would be open to changing my opinion if acceptable sources were found in Arabic (or any other language). Them From Space 01:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current website and the draft new website are both English only. My guess is they are marketing to the families of ex-pats from places like Malaysia and Pakistan, and there will not be Arabic sources. Still, proof of notability in any language would be enough. I don't buy the "third world" argument. All universities and ministries have websites and there are online newspapers like the Sudan Tribune in Sudan as in most countries. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:00, 20 September 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 IVF#History. one event - redirect to IVF#History where she is already mentioned (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Reed[edit]

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

The question here is whether her journalism career meets notability standards, or if it is merely her birth that is notable. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Merge to IVF#History, as has been suggested at the article. A bit more than BLP1E with some news coverage as an advocate for people conceived by IVF. $Sharktopus$ ^talk 00:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This discussion was unintentionally removed from the log here. A relist is probably appropriate to ensure that the discussion receives adequate visibility from the community. VQuakr (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IVF#History, which already mentions her. The subject's journalism career is unremarkable and there is no reason to have an article to say what can be said in two sentences in the IVF article. VQuakr (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Strikes me as a typical 1E event--funny that that one event would be her birth. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to redirect, per Jenks24 below--it is a likely search term. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Read the news links in the article. Decades later she is getting coverage for her work, even outside her own country. Dream Focus 23:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course. Now go and tell me it's because of her work, not because of the ubiquitous "where are they now" interest. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IVF#History. Classic 1E case, only coverage has been because she was conceived by IVF and her journalism career is pretty unremarkable (the papers that she's worked for aren't even bluelinks). That said, her name is a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. Jenks24 (talk) 07:28, 12 September 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, causa sui (talk) 18:11, 18 September 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.