< 9 February	11 February >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No evidence of notability in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appinstaller[edit]

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

I found no notability. The only sources in the article are download pages, a blog, and a personal website. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that this article should be removed. The sources you found are the same for all software projects. For example the software ffmpeg has a personal page ffmpeg.com and many sites were you can download it from. Software is lucky to have blog posts about it. Imagine you were reading the blog and said appinstaller! What is that? And then went to google it.. isn't that what wikipedia is for? When someone says what was the civil war? or what is app installer wikipedia has the answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieee8023 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:— Note to closing admin: Ieee8023 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 02:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with notable topics - WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you seriously comparing the Civil War to this software? SL93 (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entire article is a howto. Fails WP:MOS. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 02:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the main difference between this software and ffmpeg is that ffmpeg is discussed in reliable sources in depth with implication of notability, and this software isn't. That's why ffmpeg article will stay, and this one won't. It is the worst attempt at WP:OTHERSTUFF I've ever seen. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess based on "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" you would consider the section titled "How To Configure" not appropriate. I would say that the first few paragraphs are fine and should remain. It simply states what it is to educate people on how this software is different from other software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieee8023 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not fine because the software is not notable. SL93 (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Significant coverage" This site among many has a page dedicated to this software. Claims over 1000 downloads http://www.brothersoft.com/app-installer-270019.html
  - "Reliable" It's a site that hosts a bunch of software. Meaning this is software.
  - "Sources" & "Independent of the subject" This site and many sites independently added this software for download
  - "Presumed" There are many of these sites
  - You can also view downloads from this site that hosts this open source project: http://sourceforge.net/projects/appinstaller/files/stats/timeline?dates=2009-07-30+to+2012-02-13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieee8023 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Every software has downloads and no matter how many they have, it does not show notability. SL93 (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Simply being downloaded is insufficient to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Rlendog (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knoxfield Primary School[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dahliarose (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zero refs, so no indication in the article of notability. Non-notable, now defunct (merged; so it is not likely to generate much in the way of new news), primary school that gnews never heard of and gbooks has only a solitary passing snippet mention of. Was PRODed, but PROD was removed. Already mentioned in the article re the school it merged into, so nothing to merge even if it were referenced. Open to redirect, however (as usual), to the location already mentioned. Epeefleche (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect per nominator and Milowent. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 03:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carrington_Primary_School#Education.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article's in a gots-to-go situation Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per standard practice for all but the most exceptional primary schools. Milowent seems to have correctly identified the target above. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom.Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhard Scharnagl[edit]

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

Article about Reinhard Scharnagl largely written by User:Scharnagl, and User:Scharnagl has more or less the same text (but in German) on his German use page (de:User:Scharnagl), implying that the article was written by the person himself. Looks like self-promotion and the person might not be notable. Only one source listed and that source is written by the person himself. I don't understand all of the text, but it seems that the page was deleted from the article namespace on German Wikipedia because of self-promotion and lack of notability: de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/29. November 2005#Reinhard Scharnagl (Gelöscht) Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the 2005 de discussion. Does not meet WP:GNG. (there is a german review of his book [1] on a german chess site, but I don't think that's sufficient.)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just not seeing (or finding) any evidence of notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons of the nominator. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:RS. Obviously just a non-notable guy writing an article about himself. WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, etc.Qworty (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:AUTHOR is satisfied if "2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." (See below re Chess960 numbering scheme.)

• WP:BIO (WP:Notability (people)) and WP:N are both re notability. Is Schanagl's Chess960 numbering scheme (see below) not "worthy of notice" that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."?

• WP:RS (See below articles at ChessBase.com and Chess Variants Pages.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Capablanca Random Chess, he did what Fischer (and others) did for chess and applied it to Capablanca chess. That took less than 1 minute of thought. As for as the chess960 numbering scheme, any math undergraduate could come up with something like that in 10 minutes, in my opinion. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what Christian Freeling, an established game inventor, said about creating Dameo, a game he believes and advocates as more deserving as the basic competitive "checkers" game, to replace International draughts: "That is why Dameo happened, quite unintentionally. Its rules fell into place in less than a minute." Abstract Games (Summer 2002), p. 10. Also, his game Hexdame, was a straightforward and literal translation of International draughts rules, from the 10x10 board and onto a hex board. (How much time did that inspiration consume? Probably less than one second. Yet the game is a place for draughts to go to escape what the inventor predicts to be the death of competetive International draughts due to high incident of draws and played-out positions.) It is easy to say something was easy that anybody could have done, when there is advantage of hindsight and a rear-view mirror. Is a game more notable simply because the inventor sweated over it over a longer period of time? I don't think wall-clock time or sweat-equity are reliable gauges to reject notability. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question – Doesn't this achievement alone render at least one but significant slice of notability (from Chess960 numbering scheme)?: "This mapping of starting arrays and numbers stems from Reinhard Scharnagl and is now used worldwide for Chess960." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Another achievement to consider lending notability (from Capablanca random chess): winner, game invention contest, The Chess Variant Pages (2005).

• And this 5/5/2005 Chessbase.com article references Scharnagl and his program Smirf: Chess960 Computer World Champtionship.

• The de WP decision is the de decision, it shouldn't weigh in on the en WP decision, which should be objective and independent (until such time WP is all-world consensus). Because de WP is German and Scharnagl is German too, it is still individual person(s) rendering assessment re notability (and/or whatever) at de. Why can't the en assessment be *better than* the de assessment? (And in the event of Keep at en, is it impossible that the editors(s) at de would reconsider? [And why not?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (One more thing.) If it concerns !voters that the current article is majorly written by the subject and is thus NPOV, I promise to rewrite it NPOV if the article is Kept! Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no agreement that the subject is of borderline notability, and his deletion request, Ticket:2012013010003568, is not compelling because it does not tell us what is wrong with the article or why it should be deleted. Sandstein 06:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amer Iqbal[edit]

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

At the best borderline notability, subject has requested that his page be deleted via OTRS ticket 2012013010003568 Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no good sourcing, and per request of subject (living person)--MLKLewis (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at request of subject despite excellent sourcing. Google scholar gives cites 318, 107, 86, 82 etc, with an h-index of 19. For most areas of physics this would lead to a pass of WP:Prof#1. However in the area that the subject works in, fundamental physics, citation rates tend to be high (for example a Google Scholar search for Michael Duff (physicist) (as M J Duff) returns cites of 776, 609, 384, 336, 328...etc. and a search for Lee Smolin gives cites of 771, 712, 544, 514, 468, 434 ...etc. Therefore notability could perhaps be considered to be borderline and there can be no harm in acceding to the request of the subject to delete. It may be that more people are coming to perceive Wikipedia as a tacky area of the web that they would rather not be associated with. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The citation rate is sufficient in any science, and notability is not borderline. I do not know why the subject is modest, but it would be a strange encyclopedia if we left out the i modest people at a given level and included the others. This would destroy NPOV--giving the right to people lets them in essence dictate the contents of the article, not that I think this subject has done so. The reason the problem is there is that if the inclusion would really be disproportionate in a given case, we have a way to make an exception, and I've voted and even closed that way when necessary. If there is some special reason why it's necessary, please let me know privately off wiki. The ticket isn't in the part of OTRS I work in. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I comment that the argument that someone with a great many citations is not very notable, because there are people with higher citations yet, is in effect an argument that notability = famous. That's not the guideline--such a rule would give a very abridged Wikipedia, DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:notability is borderline combined with the fact that the subject want's the article deleted. North8000 (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To me the citation counts are enough for WP:PROF, despite being on the low side compared to the average for Category:String theorists. But more than cite counts (which can mean many things, and are hard to calibrate from one field to another) I prefer considerations of whether we can find multiple specific important research contributions that can be attributed to the subject. In Iqbal's case there is M-theory#Mysterious duality and some work on crystal melting in Topological string theory. (We also cite him in Del Pezzo surface but in that one I have no clear statement that he made an important contribution to the subject.) That seems like enough to convince me that he has indeed made an impact as criterion #C1 asks. I don't give a lot of weight to requests from the subject, especially in this case where we're not even given a reason for the request. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly a notable scholar in M theory (what is popularly known as 'string" theory). I could not locate that ticket. What does the subject want redacted? If it's harmless, I see no problem. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know why you couldn't locate it, I just checked and the ticket number is correct. He states he isn't a public figure and has the right not to have an article. He complained that there was a pdf uploaded without permission, which was true and I removed it. He also says some of the information isn't accurate and I've asked him (just now) to be specific. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Bearian, it's in the quality queue (which desperately needs more eyes) so if you don't have access to that you won't be able to see it. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, folks. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ConsumerBase LLC[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unremarkable company. Sources seem to be almost all press releases or newspaper republications of press releases. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let us try searching for sources using the termConsumerBase. ConsumerBase LLC is the company name, but it is widely known as ConsumerBase not as ConsumerBase LLC. I know that the article was deleted four years ago, but it is 2012. I am sure we can find notable sources to prove this articles notability. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)--Renzoy16 | Contact Me 14:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is from the creator and sole contributor to the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another provider of multi-channel direct marketing services with a specialty in postal, email, and telephone solutions advertising on Wikipedia. Spam promoting a spammer. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, is PRweb.com's news articles not notable?--Renzoy16 | Contact Me 11:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PRweb is, like the name says, an aggregation of public relations material. Pretty much nothing there is going to be a truly independent source. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entirely sourced from the company's own press releases issued via PRweb, plus a listing by Bloomsberg BW. No in-depth, reliable, independent sources, fails notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semion (band)[edit]

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

This band appears to be non-notable. I can't find substantial RS coverage in gnews and gbooks. Tagged for notability for over a year. Created by a one-edit-only-ever SPA.Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The band are on hiatus presently but a new album is part-recorded the band page should remain open as it is related to Lowgold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowgold), have recorded at Toe Rag Studio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_Rag_Studios) and has recorded material available at Amazon and iTunes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1105 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't consider a band notable, for example because they have material for sale on Amazon or iTunes.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 00:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indicaiton of wp:notability, no rerferences. Nothing even claimed that would indicate wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) B music ian 02:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Navy Mutual Aid Association[edit]

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

This article has had three years in which to improve, and it still has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, without prejudice if someone comes up with sources. I'm on the fence here, on the one hand, this is a 130 year old organization that has a very credible claim for significance with more than 100,000 members/customers. On the other hand, I did quite a bit of research yesterday wanting to address the PROD, and couldn't find anything of substance to address the PROD reason. Sure, several articles on Navy Times, but they are more like "don't forget to register" type of things. Then several other press releases on other sites, and a few business profiles, Forbes, Businessweek, etc. I was surprised that the various "official" biographies of Richard W. Mies do not mention his role in this organization, suggesting a lack of importance. I would have to agree with the nominator that as it looks, this article cannot meet WP:V based on reliable, third-party sources. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Richard W. Mies bio mentions it. (about 3/5 down page, search (space)Mies). Dru of Id (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A longstanding well-known aspect of US military culture. This organization, and its counterpart the Army and Air Force Mutual Aid Association, are legitimately historical organizations. GNews has 100+ hits going back to 1887, GBooks shows about 3,000 hits. There are a lot of paywalls in the way, but one could start with this succinct explanation of the association's roots and purpose, from a 1921 issue of the United States Naval Medical Bulletin.[2] (On the other hand, I do think that both articles could stand some winnowing: we don't need the list of all the different policies they sell.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments appear to be along the lines of WP:NOBLE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Storng keep the obvious source is http://www dot navymutual dot org which can't be put into hte article because the wiki complains spuriously about spam for some reason.Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While verifiable, that source is not independent of the subject. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scale and long history indicate clear ability to meet wp:notability. Based on scale and long history, failure to have an article on this in wikipedia would be a gap/shortcoming. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable by Google Books in many books: Search books. The article was initially crippled when the original author expanded it with several "copyvio" paragraphs, so naturally, it was severely gutted back to a hollow stub, which might have demoralized the early editors to steer clear of re-expanding the text. However, the Navy Mutual Aid Association has been well-known among U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard families for over 50 years now, long after World War II. I spent the hour adding 3 footnote sources to the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burt Goldman[edit]

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

Meet Burt Goldman. He's a living author who believes he can teach you through the power of audiobooks the magical skill of "quantum jumping", which allows you to transfer your consciousness to "alternate universes to meet and learn from these alternate versions of yourself"... for only $97. The references in the article aren't reliable, and a search for independent reliable sources turned up nothing. Lots of promotional websites obviously set up to create a lot of buzz, SEO or otherwise, for Goldman, but the only third-party reliable sources I could find had at best passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG and causes anyone who has read WP:FRINGE to wince. Even if this isn't fringespam, the lack of independent sources raises WP:BLP concerns. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:SPAM, etc. Qworty (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I tried to find sources for the article when I came across it earlier, especially from Google Books, but found nothing usable. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was early close and delete: article withdrawn by article creator, all links to this now changed to link to the correct article -- The Anome (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tuyau[edit]

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

This sounds really cool, and I'd like it to exist, but I can't find any sources to back it up. The Anome (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Pburka (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have since found that the correct term is Trompe, and this whole article was an error on my part. Ray Van De Walker 07:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETED. Osarius Talk 21:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I.W.L.G.N.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT - Not for something made up one day. Osarius Talk 19:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if not speedy delete. This is pretty much the epitome of WP:NOT in that it's not for something thought up one day and that it's full of original research. There's nothing to show notability and to be honest, there's not even an original idea here. Peer pressure has always influenced dieting, whether for better or worse. You can't really slap a name on it and treat it like it's an original idea, but I digress.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Speedy Delete as A7. Clearly violates WP:MADEUP. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joel McDonald[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Links are for imdb and an anime encyclopedia, filmography is mainly redlinks. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just now noticed it was deleted at AFD before. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Updating the Article as fast as I can need to take a little break should finish tonight...Sbiggy888

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed most of the links including going through the various pages existing in Wikipedia to link to Joels page. He is a very popular voice actor/director and I think he deserves to have his page finished. This deletion message was put up only about 5 minutes after I started working on his page. I have sourced out the only sites that I can find that have any info on Joel I don't see why this isn't good enough... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbiggy888 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons I mentioned last item. The person clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER. This should've been posted at deletion review instead of just recreating it though. Dream Focus 01:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - G4. Already discussed and consensus reached at previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joel_McDonald. Nothing has changed. If someone disagrees with the original AfD then it should go to deletion review. But the current article should be speedied under G4. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Delete - Recreation of content previously deleted at AfD. The correct procedure is for an appeal to Deletion Review or for a rewrite with sourcing. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that the article fails to establish notability via multiple, independent, reliable sources. If (when) such sources come to exist the article can be recreated, based on them. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on FX 4[edit]

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

The very reason WP:CRYSTALBALL exists. From the article While not officially announced by the organization, it is expected to take place on June 22, 2012 at a yet to be announced venue in Atlantic City, New Jersey., so it is only parroting speculation from a single source. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would also include UFC 148, which is the exact same type of article. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: event has been confirmed by the organization, muliple reputable sources have confirmed.Ppt1973 (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The article SAYS it hasn't, and you wrote the article. There is no link to such, and that wouldn't pass notability even with. It isn't required to create an article on an event before it becomes notable, or before it is even announced. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dennis Brown Did you bother reading the source provided, confirming the event?Ppt1973 (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Honestly, I didn't read all the comments on that forum you posted as a source. Did you mean the part where it said The UFC has yet to announce fights or specific venue information for any of the three newly confirmed fight cards.' or are you talking about down in the user comments? I was too busy reading the actual article as written here on Wikipedia, which is the issue at hand. And how exactly does this establish notability. After all, notability is why we are here, any thing else is superfluous. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of wp:notability, hasn't happened. North8000 (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete It appears the UFC on FX 3 event was changed into UFC on Fuel TV 3, it is very likely that this event could become the new UFC on FX 3, I am not sure though, I think there needs to be more sourced material about what will become of this event and we can revive this wiki page, but for now I'm all for deleting it. Glock17gen4 (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should wait for a UFC on FX 3 announcement before we announce UFC on FX 4. JadeSnake (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No need to delete it, its meets GNG, and beside, we all know that a UFC on FX 4 will happen so better off leaving it as it is

Existing isn't a criteria, notability by being covered by reliable sources is. Which part of the WP:GNG does it pass? Multiple reliable sources? I don't see them, I just see a forum. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry Dcvm but there's a clear consensus to delete here. However, I can restore this to your userspace if you wish. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CreepTD[edit]

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

Barely escapes CSD for advert. References offer no significant coverage, notability is not firmly established. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search brought up nothing that could be used as an independent and reliable source. There's nothing out there to show notability or to even back up the claims in the article. I didn't even really see that many forums talking about it either, which contradicts the article's claims of having a lot of popularity in the "tower game" niche.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
You are right, compared to other games in bigger niches CreepTD is not that well known. Tower defense is still a rather small sub-genre of strategy gaming commonly played solo (see Bloons, Flash Element TD etc.). However, this game is the broadest known and still played multiplayer tower defense game of these days and in my oppinion should be included besides of Bloons and others that clearly differenciate from this one in not being multiplayer nor providing an equally complete set of common game modes that also might be in interest for Wikipedia readers in general if they are interested in non-ancient implementations of these. These things may - or may not - make it a noteworthy candidate for people who like to take a deeper look into the tower defense genre itself. I'd of course extend the article with more detailed information if it does not get deleted. Didn't do this already because I have been unsure also if the game is a considerable candidate for other WP editors, too.Dcvm (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just wish you had links to publications that are actually talking about the game itself, reviews, interviews, stuff like that. That is the only reason I brought it here, no independent coverage in any media. To me, the best outcome of an AFD is if someone digs up a slew of good links that we just couldn't find before, adds them, then I withdraw. I'm not "pro deletion", just "pro sourcing". If you can find some actual coverage, by all means, tell us. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the problems with the links that you've provided is that none of the links are usable as reliable sources to show notability. They're mostly blogs or other things that cannot show notability. They do show that the game exists and that somewhere someone is talking about it, but it's not the type of coverage that is considered to be independent and reliable secondary sources. When you get down to it, only 1% of anything put out about a person, place, or thing will be usable to count towards notability. None of the links shown are usable per WP:RS. Even if the game was widely talked about and had millions of ghits, you still need independent secondary sources from trusted sources to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I see. To make this sure for me: This also means that it is not enough (for a tower defense game e.g. "the" multiplayer tower defense game of today) to be mentioned at the most popular (specialized) tower defense portals around and also be mentioned in general press (however, this is not a "huge" press site but it is an independent one)? Doesn't it count that, if you try to find a more popular mp td still played, there is none? Doesn't it count that it has been used for a long time as a prime example in the german WP's "Tower Defense" article? As far as I am concerned, these are exactly the independent / relevant sources / criteria you request. Please let me know if I got something wrong on this.Dcvm (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a bunch of coverage in early days that I am aware of. Some recently. Maybe another point of interest: The game is better known in germany (thats why the coverage is mostly written in german) than in the US or similar because it used to be a project of german students and had been available in german solely for a while. Because of this it initialy spreaded in germany but is available in a variety of languages nowadays. Don't know if this is a valid point, but it has also been a prime example in the german Tower Defense article for a long time (previously named CreepSmash as noted).Dcvm (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no real enclyclopedic content to be lost if it were to be deleted. The article looks like just a self-description of the game by whoever made it or is selling it. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, more detailed content on the points that have already been prepared would be the first thing to add. However I don't like the idea of the article being deleted for another reason than its contents (that's what I'm trying to make clear for myself) after I invested that much time into it. That's usually the way the german WP works: Someone invests much time and things will be quick-deleted without further notice. For me the article contains just enough information about the game to figure out if it'd be relevant enough for WP or not at this point. Btw: Just because someone, who is somewhat deeper into the topic, created the article, it should not be deleted in general. This is not an advertisement and I am fully aware of WP not being an advertising plattform. I just like the game and in my oppinion it should be included for the reasons noted above.Dcvm (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just added some more content, especially some that is quite unique for CreepTD and therefore defines the game's concept. Hope this helps to dissipate some doubts.Dcvm (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No basis for deletion proposed. Article appears to be sourced and cited, and not a stub. No reason to delete --ProfPolySci45 (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC) (see)[reply]

The basis for deletion is already given. That isn't how we do things. If you can point to the criteria that it passes, or explain how it passes WP:GNG, then please do. Being sourced isn't enough, they have to be reliable sources not just links to lists. This isn't a vote, it is a discussion. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:GNG, I'll give it a try (however, you are of course deeper into this topic): "Significant coverage" is not super-extensive but passed, the subject is addressed by the given sources and no original research is needed to extract the content (if I got the OR point right). "Reliable sources" are passed (german WP, independant press, more than well ratings on independent td portals). "Secondary sources" are passed by the variety of tower defense portals and the "reliable sources" mentioned. "Independent of the subject" is passed by the coverage I provided earlier (on the page itself and here9, however not all of the mentioned sources on this discussion page are noteworthy inside the article itself because there is better and more recent information available on non-independent sources like the original website (current game modes for example). In my oppinion it wouldn't make much sense to put something else than the current state there, even it is not documented independently (most software manuals aren't) but can be easily confirmed by every player without an exception. Anything "Presumed" is of course up to you.Dcvm (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any news on this? WDYT? Dennis? I also tried to extend the context around the game genre itself with an article about tower wars that was still missing. Dcvm (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reply Coverage needs to be "significant coverage" and NOT just a passing mention. I think you misunderstood that point. And you make it harder to check the sources when they have stuff like Facebook, primary sources (many times....), and other wikis. NONE of those can be used to establish notability. They *might* sometimes be useful to provide facts, but they don't show it is notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Dennis. The sources I provided are those that I am aware of as of today and in my oppinion they are only just enough to establish notability. In case of the game and the tower wars (which is basically tower defense multiplayer) genre itself I also think that a too restrictive view is not a best practice because it's just a irrefutable fact that CreepTD is an excelent, if not "the" example of multiplayer tower defense and furthermore nearly the only such game played as of today (someone can easily confirm this via a look at Youtube and as mentioned on Facebook), even if it's not sourced via CNN or Times but by other, less commonly known but independent sources. It's right that it's not a broadly known game and a WP entry will not change this, but its gameplay is quite unique among the genre and it is like I already said somewhat the only current example for this sub-type of games, so it should really be considered a notable addition in case of doubt. There is definitively something to learn from the article and I am, as I hope you have noticed, really trying to make it even more informative for someone who wants to get a deeper knowlege about tower defense, especially in a multiplayer environment. Dcvm (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough coverage in reliable sources. No coverage in any of the main video game type websites. (Gamespot, IGN, Eurogamer, or even more more obscure sites like Siliconera.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dion Global Solutions Limited[edit]

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

Another company "offering solutions and services", via WP:B2B, refs are typical announcements but nothing that indicates actual notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listed authorities are press releases announcing routine deals. I find no better. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7. Gigs (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Band dublin[edit]

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

Essay on not notable topic. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no comments were posted that supported the nomination. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friends (Band, Brooklyn)[edit]

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

~~Too soon. Not notable. One decent source, but even a broke watch is right twice a day. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Obvious keep. Loads of coverage, sold out UK tour, live session on BBC Radio 1, BBC Sound of 2012 finalist.[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. --Michig (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Michig; subject easily meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Recommend changing article name to Friends (American band) per WP:NCM. Gongshow ^Talk 20:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets our N guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG based on review of nytimes, nypress, and guardian articles alone.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Withdrawn Sourcing has been added. Not the easiest name to search, swimming through ghits, but I still came up short on wp:before with this one. I recommend renaming the article, but that is an issue for the talk page. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am not including Hawaii High School Athletic Association and Interscholastic League of Honolulu as they were added to late in the debate to have had proper consideration. JohnCD (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Interscholastic League of Honolulu Football Season[edit]

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

This article seems to be unsourced and unnotable and therefore I hereby propose it for deletion. Go Phightins! (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: The article remains unsourced because it currently documents a future football season. As for notability, the Interscholastic League of Honolulu is one of the oldest sports leagues in the nation (even precedes the NFHS). Football teams in the ILH consistently rank in the top 500 in the nation. Notable members of the ILH include Punahou School (largest independent school in the United States), Kamehameha Schools-Kapalama Campus (largest endowment of any secondary school in the United States), Iolani School (4th largest independent school in the United State), and St. Louis School (one of the most successful football programs in the nation). Furthermore because Hawaii lacks any professional sports teams, high school sports (especially football) are very popular among the populace. The ILH football season (and HHSAA football season as a whole) has a following of hundreds of thousands both on Oahu and on the neighbor islands.--Ctoshw (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ADDITIONAL COMMENT: I've thought about combining this with the OIA football season or even documenting the entire HHSAA football season as a whole. However, the OIA season alone is a fairly large page. A combined OIA-ILH/HHSAA page would be simply too large to navigate.--Ctoshw (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we just take your word that all info. is accurate and the subject is in fact notable even though you haven't provided a single reference, external link, or anything else that shows the importance of the subject. That makes a ton of sense. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Punahou School Citation. KS-Kapalama Endowment Citation. The Iolani citation can be found on the Iolani School website under "Did You Know?" Access is denied unless you are a member of the school. All of the above information can also be found in each schools respective wiki. According to the 2011-2012 football season Freeman football rankngs, Punahou ended ranked #251 nationally^[1], Kamehameha finished ranked #490^[2]. In 2010-2011, St. Louis finished #122^[3], in 2009-2010 Kamehameha finished #74^[4], Iolani ranked #503^[5], and so on. Using this same source, in the years the schools didn't rank in the top 100, they WERE in the top 1000. And as for references in the article itself, once the season starts and more information becomes available for the season itself, then the information will be referenced.--Ctoshw (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, appears to violate original research and notability standards as well as the crystal ball argument. High school football seasons are normally not notable and this does not appear to be an exception. Nice enthusiasm on the part of the article creator or creators! Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Here is a nice article I found from USA Today explaining how football (especially high school football) is important in Hawaiian culture. [13]--Ctoshw (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I'm sure it is important to local culture. It still does not meet the notability standards for inclusion in this encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note it appears there may be a procedural issue with this nomination--the standard AFD header is not appearing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed thanks whoever fixed it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Paul McDonald mentioned, high school football seasons are not normally notable, and with no sources, there's no reason to think this one will be. cmadler (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - High school football seasons aren't often notable, particularly ones that haven't happened yet. —SW— ^comment 22:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not being notable. While we're at it, can we also include Hawaii High School Athletic Association and Interscholastic League of Honolulu in this debate as well? Neither of those articles are sourced, and I feel any article listed here SHOULD have sources to establish notabilty. 98.28.12.216 (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I disagree with you on deleting the HHSAA article. Deletion of the HHSAA article would mean all other state wide high school athletic associations would have there own wiki except for Hawaii. If this is the case, then deletion of Alabama High School Athletic Association, Alaska School Activities Association, Arizona Interscholastic Association, District of Columbia Interscholastic Athletic Association, and all other similar articles should occur. As for the ILH, it is one of the oldest prep athletic conferences in the nation (founded 1909).--Ctoshw (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response A baseball player who played in the 1920s isn't necessarily more notable than one who plays currently simply because he's older. That's extremely flawed logic. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's outside the realm of this AFD, but I want to throw in my thoughts: I do not think the HHSAA article should be deleted and instead should be improved. It seems to be a noteworthy organization. The ILH seems to me to be simply a high school league of a few teams and I don't see any reason it should be notable. However, I don't think either article should be deleted because of THIS afd.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arid Uka[edit]

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

This article fails WP:BLP1E. The subject is only notable as the perpetrator of the 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting, and unlikely to become notable for anything else. This article, which was created today, essentially duplicates the content of the article about the shooting, which also makes it a content fork. Sandstein 17:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. First you are copying the content from my article to fill out the article about the 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting and then you are nominating mine to get deleted as it "duplicates the content" you just copied. Very funny. Besides, your article is still incomplete and in several matters simply wrong. So when do you start to act like a WP user who tries to become Wikipedia a trustable resource? Several other articles referring to this assassin are already linked to his article and it is a direct translation to the original article about this guy I posted today in the German WP. I am willing to help with your article due to German law system which you got wrong as soon as this ridiculous matter is solved.ArcCan 18:46, 10 February 2012 (CET)

I did not copy any content you wrote. I could hardly have done so, as you created the article about Uka today, by changing it from a redirect, while the article concerning the shooting has already been in existence since March 2011. This can be verified by looking at the history of the article about Uka and about the shooting. If you believe the article about the shooting is deficient, per WP:CFORK, you should attempt to improve it instead of writing another article about the same subject matter. Sandstein 20:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 2011 Franfurt Airport shooting per BLP1E. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2011 Franfurt Airport shooting per BLP1E. It's a good article, but it does make sense to merge the two into one longer article. Gaijin Ninja (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article was completed with his personal background. He is the guy who made the first "successful" assassination attempt in Germany of Islamist background, so he is definitely relevant as a person, sadly. With his name the article and incident internationally can be found easily whereas the incident's article is not that easy to find. (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2012 (CET)
Keep - I have to agree with ArcCan, Passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with ArcCan. Wide coverage, both in international scope and number or top-level RSs. Passes WP:GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 'Nuff said.--Galassi (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The user who created this is obviously only here to play games. I've deleted the article and blocked them. No prejudice against re-creation by someone actually acting in good faith and not just playing around. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Packet Corned Beef[edit]

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

No evidence that this product meets notability criteria for inclusion; searches for sources turned up the spice packet that comes in packaged corned beef. Borderline A10 with corned beef. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Very good and informative article. Must be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bravo Plantation (talk • contribs)
Good and informative? It's three sentences telling you that you can eat it on a sandwich. Unable to verify its notability as a stand alone product packaging system using reliable sources, Delete. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed a personal attack that had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not this article should be deleted, in accordance with WP:TPG. All further comments of such a nature will be similarly removed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very short unsourced stub, it is factually inaccurate and WP:OR. Maybe the author is confusing it with something else? I had a quick look on the Asda and Tesco websites too, but couldn't see the product listed. Sionk (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, here is a link - http://groceries.asda.com/asda-estore/search/searchcontainer.jsp?trailSize=1&searchString=Corned+Beef&domainName=Products&headerVersion=v1&_requestid=38843 Bravo Plantation (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only problem is that it doesn't really matter if the item actually exists or not. What matters is that you can prove that the food item is notable enough to warrant its own entry. That it exists and is packaged differently than other corned beef products and sliced does not in itself show any sort of notability. To be honest, it's very hard to show notability for the different formats/packaging of foods and that's because they lack reliable sources. Sliced bread is one of the very few I'm aware of on Wikipedia and I encourage you to check the page out. The type of sources at the bottom are what you'd need to show notability for this page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic Hockey League[edit]

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

I have not been able to find a single trace of this hockey league, and am wondering whether it actually exists. The article's creator has created at least two other articles which were blatant hoaxes. It is also rather difficult to find any verification for the existence of the teams which are supposedly competing in the league. And finally, the "references" are obviously nonsensical; if the books in question exist at all they are clearly irrelevant to the subject. bonadea contributions talk 16:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's an article of Baltic League (ice hockey). Maybe it's alive again or something like that. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's definitely possible. A league for teams from the Baltic states is not at all an unlikely thing -- it's just that I'm unable to find any sign of its existence. But I would be more than happy to be proven wrong! --bonadea contributions talk 18:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its a hoax as none of the things its mentioning exist. -DJSasso (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the references is over 100 years old, another is almost 50 years old. I've read a copy of Trail of the Stanley Cup and don't remember much about the Baltic states in it. As DJ says, it's a hoax. Patken4 (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found references to an existence of an amateur hockey league in Latvia called the Baltic Beaster Hockey League see here and even a team that plays in it. I have no grasp of Latvian though and am doubtful that an article could be made out of the two brief game reports that would pass GNG. But most definitely that league is not the one purported to exist in this article, and thus my vote is for delete. Ravendrop 01:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 15:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:HOAX and WP:BULLSHIT. I own two of the references, which needless to say contain nothing about this so-called league, alleged to be created after their publication dates. A glance at the article's creator reveals that this is at least the third hoax article he's created in a few weeks, which so far has comprised his sole Wikipedia activity, and sanction as a vandalism-only account should be considered. Ravenswing 16:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a hoax. I've found nothing on the net about a new Baltic League. --Hockeyben (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 15:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether or not it is a hoax, I can't find RS support of it passing our notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. Total absence of any non-WP sources when searching makes this a clear G3. JohnCD (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DropZERO Games[edit]

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

Delete To quote User:Tokyogirl79 from the SnakeBit3 discussion: "They [DropZERO Games and DropZERO Florida] were added by the same user and lacks sources to show how they're notable. It's very, VERY obvious that the editor is a single purpose account that is only here to add promotional articles. They might not be aware of the rules, but it's pretty clear what their intentions are." Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of its relation to the article in discussion:

Speedy delete as blatant hoax. ZERO non-Wikipedia hits for "DropZERO Games", which wouldn't happen for a real video game studio, even a very small one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability at all and the only things that come up for the company are the Wikipedia pages and a deleted game page here on Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KooL CrAzE[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NMUSIC. Its only references are iTunes and MySpace sites. A Google news search produces no hits. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In the words of the article itself, the subject is "an up and coming American rapper, songwriter, producer, and entrepreneur." The only coverage I could find about him is this local coverage. It's a nice meaty piece about him, but one article in a local paper is insufficient to establish notability. No prejudice to recreation when he transitions from up and coming to arrived and established with the requisite sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sienna Biotec[edit]

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

Small Indian biochemical firm; the article previously claimed to be partnered with Siena Biotech (an Italian firm) and GlaxoSmithKline, but these claims seem to have been either misleading or entirely unsupported by the sources. The one remaining claim of involvement with a major partner is sourced to a press release from the company, which bears an astonishing similarity to this press release from the other Siena Biotech, here, with the names changed; the supposed partner, Omega, didn't issue a press release on their own site, and so I have real doubts about this claim.

If these claims are removed, we have a relatively small firm (revenues of 82M Rs. ~ 1M GPB, 1.5M USD) with no external sources provided to show its importance. The notability guidelines explicitly require significant coverage in secondary sources, and that simply isn't provided here. I've made some efforts to find any, but it's almost impossible to find anything about the firm that doesn't turn out to be discussing the Italian company. Shimgray | talk | 16:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the one who removed the false claim. It does appear that this company is attempting to make it appear that it is more important than it is. The name similarity with a bigger company is also suspicious. I can't find any sources to show notability. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shimgray | talk | 19:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shimgray | talk | 19:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shimgray | talk | 19:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company looks like geographically limited to India with Name, The claim for International association with GSK is fairly possible, looking from techinical point of view, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease and oncology are quite complex diseases and the possible drugs are yet not there in Market. Simillarly Gabapentin and Pregabalin looks like in the International patient list of new pharmaceuticals Drug. However more expert openion is required on this subject.Whileships savedhead (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user has been confirmed as a sock of the article's creator, User:X*biologist. Peacock (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article requires lot of work to meet wikipedia standards, but recent activities with Omega Pharma is contradicting, Similar name also looks like a problem. The News link [[14]] clears some confusion, however I am giving it benefit of doubt, not very sure, I have added the same reference to the article main space.X*chemistry nerd (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user has been confirmed as a sock of the article's creator, User:X*biologist. Peacock (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That press release (issued by the company) is an almost verbatim copy of this press release (PDF), with the partner changed to Omega and the quote sourced to someone at Sienna Biotec India - it still refers to "Verona", even! It's either a deliberate attempt to mislead, or an incredibly improbable coincidence. Note that Omega, the claimed partner, has not issued any such release. Shimgray | talk | 23:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. Press releases are not reliable sources for establishing notability, and are only useful for verifying claims by a company. -- Whpq (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although occasionally mentioned in the news, this company seems to fail WP:CORP because there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Peacock (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first reference says that the company is a "joint Indian venture of Siena Biotech S.p.A." (the Italian company), but the Italian company's website says nothing about it. This one's website looks impressive but almost everywhere you go on it (Company history, Mission, Values, Board of Diretors, Corporate Governance... ) you get the same page, this one, and everything after the first paragraph has been copied from here. What with all the sockpuppetry, the whole thing looks extremely fishy, and we should have nothing to do with it. JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Has already been CSDed by User:Smartse. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

80s Classic[edit]

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

DICDEF, NEO, not an accepted term solely for movies, notability of the term as a stand alone concept not established. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, the title is ambiguous and the topic is already well developed under 1980s in film. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, this is a socially relevant article. Bravo Plantation (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With no sources, this is WP:OR. With sources, it is redundant to 1980s in film and, considering the "classic" title, List of films considered the best. matt (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

((db-a10)) is in my opinion applicable here, the duplicated article is 1980s in film. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Duplicate information as 1980s in film. The examples posted by the OP in this article are pure POV. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Go on, delete it then. I was just trying to make a socially relevant article but it looks like you lot have already made your mind up without giving it a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bravo Plantation (talk • contribs) 10 February 2012
- Actually, it is that your article was already created, yours would have been a duplicate. See 1980s in film Dennis Brown (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I don't give a rats ass. Talk to the hand girl-friend. Bravo Plantation (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Daniel Zacharias[edit]

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

Having your name listed in the credits isn't the same as passing WP:N. Lack of significant coverage from reliable sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - No coverage in reliable sources. No indication of significant awards. And article seems to rely a lot on name-dropping. -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International investment company[edit]

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

Soon, but still via WP:B2B rationale, this isn't notable. Spamvertising. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant advertising. It's already been speedied twice in the last 12 hours. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So salting is in order? Dennis Brown (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kingfisher Calendar. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kingfisher calendar model hunt[edit]

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

Merge to Kingfisher Calendar. Sources used demonstrate no significant coverage of this show/competition (many don't even mention it) and, as you can see, merging this stub adds only two lines of text and a small table. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 15:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pray, could anyone quote the exact reason for proposing the article for deletion per WP:DP? Isn't there a way to discuss mergers??? I would like to see a discussion here on the reasons for deleting the said article. And is it fair to first remove reliable and verficable sources from an article, and then add citation needed tags? What kind of game is this? Tinpisa (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "Kingfisher calendar model hunt" yeilds 88,200 results on google web search and 4620 results on google images.Tinpisa (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make it so number one. – This could have been handled with ((MergeFrom)) and ((MergeTo)) templates, or WP:BEBOLD. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is notable on its own. The article could be expanded; then more sources could be added. The article is based on reliable, published sources. The number of sources quoted in an article should be sufficient to verify facts on the article. For this short article, the sources are sufficient. Inserting 100 sources of the same nature to verify the same fact is meaningless. However, for the sceptics, I can list any number of sources: 1,2,3,4, 5,6, 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 etc. etc. --Tinpisa (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rasheed bin Mohammad Altokhi[edit]

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

Writer of questionable notability. No independent reliable references. Google search on "Rasheed bin Mohammad Altokhi" shows only 46 results, none from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

several websites about this person and the institution are not enough? how many websites should be? why are they not reliable? الوقائع الدولية

Delete I googled all of the listed books and got nothing on any of them except this Wikipedia article. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

of course you won't find any of them because first they are not published on web, and second all of those books were published in Arabic language & that's merely the translation for titles.. for example: the first book of UAE it's called in Arabic "دولة الامارات العربية المتحدة : التاريخ والتطور" and here a copy of it in th public library of Jordan university : http://hip.jopuls.org.jo/c/portal/layout?p_l_id=PUB.1010.1&p_p_id=search_WAR_fusion&p_p_action=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_pos=0&p_p_col_count=2&_search_WAR_fusion_action=navigate&_search_WAR_fusion_navigationData=search~%3D1~!TL~!1~!%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A9+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A9+%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A9+%3A+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AE+%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B7%D9%88%D8%B1%2F same thing for the rest of books, this is just a translation for the titles, I think I should add a notice about this in the article.الوقائع الدولية

I'm afraid you have missed the point. The idea is not that we need to find copies of the books published on the internet, but that we need to find substantial material written about them. That does not have to be on the internet either, but usually a notable contemporary author of notable books would be mentioned somewhere on the internet other than Wikipedia. However, I have also searched for the Arabic title that you have quoted. I got all of five hits: three blogs, a listing in a catalogue search page, and a mirror of Wikipedia's articles for deletion log, showing this page. It therefore looks as though the issue of Arabic titles against English translated titles is not relevant: whichever we search for, we don't find anything that indicates notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources exist. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

several websites about this person and the institution are not enough? how many websites should be? why are they not reliable?الوقائع الدولية

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the sources cited are either blogs or pages that seem to be affiliated to the subject of the article, or both. Two of them are by Rasheed bin Mohammad Altokhi, not about him, and the other two are actually two copies of the same text, so we have a total of one source about him, that one not being a third party source. Google searches produce nothing better. There is no sign of an independent reliable source anywhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:AUTHOR .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Those who have reviews the sources, including one editor who had previously opined "Delete" agree that they are sufficient to support notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McCulloch (priest)[edit]

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

Delete. Does not meet notability standards. Sounds like an admirable priest, but still, an ordinary one. Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of priests have done similar things. Student7 (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete? Per Student7. Also the three on-line references don't qualify as establishing wp:notability. The question mark is because the 4th reference is off line and the title looks more independent and I did not review it. North8000 (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should keep it temporarily, at least to attempt to verify the book with Wikipedia:Booksources. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support above for keep till verification. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find nothing in the article or in the sources cited that indicates notability. As said above, an admirable priest, but being admired is not the same as notability. Emeraude (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep ~~Per Student7.~~Changed vote per sources provided by Darkness Shines. Tradedia (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepInternational News Network Business Recorder politics.co.uk The Irish Catholic Agenzia Fides Katholiek Nieuwsblad The Catholic Weekly (AUS)The Nation The Southern Cross UCA News The News International ABC Darkness Shines (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources provided by Darkness Shines. Notability proven and verified. Mar4d (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The article contained no content other than two external links. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse Distribution License[edit]

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

Licenses, like all contracts, are not notable based on the contracts they secure. This license demonstrates no discussion of notability outside of this particular case. Shadowjams (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is borderline A1/A3. I will tag it for speedy under those criteria; if that is declined then I abstain. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. There is broad, but not universal, consensus that certain kinds of topics (e.g. villages and towns) are always notable, but there is less consensus as to what this means in terms of the GNG. Are such topics notable because multiple, independent, reliable sources are virtually certain to exist even if only off-line, or should our coverage of certain topics be comprehensive even in the absence of sources that meet the GNG definition of notability (While noting that verifiability is an irreducible criterion for inclusion)? In any event, this article meets the community standard as an accredited tertiary educational institution. The consensus below is that it is not a fraudulent "degree-mill" but a "real college" and that that is enough to justify retention. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dehradun Institute of Technology[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced for over two years. No indication of any notability Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 10. Snotbot t • c » 12:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Higher education institutions are inherently notable. The problem with this article is a lack of independent references (so tag it as unreferenced), though the Institute's own web site ought to be a source. Emeraude (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is "inherently notable", it all has to meet WP:GNG. Now for high schools and upwards we have a general assumption that such establishements will be notable, but that's still not beyond challenge. In this case we have no hard sourcing that the place exists as a real school or institute, just one self-published source. For an Indian educational establishment (with all the self-serving puffery, plagiarism and downright lying that implies) that's just not enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this institution doesn't exist then it is incapable of self-serving puffery, plagiarism and downright lying. Please try to make your arguments logically consistent. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By "exist" of course I mean "exist as an accredited educational institution", rather than just being someone with a website and a printer of degree certificates. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I find it difficult to reconcile those subjects which have inherent notability from the clear statements in Wikipedias notability guidelines. Why Colleges, schools, Bishops, Professors should all enjoy this automatic elevation to notability does not seem , to me at least, justifiable. This one in particular is neither referenced and is barely a stub. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand it for bishops - a bishop is an appointed candidate to a see, and that long-established see will be notable. There are similar aspects to some professorial chairs. However a "college" these days often means no more than a brass plate on the door and a dubious, if not downright fraudulent, self-appointed claim to now be a "college". Although I would even agree that all "real colleges" are notable (such a college has been made notable by its required recognition from its degree-awarding body), there are far too many "fake colleges" around to take a college's own word for its bona fides. We need, as per general WP requirement, some reliable 3rd party sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tertiary institutions are generally held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an AICTE-accredited college.[15] Phil Bridger (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A college with over 4,000 students. The long-standing precedent at AfD, in practice, is that all colleges are notable (save maybe very small or unaccredited institutions) if they are verifiable. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moscow University for the Humanities.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The remaining unsourced text currently fails wp:v, and could be deleted even during the pendency of this AfD. But we still would have a very small stub that meets our general practice of keeping most colleges that are verifiable as such.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Spencer-Britton[edit]

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

A simple Google search reveals no third-party sources, even when trying every possible name combination, thus failing Wikipedia:NOTABILITY. I've found no evidence that this person even existed. Ruby 2010/2013 05:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Repeated Ruby's search with same lack of results. No evidence of notability or existence. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even a hint online of Spencer-Britton's existence. Sionk (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches found nothing either. SPA editor appeared one day in May two years ago, created this stub, and vanished. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:V. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of existence. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DragonHearth[edit]

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

No evidence that this podcast is notable Bulwersator (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found nothing to show that this is notable. SL93 (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – After some searches, not finding coverage in third-party reliable sources. Mostly blogs, fansites, etc. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. henrik•talk 13:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Maxwell Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Local radio show no longer on the air. General lack of regional and/or national coverage outside of Cleveland radio market. If trimmed, most of article's content can be moved to WMMS where show spent 5 of its 6 years on air. Article has been tagged for notability since November 2011. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - article was already deleted once before. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are enough citations to reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. While many of those sources are local, controversy generated by this show has generated coverage beyond. Article appears to have been improved significnatly over the version that was deleted after the first AFD. The fact that the show is no longer on the air is not relavant here, notability is not temporary.RadioFan (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See WP:LOCALFAME states that "because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable."--SportsMaster (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment worth noting that WP:LOCALFAME is an essay, not Wikipedia policy. It doesn't mean that the subject is notable, but local coverage also mean that the subject is notable. A subject with such a concentration of local coverage is going to bring out some extra notability scrutiny. I still think this subject has meet WP:GNG.--RadioFan (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passed WP:GNG, has significant coverage by verifiable, reliable secondary sources. Achowat (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Rlendog (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Operation: Osmin[edit]

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

Unsourced advertisement for obscure show on even more obscure network. Orange Mike | Talk 03:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [16], [17], [18], and [19]. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This show may be obscure, but it was well noted by the US and Hispanic media. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to be enough in the references listed above by SL93 (and here's another source [20]) to satisfy WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 22:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SL93 and above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whisbih[edit]

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and add more sources to it. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, unverifiable because of a lack of references, and WP:V#Notability in particular, no evidence that useful sources exist. Sandstein 06:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetah Energy[edit]

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - popular in its home market, perhaps ,but the article admits its unknown in other US cities. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Found this source which constitutes significant coverage:

Breen, Adam (August 11, 2006). "New Cheetah Energy Drink Sprints into Area Stores". Gilroy Dispatch. Retrieved February 10, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Just yet another product. Mind you, if it hadn't been for this article, I'd never have learned that "a 12-ounce can, which is an intermediate size between the popular 8- and 16-ounce sizes." Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YJ Stinger[edit]

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. The spokesperson was a professional wrestler, but the notability is not inherited. Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can see how the topic could be notable, but the entire article itself has barely any context. It just states it is a soft drink manufactured by a company who's article was nominated for speedy deletion twice. Notability tag since 2 years ago. I can't believe no one has made a consensus yet. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Diff'rent Strokes. A new List of Diff'rent Strokes characters may also be created – sgeureka ^t•c 10:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Drummond (character)[edit]

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

Alongside Phillip Drummond (character), Arnold Jackson (character), Willis Jackson (character) these articles should either be deleted or merged. The actors who portray the characters are be notable, but there is insufficient that there is enough third person information to justify an article for the characters they portrayed. If enough analysis from books or newspaper articles which talk about the characters NOT the actors who portray them can be found I would be willing to withdrawn my nomination. At worst these article should be deleted at best merged. Please consider notability is WP:NOTINHERITED,WP:ITSINTERESTING, WP:NOHARM are not valid arguments to keep these articles. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's no question that Different Strokes was a highly notable series, I don't see an issue with having these separate articles about the key characters, that seems pretty standard on Wikipedia to the extent I've come across it. E.g, Gilligan (Gilligan's Island), Alex P. Keaton. (Don't hit me with ITEXISTS, my point is valid under that, the existence of such articles is worth considering as an indication of community consensus). Previous similar AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venus Flytrap (WKRP in Cincinnati) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bailey Quarters have resulted in keeps. Now, if this was a minor short-lived series, e.g., say an article on the lead Matthew Burton character in It's Your Move, or a minor character on the major show, I'd say you'd have a valid argument. But as a matter of organizational preference, the way this show is done, considering its importance, is fine by me.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as to whether an article should be kept or deleted is not a valid argument. It is also irrelevant whether the character was part of a popular or short lived television. The question is there verifiable independent information which discusses in depth about the character. Also the characters you used in argument Milowent,Alex P. Keaton,Venus Flytrap (WKRP in Cincinnati),Bailey Quarters and Gilligan (Gilligan's Island) in all the instances viable third person information has been found discussing each character article in depth. You have so far failed to produce one reliable source to assert any of these articles are notable. Simply stating WP:ITSNOTABLE is not going to make an article anymore valid. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as to whether an article should be kept or deleted is not a valid argument." WRONG. Did I not tell you not to make that argument? As the cited essay says "It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency." I am very concerned that you do not understand OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. So, instead of telling me to find sources, please outline how you followed WP:BEFORE before making your nominations.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Though we do not follow precedent exactly, consistency is a desirable goal. (Even consistency in a direction one might not prefer is better than random inclusion). This character is not Yoda, a key character in a famous fiction, but neither is she an insignificant character in a fiction that is only borderline notable.The compromise position for such cases is merging; there is no reason to completely remove the information, as it is reasonable that someone might look here for the identification of any named character in a well-known work. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DGG. And add this information to Diff'rent_Strokes#Cast S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to California Institute of the Arts. Black Kite (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Integrated Media[edit]

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

I found no notability for this student organization. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If sufficient reliable sources can be found, it might warrant a redirect and merge to CalArts with a sentence or two there. tedder (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and give a mention on the parent article. It looks like there is some paywalled coverage here. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wired mandala[edit]

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

Lacks substantial coverage in RS sources. Epeefleche (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's only flaky stuff out there on the web. No RS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CCSH[edit]

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

Non-notable recording series. No indications that any independent source has taken note of this project. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Will have to wait for some time to see if this group becomes notable. For now lets delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikishagnik (talk • contribs) 18:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love in the Time of Cholera (EP)[edit]

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

Album had limited release, has only three songs of the soundtrack album of the movie "Love in the Time of Cholera", see the official soundtrack album in Allmusic and iTunes. O EP not entered into a chart or won an award, only source of the article, iTunes, confirms only the digital release of the EP. Lucas S. ^msg 12:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lucas S. ^msg 12:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notoriety, see WP:NALBUMS. This album should not have an article. Maricorazon (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The song "Despidida" is notable, but that information is already sufficiently covered on Shakiria's page. EP itself is non-notable. PaintedCarpet (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address our inclusion requirements. Sandstein 06:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilusa[edit]

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

Portugese wiki site. No evidence of any notability - see WP:NOT#INTERNET. A single reference YouTube reference only. Text is mostly speculative "..purpose is to create..." etc. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Velella probably the article needs some correction in english. The "purpose is to create as you mention" is not the aim of Wikilusa if you read the article more carefully. I have added some more references among the google search contents.

Thank you for your help inproving this portuguese culture tool. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.172.97 (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cited to two blogs and a YouTube video. I can't see any evidence of reliable, in-depth, secondary coverage. Sionk (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the project wikilusa has known inportance as cultural free project in portuguese speakers. PTorg (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a reliable source? Added some more content or references.

Wikilusa figures among other encyclopaedias such as Encarta, Wikipedia, Wikisource, Enciclopédia Verbo Edição Século XXI, Encyclopedia Americana, in two published books at AMAZON: Books LLC, Wiki Series (June 25, 2011) and (June 27, 2011) Language: Portuguese, ISBN-10: 1232529656 - ISBN-13 978-1232529651 ^[6] - ^[7]

Please help to improve the article. Thank you

- Books LLC copies content from Wikipedia articles so that is a direct copy of this article. SL93 (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. http://wikilusa.com/wiki/P%C3%A1gina_principal - 3 Mio visits, 40 000 articles. HTML2011 (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - but it really needs some clean up. I added Template:Copy edit and cleaned some stuff. HTML2011 (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither of those show notability per WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Agresta[edit]

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

Bio of person lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing found past passing mentions. only claim of notability is through people she has worked with but notability is not inherited. nothing satisfying WP:N. Prod refund with no improvement. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability, no references. Nothing even claimed in the text that would indicate wp:notabiity. North8000 (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of organizers[edit]

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

I suspect that this was meant to be a list of union or community organizers but have no way to tell. See Category:Community organizers. The creator hasn't edited for several years, and Barack Obama is included. With no inclusion criteria I think this would be better gotten rid of. Moondyne (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could contain almost anyone. Unmanagable indiscriminate list. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - There is indeed a way to tell — this is a list of union organizers, to which somebody wrongly added Obama. Although I realize that it's generally not good to change names of articles once they're reeled in to AfD, I'm going to boldly do that (and knock Barry off the list), since the principle objection here is that the name is indiscriminate. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Upon further review, that list mixes political organizers and union organizers. Both of those lists would be fine, in my opinion, the combined list is not. Best to blow it up to clear the way for properly delineated lists, in my view. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. Too vague & WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--JayJasper (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term "community organizer" is used in the news media and history books. The list should separate them all into various groups though, for women's rights, rights of blacks, rights of workers, etc. Dream Focus 14:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 14:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have begun added references to some of the entries in the article. Rather easy to find. I also wrote a clear definition for entry onto the list. Perhaps a navigable chart could be made, where you have the name, years active, what they were organizing for, and a link to any organizations they were part of. Dream Focus 14:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This article has been renamed (by another editor) to List of community organizers. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too indiscriminate. I think DF has the right idea in terms of introducing subcategories to the article in order to make a bit more sense of things, but I suspect that you could subsequently end up with an almost infinite list of subcategories. At the very least, and for the moment, moving the article from "List of organizers" to "List of community organizers" is a clear improvement ("List of organizers" is, I dunno, a bit on the hilarious side). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Obama is on the list, we need to retitle him as Barack Hussein Obama with a little sneer from Rush Limbaugh.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A confusing list that could and right now does include a wide variety of people, but no clear criteria for being included. Better to delete it entirely. If it is not deleted, I am contemplating adding Thomas Paine and Sam Adams to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs)
People who are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article for them, and who are defined as a community organizer, who are famous and well covered in history books for having organized people for a social cause. Dream Focus 00:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding Adolf Hitler, then. oops ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is neutral. Hitler is on the list of vegetarians after all. Dream Focus 08:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adolf Hitler, John Lennon, Yoko Ono, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Bono, Mohatma Gandhi, Osama bin Laden, Buddha, Che Guevara, William Joseph Simmons,activists, politicians... ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too broad. Almost all local politicians might be described as "community organizers". --He to Hecuba (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G11 by Fastily (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One Million Moms[edit]

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

The article fails to establish notability. Most importantly, it's become so much of a hotbed for bias, attack and otherwise non-neutral edits and remarks that, at this point, it can't possibly hope to satisfy WP:NPOV. I am also certain at least one person is using sockpuppets for further their agenda, as I've seen at least two nondescript IP addresses making edits on this article and American Family Association‎, where this article originally redirected to. All in all, this article is a complete mess and should be restricted from being edited again at least until the publicity from Ellen DeGeneres dies down. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 03:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 03:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Night Gyr as "(A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)". Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SnaKeBit3[edit]

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

Delete. I cannot find information of SnaKeBit3 in multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from SnakeBit3 himself. Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of their association with the article in discussion:

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 10. Snotbot t • c » 03:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is clearly promotional. The band doesn't even have a website, and even that would not make it notable enough to keep. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no reliable sources out there to show notability. Everything I've found has been released by SnaKeBite3 or links back to a purchase page. It doesn't help that the only sources on the articles are all links to facebook, twitter, and a MP3 upload site- in other words, not a single one of them is usable to show notability. You can only use primary sources if there's multiple independent and reliable sources to back up the claims and when there's no sources.... well, it's a pretty obvious delete. I would recommend that you also add the articles DropZERO Games and DropZERO Florida. They were added by the same user and lacks sources to show how they're notable. It's very, VERY obvious that the editor is a single purpose account that is only here to add promotional articles. They might not be aware of the rules, but it's pretty clear what their intentions are.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added DropZERO Games and DropZERO Florida for deletion. Discussion here. Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added a tfD for Template:SnaKeBit3. Discussion here.Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promo piece, lack of third party reliable sources, per above. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as spam per G11 and so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King 888[edit]

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced article makes no claim to notability whatsoever. Ghits are primary and a little bit of blog notice. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hobbes Goodyear. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baik Punya Cilok[edit]

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

no evidence of meeting WP:NFILMS. no awards won or critical acclaim. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cloudz 679 10:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be well received by IMDb reviewers and the WP Manglish article says it is unusual for its inclusion of the language (this claim is unsourced). But I can't find any evidence anywhere of reliable, in-depth reviews (etc.) online. Sionk (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis smoking etiquette[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unencyclopediac material; basically an essay on marijuana smoking. So short I'm sure it can be merged into the main cannabis article. Contains weasel words. Bad article Cssiitcic (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - How-to guide, instructional manual, etc. Carrite (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with reluctance, as the song phrase, "Don't Bogart that joint, my friend; pass it over to me again!", reverberates in my brain after four plus decades. The topic has not been demonstrated thusfar as encyclopedic and notable through significant coverage in high quality independent reliable sources, but I will keep an open mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO, for the same reason we delete recipe/cooking articles. Also, unlikely to find WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are inline reliable sources already in the article. Significant coverage is another issue, thoughCurb Chain (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is some disagreement as to the reason to keep. Some editors believe this topic passes WP:NONPROFIT, albeit barely perhaps. Others make an WP:IAR argument that denominations of this scope are inherently notable, regardless of whether there is evidence that they meet the usual guidelines. But in any case, the consensus is clearly to keep. Rlendog (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America[edit]

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

Can't find sources to support conclusion this meets WP:ORG. Zero gNews archive hits and only directory information in an handful of gBooks hits indicates this small organization founded in 1997 (according to the article and its website) fails the significant coverage aspect of ORG/N. Maybe sources meeting the usual standard for depth of coverage are out there somewhere, but they are not cited in the article and I can't find them. Novaseminary (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think all denominations are notable, in part because there are so many handbooks of denominations. This is no different - Google Books clearly indicates notability. ARBCA is mentioned in The Baptist river: essays on many tributaries of a diverse tradition and Handbook of denominations in the United States. St Anselm (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can you claim that all denominations are notable, no matter how small or inconsequential? Is this based on any policy or guideline (which represent the combined consensus of the community, of course)? To my mind, that statement turns N and ORG on their respective heads. Even if listed in handbooks of denominations (without any more depth of coverage than a directory listing) how does that meet the substantial part of substantial coverage? How does the other single, bare ”mention” you noted above? (And this group doesn't even claim to be a denomination anyway, just an association). Novaseminary (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Denominations are generally notable because they almost always pass WP:NONPROFIT. This one certainly does, given the number of books discussing the denomination. -- 202.124.72.148 (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ref you added is another one-sentence bare mention. So we now have two bare mentions and a directory. Would any org that gets 23 gBook hits (many of which are WP rip-offs, one which is a directory, and two one sentence mentions) meet ORG? Are we abandoning the substantial part of the coverage required for N/ORG/NONPROFIT? ”Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability” says WP:CORPDEPTH. Novaseminary (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NONPROFIT says "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: (1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale; (2) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." This is clearly met by a denomination whose scope is the US as a whole and which appears in multiple book and news references. -- 202.124.74.39 (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But non third-party sources don't confirm anything about their activities, other than their creation in 1997. Also, keep in mind that NONPROFIT is part of ORG. And the one mention you added was just removed by St.Anselm for failing WP:SPS. We are back to the Handbook directory info and one very minor mention. Novaseminary (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The remaining book source says that they are a Reformed Baptist church, and expands on what those words mean, the CT news snippet says that they have the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) as a doctrinal standard. That already tells us a great deal about their activities. I see WP:NONPROFIT being clearly satisfied. -- 202.124.73.188 (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So for those following this at home, the following three refs, and only these three, are what the keepers think meet WP:ORG (WP:NONPROFIT): The Baptist River, CT news brief, & Handbook of denominations in the United States. These don't strike me as coming close to meeting the guidelines. Just about any Parent-Teacher Association or homeowner association could meet this level of coverage. Novaseminary (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a moment, I don't think you're reading WP:NONPROFIT correctly. It suggests notability with nationwide scope AND verifiable information. Now, a PTA is never going to have nationwide scope (though it might be notable under other guidelines). But the guideline says nothing about the depth of the coverage - it merely says "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." That is clearly the case here. St Anselm (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with StAnselm. There are also other news articles associated with individual churches joining the ARBCA. -- 202.124.73.9 (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But we have no third-party reliable source confirmation of any activity that the group engages in, let alone third-party coverage confirmaing that the "scope of their activities is national" as NONPROFIT calls for. That members exist in various places within a nation (and we have no third party confirmation of that, either) does not mean their activities are of a national scope. Novaseminary (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? They are a church denomination. They hold church services (of a specific Reformed Baptist type). We have third party confirmation of that. They include 70+ individual churches across the USA (the individual churches may or may not be notable on their own). We have third party confirmation (Christianity Today) that the initial 24 ARBCA churches were "from around the country" and I see no grounds for doubting the more detailed list of addresses across the USA on the ARBCA web site. They are certainly national. -- 202.124.74.36 (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They (meaning this organization) do not hold church services. The organization's members (which, per the website are entirely autonomous) hold church services. I don't see third-party sources that indicate what this organization actually does as an organization, especially that is of national scope, even if we know who its members are. Not every organization with members from around the country conducts activities of a national scope. Novaseminary (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- If the article's claims are true this is a denomination; albeit a modest one. CErtainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But the standard is whether third-party sources cover it, not the truth of the article. or do you think the mere act of being a verified denomination is some alternative way to meet WP:N? Novaseminary (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really mean to Wikilink to WP:V above? WP:V verifiable material includes more than "third-party sources". So, no, IMO what you've cited is not the standard. Unscintillating (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for inclusion is WP:V verifiability. The next step to inclusion is prominence—Wikipedia editors have built a consensus that all denominations (meaning only those that are WP:V verifiable) have sufficient prominence to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. Whether or not that inclusion requires a stand-alone article is a detail, but it is a detail that means that there is no case in which we want to delete a redirect for lack of notability...and that bringing denominations to AfD to challenge notability is a diversion of editorial resources. Unscintillating (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMO, Baptists, like all independent associations (or brotherhoods) of churches, do not accept that they are denominations. For our purposes here, the existence of a verifiable general assembly is the equivalent of a denomination. Unscintillating (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No AfD action required This topic is valid as a denomination that we want to cover somehow in the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think all denominations are notable. This one is small, but documented in the existing references. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that all denominations, if verifiable, are notable and within the Wikipedia mandate. Jance day (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So we throw out ORG if we decide an organization is a denomination and for no other reason? How does that come close to implementing WP:N? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novaseminary (talk • contribs) 03:22, 9 February 2012‎ (UTC) [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment I have relisted this debate because the current keep comments do not address the deletion concerns. The article is up for deletion because the nominator feels that, due to a lack of reliable third party sources, the subject may not meet the notability guidelines. In order to meet either the non-profit notability guidelines or the general notability guidelines the organization needs to be the subject of multiple reliable third party sources. Simply claiming that the subject is notable without explaining how it meets the notability guidelines is a fairly weak argument. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The relisting rationale is weak. If consensus is to keep because a topic and its treatment is encyclopedic, as is clearly the case here, that should be sufficient under WP:IAR. There is no mandate that an inferior Notability Guideline should trump the Policy (higher level law) of IAR. Carrite (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under WP:IAR. Clearly an encyclopedic topic, treated encyclopedically. This belongs in Wikipedia. There is no mandate that we parse the universe for so-called "reliable independent sources" for things that should be kept on a per se basis, as is the case here, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am amazed that an AfD with six "keep" notes and no delete votes can be relisted. I think this is a serious waste of people's time. AfDs are understaffed enough as it is. St Anselm (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But WP:IAR assumes some sort of reasoned analysis as to why particular policy or guidelines should be disregarded (the reason "a rule prevents you from improving" WP). "Clearly encyclopedic" begs the question and is not such a reason (might as well say "keep it just because" or "useful"). Nobody has explained why denominations should be per se notable regardless of coverage or why we should have WP articles about any org with such scant coverage. And a majority vote (WP:NOTAVOTE) isn't sufficient for an IAR jusitification either. Now, at least some have argued this particular org meets WP:NONPROFIT, but for reasons given above I don't think so and that ignores the lack of substantial coverage in any case. Novaseminary (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Several editors !voted keep on the basis of the specific guidelines in WP:NONPROFIT, and explained quite clearly how the two parts of that guideline were satisfied (for example, because of the 3rd party sources cited in the article, one of which – the Encyclopedia of American Religions – provides substantial coverage). And apart from the nom, every !vote has been "keep." -- 202.124.74.18 (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Several other editors who used the term "encyclopedic" presumably mean that Wikipedia should subsume the content of subject-specific encyclopaedias. Since encyclopaedias of religion cover denominations (e.g. the Encyclopedia of American Religions, cited in the article), so should Wikipedia. -- 202.124.74.18 (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is about a notable and verifiable non-profit organization and appears to be listed in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - church denominations are inherently notable. There will be plenty of offline sources available. --He to Hecuba (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is it snowing yet? -- 202.124.74.179 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while not all denominations are notable, one with 70 churches would be considered so. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whether or not all denominations are notable, this one is, as reflected in the above discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mortal Engines Quartet. Redirecting per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Boys (Mortal Engines)[edit]

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

Plot element from a series of novels, not independently notable (WP:GNG) for lack of substantial third party coverage. Not appropriate for a merger, as it consists only of excessive plot summary (WP:WAF). Sandstein 19:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 02:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect into Mortal Engines Quartet, particularly since the series has more than one bad article. We don't know yet what of this excessive material may be relevant for a non-crufty World article. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Diff'rent Strokes. A new List of Diff'rent Strokes characters may also be created. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Drummond (character)[edit]

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

Alongside Kimberly Drummond (character), Arnold Jackson (character), Willis Jackson (character) these articles should either be deleted or merged. The actors who portray the characters are be notable, but there is insufficient that there is enough third person information to justify an article for the characters they portrayed. If enough analysis from books or newspaper articles which talk about the characters NOT the actors who portray them can be found I would be willing to withdrawn my nomination. At worst these article should be deleted at best merged. Please consider notability is WP:NOTINHERITED,WP:ITSINTERESTING, WP:NOHARM are not valid arguements to keep these articles. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Drummond (character).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as to whether an article should be kept or deleted is not a valid argument. It is also irrelevant whether the character was part of a popular or short lived television. The question is there verifiable independent information which discusses in depth about the character. Also the characters you used in arguement Milowent,Alex P. Keaton,Venus Flytrap (WKRP in Cincinnati),Bailey Quarters and Gilligan (Gilligan's Island) in all the instances viable third person information has been found discussing each character article in depth. You have so far failed to produce one reliable source to assert any of these articles are notable. Simply stating WP:ITSNOTABLE is not going to make an article anymore valid. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to this misguided comment in the Kimberly AfD.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge Though we do not follow precedent exactly, consistency is a desirable goal. (Even consistency in a direction one might not prefer is better than random inclusion). This character is not Yoda, a key character in a famous fiction, but neither is she an insignificant character in a fiction that is only borderline notable.The compromise position for such cases is merging; there is no reason to completely remove the information, as it is reasonable that someone might look here for the identification of any named character in a well-known work. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 02:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I was not able to find significant coverage in third-party sources. I have yet to hear a valid argument for this article's existence. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is invalid because each article's degree of notability depends solely on its third-party coverage rather than the fact that similar articles exist. Ruby 2010/2013 04:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DGG. And add this information to Diff'rent_Strokes#Cast S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus finds the person notable to Indian media. I do suggest better soucring be added lset this return to AFD Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Rawat[edit]

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

No indication of notability; unsourced BLP. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable BLP stub that is promotional.--MLKLewis (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The light cleanup work I did proves that this actor meets WP:ENT, with Abhishek Rawat having, "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." -CrazyHos12 (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 02:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This search suggests that his career and roles are a subject of interest of important Indian media. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has improved greatly since its nomination. Also per Vejvančický, who made a good point. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AmIAnnoying.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No real claim of notability, only one possible news hit. I don't think it comes close to the GNG standards. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pursuant to the previous AfD which made it clear that the WP:CONSENSUS of the community is that this article is notable. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - consensus can change. Wikipedia has changed a lot since 2005 - looking at the previous AFD, it's remarkable to see an article with no sources being kept as 'notable' based purely on Google hits. Having failed to find any more sources myself, I have to agree with the nominator that by today's standards, it flatly fails WP:NOTE. Robofish (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a coverage listed in the article in the form on a CNN link in external links. Material (some behind pay walls) such as [21], [22], [23], [24] indicate that there is coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 02:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Whpq. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq's sources. I've added some of them to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SoftwareGR[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm only turning up trivial mentions in reliable sources, no significant coverage. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Softworks Limited[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of significant coverage, and only reference given was the company home page in the original article creation. --Closeapple (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I can find one third party reference to one of the company's products. I think this is another one that the WP:WHACAMOLE players are going to bang their WP:RS hammers with, whereas there's probably decades old paper based sources that nobody can find anymore. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The news article you added doesn't appear to discuss Softworks Limited. It appears to be on the development of Linux. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains a paragraph starting "VBVM—A Visual Basic 5 Virtual Machine: This product from Softworks Limited is a portable version of the MS Visual Basic 5 virtual machine." --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just noticed that. It does appear there is a two sentence mention in paragraph 9, but that really isn't significant coverage. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks promising though. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy G7. nancy 15:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BackupChain[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows that this software is notable. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - If the software every becomes widely used then maybe it would warrant an article similar to BackupPC, but right now it seems pretty non-notable. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Other free products may have a lot of references online because they are free. But that itself doesn't make the product notable. Just because some editors are familiar with a product, doesn't necessary mean the general public is, too. — Papadopoulossav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:43, February 10, 2012 (UTC) (UTC).
Delete: no indications of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment based on what research?. — Papadopoulossav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:43, February 10, 2012 (UTC) (UTC).
  - On my research. And on your research that we have at BackupChain. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's plenty of indication out there, what you are talking about?. — Papadopoulossav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:43, February 10, 2012 (UTC) (UTC).
KEEP this software is in widespread use in the virtualization business with over 30,000 users to date. You may contact FastNeuron Inc. if you are in doubt of the notability of this software. — Papadopoulossav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:06, February 10, 2012‎ (UTC) (UTC).
- And so what? How do the over 30,000 users help establishing notability? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Well, his point was that if a lot of people use it regularly, it should be notable. Which is a reasonable concept. However, contacting FasNeuron for their number of users should be considered as a primary source, or perhaps original research. There should be reliable, secondary sources saying that there are 30,000 users. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see nothing valid in this concept. To be included in Wikipedia, any piece of software, regardless of its user base, has to meet to at least the requirements of WP:GNG, which is explicitly stated to be a bare minimal requirement. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment First of all, if some Wiki users are unaware of the product, they can't nominate the page for deletion just like that. If there's doubt you need to contact people in the industry to verify the notability of the product. The unavailability of this information at this point has several reasons: 1. people have better things to do than to write about products, unless they get paid for it but then it's not an objective source, is it? 2. it's a niche so not everyone online will OPENLY talk about it 3. you will find plenty of references to the product online. We don't pay magazine editors like other companies do to promote the product. If you wanted to be strict about the notability requirement you would have to remove almost all businesses and products from wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papadopoulossav (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where did you get the idea? The due process of deletion is described in deletion policy. Though I have to agree that many businesses and products should be removed from Wikipedia, and you may check the list of Software-related deletion discussions and the list of Business-related deletion discussions for progress. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a two year old example from 2010, the product was included in DCIG's buyer's guide which is a leading publication in this business http://dcigbuyersguides.com/2011-virtual-server-backup-software-buyers-guide/ The thing is that the publication is not open to the public you need to pay for it. This publication is read by pretty much everyone in the business Papadopoulossav (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To keep it shorter: see WP:B2B#Trade publications and awards aren't good enough on why DCIG Buyer's Guide doesn't help much. And still there should be significant in-depth reviews to have this kept. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To keep it short for you: I am not going to spend the entire evening explaining to you the significance of the word notable. Notable means 'worthy of notice' and the section WP:B2B#Trade publications and awards aren't good enough you referenced is an opinion that lacks scientific and academic background. The statement "being of interest to the general public is what counts for notability, though" is non-sense. The general public doesn't give a damn about most of what you read in Wikipedia. It's all niche to some point. Further down it says "General Motors Co. don't have to explain to the outside world what they make". Hello? Ask people in Africa and Europe if they know GE, I bet you won't find many. So what makes something notable to you doesn't necessarily apply to others. If you knew anything about our industry you wouldn't be questioning the notability of BackupChain.

In-depth reviews are usually written by bloggers who have been hired to publish whatever the company wants to have presented to the public. These "in-depth" reviews neither add to notability nor do they demonstrate public interest in the product. You can spend $1M and get a whole bunch of magazines write about you. Does it mean anyone cares? I suspect you have been hired by a competitor to instigate such claims against the product. Papadopoulossav (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using General Motors as an example is a bad decision because there is plenty of sources out there irregardless of whether people in Africa and Europe know of it. SL93 (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Europe and I know both General Motors and GE, and even know the difference between them. What am I doing wrong? And most of people I know also know these brands, and also don't know yours. How do you think, is it because I'm hired by your opponents to clear their minds every evening, or simply because your product isn't notable? Actually you replied yourself: "If [...] you wouldn't be questioning the notability of BackupChain." — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. When considered together with the previous AfD there is a rough consensus of policy-based comments to delete the article. No evidence has been cited that civil servants of his level are generally considered notable on Wikipedia in the absence of sources nor has coverage sufficient to support notability been shown. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azim Wardak[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A first AfD was just closed after it failed to get quorum. The closing admin said that he "felt the delete arguments were stronger" but declined to delete the article given the low participation. He suggested re-nominating the article. So here goes.

My initial rationale still stands: this individual fails WP:BIO. He was an Afghan civil servant with a high position in the Ministry of Commerce (President of International Trade). This means that his name pops up from time to time but I have failed to find specific substantial coverage in sources using the Latin alphabet. The so-called references currently in the article are only able to confirm his job or his presence as one of tens of participants to this or that meeting. The rest of the content cannot be confirmed using reliable sources. For instance, the first reference in the article is this simple list of participants to a meeting but is used to assert that "He was able to hold office throughout this period thanks to his professional skills and the good relations that he built with his international collaborators.". Pichpich (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP/RENAME: Searching for simply "Azim Wardak" yielded almost no results. However, the persons name is actually "Mohammad Azim Wardak." Searching this corrected name will get many more hits. I suggest we rename the article to "Mohammad Azim Wardak." Here are some links I've found concerning him:

UN publication confirming Wardak as the President of Foreign Trade of Afghanistan
Article by the IWPR which include comments by Wardak regarding sanctions against Iran

It is just incorrect citation/research on the part of the page creator. I suggest simply renaming the page and fixing other applicable areas. No harm done.--Ctoshw (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are not new and at the risk of stating the obvious, all Google searches for "Mohammad Azim Wardak" will include the results for "Azim Wardak". In fact both links you give are currently used in the article. They only provide incidental coverage, not significant coverage that (to quote WP:GNG) address the subject directly in detail". It is common for spokespeople of companies and high-ranked civil servants to be quoted in the media. That does not make them notable under our criteria. Pichpich (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Senior civil servants are notable. People in countries such as Afghanistan are unlikely to have such great coverage as people in similar positions in America or Western Europe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see this pronouncement supported in any guideline or policy. I humbly suggest that this is because most of the resulting biographies would be impossible to source properly, even for 95% of the corresponding civil servants in the Western World. Mr. Wardak is a good example: if we stick to stuff we can actually verify, this will be a two-line stub with no future. There's no getting around the fact that he fails WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Opinions are still valid on AfDs you know. We don't all feel the need to prove how incredibly clever we are by quoting guidelines at every opportunity. But if you insist, here are a couple: WP:BURO and WP:IAR. Of course senior civil servants are notable. Yes, that's an opinion. It doesn't make it invalid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's important to discuss things in relation to policies and guidelines: it's what keeps the whole process mildly dysfunctional instead of chaotic beyond all use. I don't feel smart when I quote a relevant piece of policy, I just feel like I'm establishing a necessary basis for discussion. Pichpich (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the individual is a senior civil servant. Senior civil servants can be notable. But that needs to be established with coverage about the individual. What I see is insignificant coverage where he is being quoted; essentially a spokesperson. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no links of significant coverage have been proven to establish the notability of this person. 98.28.12.216 (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Four Corners Books[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this company. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. Also no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's lovely that they support charities, but there's no reliable and independent coverage to show they pass notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable charity with no sources at all, let alone reliable ones. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News sources show them mentioned repeatedly in non-PR reliable sources, although the triviality of the mentions should be evaluated. The above !voters don't appear to have evaluated the available sources. Jclemens (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources above are "Have Kids, Will Travel Tips for stress-free family getaways" with one sentence, E-flux has one sentence, Frieze is not reliable, The Independent has one sentence, The Gazette is about a different bookstore that was named this earlier, and The Telegraph is two sentences. I don't see why you said keep. SL93 (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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