< 26 February	28 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature (Zion I song)[edit]

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

Article about a single release. No evidence of notabilty, though, apparently, the B-side was "a hit locally in California and on college radio". Does being a hit locally amount to notability? I doubt it. Emeraude (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the article says, the single has had local success; nothing further and nothing that would make it notable. I cannot find any reliable sources either. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 21 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, BusterD (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of any significance; no sources/references; nothing interesting about the song that merits an article. Wikipedia policy is not to have an article on every song ever released, and I don't see why this is more notable than 10 million others. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After some searches, topic appears to fail WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:21, 29 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaseebhotla[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 21 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, BusterD (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surname needs to show that it is notable- eg list of notable bearers. No attempt at that here. Tigerboy1966 01:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per Tigerboy1966. Cloudz 679 14:17, 28 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 Enter the Dru. (non-admin closure) B music ian 01:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You Are Everything (Dru Hill song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Enter the Dru. It did reach No. 84 on the Hot 100, but without other reliable sources it can simply be redirected per WP:NSONGS: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article," and that's hardly the case here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 21 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, BusterD (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above. Charted song, but no significant coverage found. Per WP:NSONGS, songs that "do not rise to notability for an independent article [...] should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." Gongshow ^Talk 05:00, 2 March 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digitalsoft Keypoint[edit]

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

Violates WP:ADVERT, WP:SOAP, WP:SPS. Lacks notability. Primary website link not working. Veryhuman (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: There are several mentions on non-reliable sites (messageboards, sites offering software downloads, info on file formats, etc) but nothing that can be the basis of a WP page. Software for this intended market of clergypersons is unlikely to get mainstream media coverage. There may be references in reputable specialist publications (Electro-Bishop Quarterly?) but I can't find them. If the software/website is now defunct/unsupported, that suggests we shouldn't wait for future references. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: virtually no coverage in the wild (even in blogs). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All sources in the article violate WP:PRIMARY and we "[cannot] base articles and material entirely on primary sources." There are no Google News results, which leads me to believe that we will not be able to locate WP:RS. There is no choice here but to delete until the product has received WP:SIGCOV or meets some other WP:N guideline. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 03:49, 4 March 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. If anyone wishes to merge the content, please let me know. Stifle (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncovered (Sirsy album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. No realistic redirect value at this time. Delete. — C M B J 10:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any significant coverage for this album in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Gongshow ^Talk 18:05, 14 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:00, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Band is primarily of local (Albany, NY) interest. Album doesn't have coverage or importance. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The album has received coverage in Billboard and Starpulse.com, but these are just listings of information about the album. Are these enough to establish notability? Per the Billboard source, the album has never charted. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources, and others like them, establish merely that the album exists. WP:NALBUMS suggests: "That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." An article may be warranted if there is significant coverage - for example, reviews, features or commentary of some kind - or at least evidence that the album charted somewhere, none of which appears to be the case here. Gongshow ^Talk 02:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main band article Sirsy. They're primarily a touring/party band (disclosure: I've seen them several times), and while notable, I don't see proof their CD has gotten wide coverage or reviews. Willing to be convinced otherwise. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 7 March 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. No quorum, so a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dub FX[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, especially as per WP:MUSIC. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:40, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Cloudz 679 12:51, 28 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qwanlin Mall[edit]

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

Non-notable 5-store, 104,000 sf mall. Epeefleche (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:22, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A small shopping center such as this one isn't the kind that would usually warrant an article of its own, and no independent sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find any non-promotional sources. --Pusillanimous 18:10, 4 March 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. I would advise the nominator to keep in mind that WP:JNN is something to avoid in deletion discussions. B music ian 03:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Ratan Sircar Medical College and Hospital[edit]

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

Non-notable hospital. Tinton5 (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: It is notable , it was "Campbell Medical School" Calcutta. [1] Yes there are need some reference. --- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 11:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - we keep medical schools in any case but this looks a particularly notable one. In addition to the search above, good sources are available at [2]. TerriersFan (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the copyvio to multiple sources; the creator is blocked, every article he created was a copyvio as far as I can tell. I can't understand why this article was AFD'd, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a teaching hospital it is a tertiary educational institution and therefore notable. In addition "non notable hospital" provides no good reason whatsoever why any article should be deleted. AfD nominations like this should be procedurally rejected out of hand. If you can't be bothered to say why it's not notable then your nomination is an insult to the editors who have put time into creating it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coordinates and reference added. Very much notable institution. Looks like one of the oldest and largest in Kolkata --Anbu121 (talk me) 14:14, 4 March 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sherry Theater[edit]

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

Non-notable theater. The participants listed barely meet the criteria for notability in their own rights, and could probably be deleted themselves. No reliable sources for this theater, no evidence that it's notable. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You'd need exceptionally extensive coverage for an institution this new to be notable, unless it had been a merger of multiple already-notable theaters, and there's no evidence of that level of coverage. I agree that Haze doesn't look article-worthy; what other participants have articles? Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could find no real evidence (independent, reliable sources) on this theater, so it appears to fail WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it took forever simply to find the address and building. Lacks coverage and appears to be in a space smaller than a school dorm. tedder (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After searching, not finding coverage about the theatre itself. There is coverage about plays that have occurred there, including [3], [4], [5] and others, but not about the theatre itself. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:40, 29 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 List_of_characters_in_the_Night_Watch_universe. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Others (Night Watch)[edit]

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

No sources (clarification 2012-02-07: no cited sources, not even primary) for years, apparently all plot and original research. I doubt there is sufficient (if any) WP:NOTABILITY for this to support an article. No merge target found. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - The "no sources" claim is a bit odd. The source for the contents of fictional works are... the fictional works themselves. That being said, I'm not sure that this subject rates its own article. Possibly merge with List_of_characters_in_the_Night_Watch_universe? - Richfife (talk) 22:16, 6 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:39, 13 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 03:33, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Still no clash, no sense of consensus. With only two participants, relisting seems preferable to a no consensus outcome at this moment (Not that I'd close no consensus again as a non-admin...;-). BusterD (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A PROD would have ended with deletion by now for lack of opposition, so I think this should (at least) be treated the same way. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELIST seems to agree with you. In my own relisting, I tend to expect a minimum of 3 or 4 participants before closure. With your valid concern in mind, I'll express my own opinion on this procedure. BusterD (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:INUNIVERSE. No assertion of notablity, and a reasonable search of secondary sources finds nothing directly detailing the subject. BusterD (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of World of Watches characters. A general article on the Night Watch mythology/universe might be useful, as the main article Night Watch (Lukyanenko novel) is very long. But I don't think the Others themselves really need it/have enough references/are notable enough, and they could easily be merged. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:50, 28 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SOGWAP[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) 02:02, 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 Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This business failed to impact the history of computing in substantial way. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:20, 12 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) 01:04, 19 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, BusterD (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced; no indication of notability Dialectric (talk) 01:54, 3 March 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suo Ma[edit]

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

This article has multiple issues 1. No biographical information 2. Does not meet the layout requirements 3. Is not adequately referenced.

So please delete Wikishagnik (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of those objections are valid resons for deletion. The sole criterion is "Is she notable?" and having no knowledge of what makes a volleyball player notable I decline to comment. The objections given above are reasons to improve the article, so start there. Emeraude (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreffed bio. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:02, 11 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) 01:05, 19 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, BusterD (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Still inadequate discussion to reveal consensus. BusterD (talk) 22:34, 27 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. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maverick (Meg album)[edit]

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

No references or qualify under WP:NMUSIC JayJay^{Talk to me} 02:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even if some of the singles are deleted at AfD, there's no reason to also delete the charting albums and/or use them as the redirect target for the single information.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:50, 27 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, BusterD (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that album has notability independent of its creator, no verifiable information worth merging. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sourcing or in-depth coverage demonstrating sufficient notability to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It reached #20 on the Japanese charts.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NALBUMS says: All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

This article has no sourcing at all, and so fails the notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But why aren't you finding the sources? Get Rosetta Stone and start working. Its easy to destroy content by noting an article has no sourcing. We have thousands of extremely notable subject articles with no sourcing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I note on your userpage that you do know Japanese. I do not. Meg is clearly notable, I'd like to have a consistent organizational scheme for her coverage on English Wikipedia. I'd do this by redirecting all the articles on her "singles" to the relevant albums, a number of which no one will debate pass notability standards.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is disputing Meg's notability as an artist. The issue is that there is no evidence that any of her albums or songs have independent notability - "...evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity..." (WP:NRVE). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under that supposed standard, tons of album articles on top 10 albums would no longer pass muster. No one is looking for japanese sources, so I hardly believe anyone can tell me every album is non notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by Suriel above, please remember that this discussion is about the notability of the album Maverick - not about Meg the artist or about other stuff. I have no problem reading Japanese, and I did indeed try looking for Japanese sources before adding my opinion here. Unfortunately, all I could find were Oricon chart rankings and iTunes or Amazon type retail listings, which I don't consider constitute the in-depth coverage required to satisfy the notability guidelines - hence my "Delete" decision. --DAJF (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is, however, not only about Maverick. We are building an encyclopedia. Two of Meg's other albums were just kept at AfD, its just completely random if this one was deleted and the others are kept, based on who showed up at AfD. E.g., just the other day I ran across The Bawdies, extremely notable Japanese band. It was wrongfully prodded, and then even deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bawdies. I recreated it because the deletion was simply wrong. I'm tired of seeing such bad outcomes coming out of AfD, its like no one cares about knowledge anyone, we just slavishly apply guidelines without remembering their purpose. /high horse.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the discussion here is only about the album Maverick. The merits and notability of other stuff can and should be discussed on their respective talk pages or AfD discussion pages. It is quite possible that some albums of a particular artist may be considered sufficiently notable to justify their own articles, while some are not. That is how Wikipedia works. The argument that other album articles were deemed notable so this one must be too, is however not a valid argument (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). --DAJF (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of seeing guidelines for notability and inclusion ignored because editors would rather create 20 crap articles that offer nothing of value rather than condensing the viable information into existing articles and thus improving what we already have. I'm tired of seeing bad "no consensus" keeps when the pertinent, per-policy !votes are for deletion. I believe the focus should be on improvement rather than expansion. I'm not a deletionist but I'm certainly in favour of pruning dead leaves. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - charting albums will almost always have reviews in reliable sources. Since to one is claiming to have checked Japanese language music magazines specifically and since I don't speak Japanese (or indeed even know the name of courses to look at), I am willing to assume this is not one of the extremely rare situations where a charting album has zero coverage. At worst, the content should be merged, but I don't see a need to do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per ThaddeusB's well-reasoned argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:25, 11 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Siterra[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) 21:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seems to be another B2B company with numerous press releases published here and there and the steady stream of nearly one-line news about partnerships and acquisitions. I don't see its impact on world's history. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:30, 13 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:19, 19 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, BusterD (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks 3rd party refs to establish notability; advert tone; created by an SPA as likely spam/promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:57, 3 March 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 think its clear that the sources are not sufficiently substantial, & there's no point in relisting further. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CardRecovery[edit]

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

No significant coverage found. SL93 (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in addition to the NY Times ref mentioned in the article, I found a mentions in the Seattle Times, here as well as passing mentions in a number of photography books. These appear to be only passing mentions. However, the fact the subject has attracted the attention of some mainstream publication suggests there may be more? Pit-yacker (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The New York Times article is a Question and Answer (not sure if it's an advice column) article from page B7 that lists at least 4 other programs which tellingly do not have articles of their own. This is a passing mention in an article. The Seattle Times one is the same way. Here's the extent of its discussion in the article: "Or you might want to check out the following sites: [this subject's website], [website 2],[website 3]." Incidentally they forgot to put a space after their comma. Shadowjams (talk) 23:47, 15 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:22, 19 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, BusterD (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The NYT and Seattle Times articles are comprised of passing mentions of this topic, and after searches, not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:44, 29 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. Article may be speedily renominated per WP:NPASR. B music ian 05:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gersh Kuntzman[edit]

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

Reason Gizmojtb7 (talk) 01:21, 9 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 9. Snotbot t • c » 08:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep No reason given for deletion. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've left a message on the nominator's talk page asking for a deletion rationale. I've got no objections to anyone closing this as a speedy keep though, as the nominator hasn't made any other edits apart from this AfD. I'll close it early myself if I don't a response from them. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 06:45, 12 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:58, 19 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, BusterD (talk) 22:22, 27 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Billy (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Title unsuitable for redirect or disambiguation. Delete. — C M B J 10:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:42, 13 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparent permastub, fails WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 11:34, 19 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, BusterD (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent notability demonstrated and insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:49, 3 March 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. No quorum, WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Film.fm[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this search engine for movie pirates. SL93 (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 12 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--

Film.fm was covered twice by Israeli newscasts and is a very popular site worldwide. Orlydumitrescu (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to be notable per WP:WEB, with the proviso that I can't read Hebrew and I'm not able to validate whether the coverage in those articles is substantial. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:36, 27 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, BusterD (talk) 22:12, 27 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tchai-Ovna[edit]

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

Sources are Yelp, TripAdvisor and other user submitted content. Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A great number of independent restaurant reviews were added, each reference containing in itself tens of reference. Most reviews refer to Tchai-Ovna as a landmark establishment in Glasgow. The venue is also popular with music band concerts, poetry readings and other artistic activities. werldwayd (talk) 21:32, 13 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, a lot of puffery and promotional language, and only a handful of restaurant reviews to support it all. I'm not entirely convinced that it is notable either as a restaurant or a company. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:35, 27 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, BusterD (talk) 22:11, 27 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IFT Research & Development Award[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Listed in the Institute article as one of the awards, but I couldn't find any secondary coverage of the award itself. All the past winners are redlinked. Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 12 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not seem to be particularly notable. A Google search returns only this article, mirrors thereof, directory style entries and a handful of CVs, nothing that I'd describe as comprehensive or substantial. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:33, 27 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, BusterD (talk) 22:11, 27 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Stimulation[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 02:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:09, 13 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:00, 20 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, v/r - T P 21:04, 27 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merrior[edit]

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

Non notable neologism. One reference introducing the term does not make it notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~ Per nom; article requires more reliable sources to corrorborate notability, which this article seems to lack. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found this: "The guys from Rappahannock River Oysters have twisted the term to create “merroir”", which backs up my research finding that it is a term associated only with this company/restaurant. The one reference I could get into isn't what I would describe as an RS, and the other requires Flash (not on this machine) without the option to enter quietly. Not a good idea for a website, but as it's apparently the site of the originator of the term, it doesn't really matter for this matter. I've deleted the other copy of the article, the also mis-spelt Merior. If this survives, it'll have to be moved to the correct spelling. Not worth doing until the decision's made... Peridon (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete - this article from Los Angeles Magazine discusses the term "merroir", but the definition of the term may possibly be original research of the person who provides explanation in the article. If other reliable sources that address this topic significantly are found, this !vote can change. After some searches, I haven't found any at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:00, 29 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VGMaps[edit]

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

Website is non-notable per notability (WP:N) and appears to have been created by site owner Jonathan Leung as an advertisement Fattestalbert (talk) 21:43, 13 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) 01:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – The Attack of the Show! and the Joystiq articles may provide just enough to establish notability. However, the other sources are either user-generated or otherwise irrelevant. --MuZemike 21:07, 19 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Joystiq and G4TV coverage seems to provide reliable, secondary sources for WP:GNG. But it is very borderline and the coverage is hardly significant. There are a few passing mentions here and there, but nothing more to satisfy WP:GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage in Joystiq and G4TV is not very significant and is from 2005. The gaming industry has since evolved to 3D games and screenshot maps are likely no longer to be needed or relevant. Overall, the site may have had some borderline/hardly significant coverage in 2005, but will likely become obsolete as time passes (i.e. coverage in reliable secondary sources is not likely to continue). --UnbornClarity (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just because 'times have changed' in the video game industry, I feel, does not warrent the deletion of this article. I'm sure if you use that train of thought, you are suggesting that anything that is not relevent anymore should be deleted. To be honest, the NES game Orb-3D is not really relevent anymore but it still warrents a Wikipedia article. Skullbird11 (talk) 14:46, 1 March 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, v/r - T P 21:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Sufficient reliable sources, would suggest finding a few more to broaden the article Skullbird11 (talk) 14:46, 1 March 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) Goodvac (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B. J. Coleman[edit]

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

Recently created biography of a college football player drafted for the NFL. Although I'm sure he'll be accepted, I think that we should just wait and see. There are sources, but only in newspaper and the college website, not to mention the NFL drafts (guess that's obvious). Getting out of here (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Top QB prospect for NFL Draft, top QB recruit coming out of high school, set school records. He's notable.--Yankees10 20:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet notability under WP:NCOLLATH based on his inclusion in the NFL scouting combine as well as coverage of his play at UTC. At any rate, it seems likely that by the end of this year he'll qualify under WP:NGRIDIRON, so what's the point of deleting the article now? If he never makes an NFL team you can request deletion this fall and I may support it. — DeeJayK (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, being invited to the Scouting Combine is not an indication of meeting WP:NCOLLATH, as some players invited to the Combine will not even sign with an NFL team. He (probably) meets WP:GNG, however, so this is moot. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was thinking he would qualify under WP:NCOLLATH's criteria "3. Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." That said, I'm no expert on notability standards. Mostly I just feel that it's pointless to delete an article on a player who will very likely be part of an NFL team next season and thus will qualify under WP:NGRIDIRON. I realize we should avoid applying notability guidelines based on speculation, but I also don't see what harm it does to allow this article to continue to exist on WP for at least a few more months until we see what happens. — DeeJayK (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. Article needs improvement though...--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and Paul McDonald. Significant media coverage includes hundreds of articles in multiple media outlets. Examples: (1) Coleman flourishing in new shot with Mocs, (2) Coleman rescues Chattanooga, (3) Vols BJ Coleman Reportedly Leaving The Team, (4) Chattanooga quarterback B.J. Coleman always thought he'd face Tide as a Volunteer, (5) Fractured pinky keeps Coleman from throwing, (6) Coleman must wait to showcase throwing skills, (7) UTC Moc's quarterback B.J. Coleman ready for NFL combine test, (8) Tennessee quarterback Coleman staying focused, (9) Coleman shines for Vols, (10) BJ Coleman Leaves UT Football Team, (11) B.J. Coleman Says All Options Open, Including I-AA Football, (12) B.J. Coleman choose to be a Moc, (13) B.J. Coleman: "I'm Very Excited To Be A Moc", (14) Coleman solid in Shrine game, (15) UTC quarterback B.J. Coleman to try to play, (16) UTC's Coleman on Payton watch list, (17) Coleman on move, (18) Coleman's in command, (19) Coleman ready for Mocs career, (20) Coleman growing up fast at Univerity of Tennessee, (21) "Coleman all about teamwork," Knoxville News-Sentinel, April 30, 2007. Cbl62 (talk) 01:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62 - significant coverage in multiple reliable sources; subject meets WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 02:48, 2 March 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse Chronicles Series[edit]

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

Additional related articles also nominated for deletion:

Non-notable book series by a non-notable author. All books self-published. Contested PROD.

As a matter of disclosure, I did speedy delete the author's biography article at Shahryar Niazi per WP:CSD#A7 before the proposed deletions. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly not notable but I admire the young contributor's pluck Zad68 (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all related pages. Self-published books that fail to establish any kind of notability. There are no WP:RS to be found, as the only places that make mention of the books are first party sources. Rorshacma (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing here to show that the author has achieved any notability or that the series has either. I will mention that it might be worthwhile to salt these articles since the original editor has attempted to re-add an article about the author twice. Hopefully he or she won't try to readd the article until the series/author has notability, but that they tried to add the author twice in about 3 months tells me that they might try to re-add articles again in the future. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:07, 29 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 keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tasha Harris[edit]

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

This is a Curriculum Vitæ, a Resumé, a LinkedIn profile. Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to place any of these things. In addition I have strong doubts that this person has any inherent notability. When they do a neutral article here is wholly appropriate, just not at present. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Tasha Harris, and I have no connection to her at all. JenniBees (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether you are or are not is unimportant. The style of the article is what prompted the discussion for deletion. 20:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how it looks like a resume. I followed the article on Tim Schafer as a template. And as for notability, she won two awards at the Women in Gaming Awards at the 2011 Game Developers Conference: one in art and one for "Rising Star"[6]. The game she developed, Costume Quest, won "Best Downloadable Game" at the 2010 Spike Video Game Awards [7] and "PSN Game of the Year 2010" from PlayStation: The Official Magazine. She was also the lead animator on Brütal Legend, which was praised for its facial animation. [8] JenniBees (talk) 09:28, 28 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) 18:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe the subject is notable and that it is sufficiently established by the sourcing. While the article doesn't strike me as outrageously advert-like, it may have minor NPOV issues. However AfD is not clean-up; if there are issues, they need to be fixed, simply. Salvidrim! 20:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More references were added since the page was started, better showing notability. The article has also been removed of weasel words and re-formatted a bit so the NPOV are cleaned up now as well. JenniBees (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements during AfD. And the multiple wins and noms suggest that the subject passes WP:ANYBIO.Cavarrone (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've looked through the references and do not see any that meet the WP:NOTABILITY standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Many of the references do not even mention Tasha Harris. Neither does this meet the WP:ANYBIO standard of "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" as the "Women in Gaming Awards at the 2011 Game Developers Conference" is not a well-known and significant award. Rangoondispenser (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Game Developers Conference awards are definitely well-known and significant, as are the Spike Video Game Awards. She created Costume Quest, which had a lot of media attention as I linked in the article. The media attention makes her meet the WP:BIO criteria #3 for creative professionals: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." JenniBees (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am content that sufficient references exist in the article now to validate the notability of the person (0.9 probability), though I'd prefer more mainstream secondary sources I appreciate that this is not always the case. I would not have nominated the article for deletion in its current state. I thus withdraw my nomination. However I understand that that simply removes my opinion from the consensus, and that a full consensus should still be built. From my perspective my withdrawn nomination places me as neutral in this discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:26, 4 March 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless lifestyle[edit]

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

non notable neologism and dictionary definition Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like the lead-in to some sort of advert. May just be a newbie at work, though. Peridon (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like the start of a WP:Essay. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essay/original research andy (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article contains nothing significant, possibly an advertisement or a test. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be an essay based upon original research. The term has been used, see: QUALCOMM Innovation Continues to Enable Wireless Lifestyle for Consumers and Businesses With 3G CDMA Solutions; (et al.) and Exradia Launches Safe Mobile & Wireless Lifestyle, and there's a company with this name, see: Wireless Lifestyle selects 8x8 Virtual Office VoIP services, but the article doesn't cover the term in these contexts. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:09, 29 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Benslama[edit]

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

Author is (or has been) a "physics professor" at University of Regina. He is not listed on their website any more, but given that it was his first position after completing his postdoc, this was likely at the assistant professor level. the citation and publication data given in the article are, at first sight, stellar. This is deceptive, however: subject is first nor last author on any of the important ones, which have sometimes over 3000 (three-thousand!) authors. Apparently, Benslama was (is?) a member of several (very large) consortia and as is often the case in these mega physics projects, co-authors all papers coming out of it. However, there is no evidence that he had anything more than a very minor role. In conclusion, there is no real evidence of notability, does not meet WP:PROF. Hence: delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had actually been mulling nominating this article myself. Autobiography. And I will concur fully with the nominator as to both his reasoning and conclusions. Safiel (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after moving the content to his user-page. Username confirms this as an autobiographical page. Rossami (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added many links to proof than this article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography of a scientist. In my view, both the notability and leadership roles are well demonstrated through the links attached to the article. I have also added a few selected papers where the author is the primary author or one of the primary authors. talks at international conferences and symposiums have also been added, as well as interviews with radio, TV stations and written press. On the other hand, I would like to mention that several links in the articles have been added in order to address your concerns and I am open to discuss which ones should be kept in the final version of this article. With my best regards. KB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalbenslama (talk • contribs) 14:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Kamalbenslama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources provided are not independent. Of the rest, one is a local news story, and one is a radio program where the subject was invited to explain research results from the Hadron collider. it doesn't focus on him specifically. Doesn't meet the requirements of WP:PROF. While the publication list is impressive, it probably does not accuraely refelct his personal output, as explained by Guillaume above. Being team leader of a project is not really notable. My own search turned up no good sources establishing notability. Sources provided by or proposed by Kamalbenslama above (apparently the subject of the article) are run-of-the-mill or not independent. In short, a hard-working, productive young professor, but not distinguished enough by substantial independent coverage to justify an independent article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negligible citations on GS. More on Inspire but not sufficient to stand out from the crowd. WP:Prof#1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete after moving text to the author's userpage. fails WP:PROF and is pure autobiography. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the links provided by the author are from universities, labs and funding agencies. I believe that all these sources are credible and trustworthy. Concerning the comments about "team leader is not notable", I will have to disagree with this statement, mainly when it is question about a collaboration of 3500 physicists worldwide and when the membership involve a vote by 137 institutes worldwide and require also approval from funding agencies. May be you did not have a chance to verify all the links submitted? if this is the case, please have a look. One more point, did you have a look at the invited talks by the author? in large collaborations, this is another point to consider.

Thank you

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalbenslama (talk • contribs) 17:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC) — Kamalbenslama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment You are NOT the leader of a team of 3500 physicists. You are the leader of a small group of postdocs and grad students at the University of Regina, which is just one of the 137 institutions involved in the ATLAS project. That pretty much makes your role as team leader not notable.
As for he references you provided, they are either not independent (from your own university or the project you are a member of), or trivial, routine or tangential. No offense, but there's just nothing here that makes you stand out against the scads of young physics professors out there. I respect you work and your accomplishments, but until independent sources take notice of you and give you significant coverage, you don't meet the requirements for an independent article on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, first, I did not talk about the leader of the entire collaboration, I hope that this was clear in the links I sent. So please don't make me say what I did not say. Second, while I do respect your opinion, I would like to say that I disagree with your statement. I am not going to keep arguing this way and I will simply let other people give their opinions as well. I will simply add one and last comment: you have here the *very rare* example of a guy (from a small town i morocco far away from the civilization) who did everything on his own and reach the point where he is *without any* political connections, without lobbies, without "a big father" giving him everything on a golden plate. Everything was done with hard work and honesty. You may want to check the "political connections" of the young prof. you are talking about and it is worth that you get you facts right! I am sorry, but your statements are completely false. That being said, you gave your opinion, I gave mine so let's other people give their opinion. I do believe to the honesty of people. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalbenslama (talk • contribs) 18:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC) — Kamalbenslama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

'Comment Do you realize how many people you have just insulted? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oonce again please do not play with the words. We are talking about the specific case of young prof. in a large collaboration, such as, the one we are discussing. My comments refer to this specific case and nothing else. I stand by my comments about *the specific case we are discussing, which means young prof in a large collaboration*. Life is full of hard working people in plenty of areas! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalbenslama (talk • contribs)— Kamalbenslama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment I suggest you formulate more exactly, because I have been interpreting your foregoing comments in exactly the same way as Dominus Vobisdu did. As you say, life is full of hard-working people and you obviously are one of them. Nobody here is trying to denigrate your accomplishments. However, given all those hard-working people, you have to stand out in some way or another in order to have encyclopedic notability. Perhaps you'll get there some time in the future, but right now, that is not the case. All researchers publish papers, all give presentations at meetings and seminars, there is nothing extraordinary about that. And contrary to what you imply (unless I am misreading you again), most researchers accomplish this, like you, without the help of a powerful daddy or a political obby. After all, we're talking science here, where it is ideas and results that count, not connections! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient citations for WP:PROF. No other indications of notability, and some of the claims in the article are not supported by the given sources, which are not WP:RS in any case. Article author would benefit from reading WP:YOURSELF. -- 202.124.73.93 (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a link to the list of publications and citations has been added (official list for HEP), as well as links to some selected works published in international journals. Also have to mention that the same article exist in French wikipedia! Kamalbenslama (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)— Kamalbenslama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have created an interwiki link (a bot should do that here in a few minutes) and proposed the French article also for deletion. Their rules are slightly different than ours but, if anything, even more stringent. In any case, the different wikis are independent and even if the French article would be kept, that doesn't have any bearing on the discussion here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Dear Guillaume,

You lost any credibility in this case. You went beyond your way to ask for the deletion of my article in wiki french, after I told you it is published in the french wiki. I think this speaks volumes about your unfairness. I think you are taking this case very personally and this is against the wiki recommendations. You simply violated the neutrality article of the editors of wikipedia. Therefore, I respectfully request that another admin. takes care of this case. You have expressed your opinion and now it is time not to interfere since you are taking things personally. In fact I find it lamentable, you went ahead and interfered in the french version, knowing that you are strongly involved in the English one. This is unacceptable! Kamalbenslama (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that I am the one taking things personal here (after all, it's not my autobiography...) And I have been active on the French Wikipedia (and others) for years, even though most of my activity is here, so crossing over is nothing out of the ordinary. As for the admin part, I'm not an admin, neither here nor at the fr.wiki. So you can rest assured that an impartial third person will take the final decision about whether your bio will be deleted or kept (both here and over at the French wiki). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The huge number of co-authors on most or all of his papers renders our most common means of measuring academic impact (citation counts and h-index etc) meaningless, and I don't see any other WP:PROF criterion for which we have any evidence. There is a little bit of popular press for his research [9] [10] (which is why I'm only weakly in favor of deletion) but both just mention him as being part of 2000- or 3000-scientist teams, which again doesn't do much to pick him out of the crowd. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 4 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post-micturition convulsion syndrome[edit]

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

The name of this article is misleading, and in fact it's something made up on a message board, according to the Straight Dope, and there is not a single reliable source (and no sign of any being found). Slashme (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence:

Nothing on Google Scholar
Nothing relevant on Medline
Nothing relevant on Google Books
- There seems to be at least two other mentions of similar terms: post-micturition shudders, urethral shivering. Maybe someone with better research skills could find more relevant sources. --Waldir ^talk 20:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This ("...decrease in the number of patients shivering ... when heated bladder irrigation solution was used"), this ("...the shivering pathway in the spinal cord of cats ... is near but not coextensive with the bladder pathway"), this ("...a positive correlation was noted between shivering and bladder temperature decline") and this ("...The studies support the use of urinary bladder temperature as a reliable index of core temperature...") might also be relevant. --Waldir ^talk 20:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: None of these directly address the topic of the article, even though they'd be useful sources for an academic researching the topic. --Slashme (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (G3) as obvious Hoax. Shiver me timbers! It's been there since end of 2008, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it's a hoax. Definitely original research though. Too bad, it was a quite funny and harmless article :P --Waldir ^talk 20:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: not a hoax, but clearly OR / not verifiable. --Slashme (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very generous. It is undoubtedly a piece of made-up fun using real words to describe a pretty much non-existent condition. Of course all degrees of hoaxatiousness are also WP:OR. This is pretty far along the spectrum of hoaxatiosity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Slashme and Waldir's findings.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Send this one to Urban Dictionary and maybe we'll see ya in five years. Carrite (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Urethral shivering is a real phenomenon, but not very widely reported or analysed. I can't find it on Google Scholar, and the only Google Books results are old medical books that mainly mention it as an effect of catheterisation; one book mentions the phenomenon after urination in healty individuals. Not really notable in any event. --Slashme (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a lost case, see above. Not notable enough to be on Google scholar. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 5 March 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, G4 by User:The_JPS. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sales enablement[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable neologism, and dictionary definition of that neologism. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:17, 27 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ainulindalë[edit]

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

Article is nothing but WP:PLOT, doesn't indicate why one section of a book deserves it's own article. Should be deleted, not even worth merging into The Silmarillion GimliDotNet (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it seems reasonably clear from Google Scholar that there is ample evidence of notability of this subject. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has a very useful account of the Creation of Tolkien's world. If deleted should at least be transferred to Silmarillion's page. It sets the foundation of understanding for The Lord of The Rings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.3.101 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has editing issues, but that's not a reason to delete. Topic is notable: there seem to be plenty of detailed, reliable sources out there . Tigerboy1966 01:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment there are sources that just deal with the Ainulindalë? They seem to be dealing with The Silmarillion, of which the Ainulindalë is just a chapter. GimliDotNet (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there is no requirement for the subject to be the the main topic of the source. If it receives significant coverage in a discussion or analysis of the larger work, that's fine for notability. Tigerboy1966 08:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few sources about this work (not in-universe)

Jason Fisher (2011). Tolkien and the Study of His Sources: Critical Essays. McFarland. pp. 47–51. ISBN 0786464828. Discusses this topic and Biblical parallels.
John William Houghton (2003). "Augustine in the cottage of lost play: the Ainulindalë as asterisk cosmogony". In Jane Chance (ed.). Tolkien the medievalist. Routledge studies in medieval religion and culture. Vol. 3. Psychology Press. pp. 171–182. ISBN 0415289440. Chapter about this topic as a cosmogonic myth.
Colin Duriez (2003). Tolkien and C.S. Lewis: the gift of friendship. Paulist Press. pp. 103–104. ISBN 1587680262. Influence of this work on C.S Lewis's' Narnia.

Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are external sources (see above) that assert individual notability. De728631 (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources have been found and are in the article covering it. Dream Focus 08:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a major division of the Silmarillion (even if only a chapter in length) should certainly be a redirect and not a red link. But given its status as Tolkien's creation myth it has been widely mentioned and a decent article could be written. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - may be rescued, see WP:BEFORE and the sources cited above. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 5 March 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Perkins[edit]

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

An amateur footballer from Hong Kong. Claims to run a football review site. But, I can't find evidence. I think the site is this. But it is mostly a promotional site reviewing football equipment. Prod was contested Bgwhite (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources or notability. Seems to be mostly self-promotion.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, as footballer or journalist or anything. Giant Snowman 22:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. 147.8.202.87 (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 28 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any Video Converter[edit]

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

Serves primarily as an advertisement vehicle, and the software doesn't appear to be represented in reliable sources beyond passing references. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 18:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self-promotion and advertising. Doesn't meet Notability. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like advertising; sourcing is sparse. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I started the article and it was hijacked! The earlier version has three reliable sources with significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also this long review. SL93 (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a short review. SL93 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It still doesn't meet notability required for Wikipedia even without the advertising. Even though it was 'hijacked'. If it was a matter of just advertising it could be removed; but sourcing for WP:Note still stands. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - How does 2 reviews and 3 references in the article not show notability? SL93 (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the article - a review, 3 pages, and 1 page. These are not trivial mentions. SL93 (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per SL93's sources. I have also (hopefully) fixed up the article. Blatant promotion removed, claims now sourced. A412 (Talk • C) 04:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existing reliable, secondary sources provide enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. The poor state of article due to promotional edits does not reflect on notability. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the promotional language seems to have been my fault. I didn't notice that I was doing it, but I do use the software. SL93 (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant before, when it had feature list and such, it's fine(ish) now. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per SL93. Deletion would be an option if there was no history to fall back to - in this case, we can restore a version prior to the promotional edits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the established practice is to consider the topic notable if there are at least two sources with indication of editorial oversight. Here we have more then two. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few reviews does not in my mind establish long term notability. Just because there are a few sources doesn't mean you have established significant converage required for real notability. This idea that two sources establishing notability is NOT standard practice, and shouldn't be. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All that WP:N says on the matter is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't "long term notability" subjective to each person? That is why notability guidelines exist. SL93 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I count no less than five independent reviews here. A412 (Talk • C) 23:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N for this topic has been met as an addressable issue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:47, 2 March 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. If you want to take it to Wiktionary, just ask. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kalkharab[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is a dictionary definition Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. The article gives only a dictionary definition and some use examples, which amount to a dictionary entry. It does not discuss a concept or an entity. --Muhandes (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT clearly states that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Nothing to add to the others' comments, really. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its a dictionary word but has a deep history associated with its origin. I am unable to find Online References; but this word is widely. I am working out on the etymology of this word. --Devkoy (talk) 12:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Frqns001 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Muhandes (talk) 10:43, 2 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barreto's Goa India[edit]

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

Although terribly confused and contorted, this article appears to be about a home, the home of the Barreto family in Goa, India. The author (apparently the current resident of the home) has attempted to give this home notability with many links and references, but none of them mention this home specifically. While it is true that a Francisco Barreto was a Portuguese viceroy in Goa in the 16th century, and may have been awarded a coat of arms recognizing said service, there is no evidence that this home has any relation to that man. If it does, and this can be verified, a simple mention of that at the Francisco Barreto article would suffice. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I read it as being about the 'house' in the sense of noble family (which is why I tagged it A7), and it appears to be a history of a lot of non-notables mixed with one or two who might be vaguely notable in their own right, but who don't lend their putative notability to the rest. There are houses mentioned in the sense of buildings, but it's the family I see as the central topic. Peridon (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete slowly or keep. Not sure what to say on deletion, but this isn't A7 material. The article says that the family has produced multiple people who were prominent members of Portuguese Indian society; that by itself isn't enough to make the article keepable, but it's enough to make the family important. If Peridon and I misunderstand the article and it's really about a residence, it still doesn't qualify: a house with multiple prominent residents is important, and buildings aren't A7-eligible either. Nyttend (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd only keep it if the house was historic for the events which took place; or has transformed into a museum about the individual who lived there and the events which took place within the house. Doesn't seem to qualify for that criteria. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesnt seem notable as a historical monument or place.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:17, 4 March 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 to delete. I am not seeing any deletion argument that is soundly based in policy. The nominator suggests "Problematic article that should be deleted and broken up into its component parts". This presents licensing issues as described at WP:MAD. "Delete with mergers or the creation of new lists as warranted" as proposed by User:Crazypaco has the same problem. I am persuaded by User:Milowent who says this is "an organizational dispute about where to include the various president lists" and this is effectively endorsed by User:DGG. The way forward is to take the discussion to the talk page to decide what to do with the content. After appropriate merging the existing page can be converted to a disambiguation page or parked as a sub-page somewhere to safeguard the attribution history, again as talk page consensus decrees. TerriersFan (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ivy League university presidents[edit]

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

Problematic article that should be deleted and broken up into its component parts. First, there's nothing significant about being an "Ivy League president" that is distinct from being President of X University. Second, the Ivy League is a sports conference. Third, the Ivy League didn't exist until 1954, why are there president dating back to the 17th century? GrapedApe (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Universities#List_of_Ivy_League_university_presidents for the opinion of the WikiProject Universities. --GrapedApe (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with mergers or the creation of new lists as warranted. - Six of the seven universities, I believe the exceptions being Penn and Dartmouth, already have existing lists of their historic heads of their university as either a separate list article or as a component of another article. As Penn and Dartmouth do not appear to have this, they should have their tables broken off into separate lists or merged into existing articles as do the other schools. I don't see the need to duplicate the existing lists. Are all academic and athletic conferences and consortiums to have similarly duplicative lists? It seems superfluous. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 20 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) 17:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CrazyPaco above or redirect to Ivy League. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgath (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retain and Protect Obvious historical significance of the individual and collective chains of leadership leading to their convergence in 1954.
Comment: Why is this at AfD? We aren't going to delete the content, its just an organizational dispute about where to include he various president lists. If we want to split it up, that's completely reasonable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously encyclopedic content; the question of how to present it is secondary and need not concern us; if we did split, this would still be useful for to use as a sort of disam page, for people who might be searching for Ivy League presidents. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 8 March 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. No quorum, so a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zygo Energy Vodka[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 02:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:08, 13 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. Here's some passing mentions in a New York Magazine article: When the Party's Over (for the Party Planner). Here's a blog review: Zygo Energy Vodka Review. The topic doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:44, 21 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) 17:03, 27 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. No quorum, that makes this a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohna de gori kayina[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a storybook. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commment. Yikes. I'm not sure of notability, but this needs so much cleanup that it's almost obscene. Fairy tales, myths, and the like do sometimes have notability, especially cultural notability, so I'll see if I can find anything. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Neutral I can't find anything, not even with the parts that are in another language. The book listed is for another set of folktales entirely. The writing in the article is so vague that I can't tell if the stories are actual folktales or if they're something that someone wrote themselves that was based around real folktales.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Changing vote to neutral. I'm not really sure if there's anything out there, but I wouldn't mind trying to keep this article. If anyone can find sources to show this is a real folktale, I'm open to changing my vote from neutral to keep. I do think that there's a definite language barrier here since folk and fairy tales tend to go under multiple different names and spelling, not to mention that sometimes they're not always on the internet. Good job on cleanup by CC!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment Helpful and perceptive comments by Tokyogirl79. Stories, including folktales and fairytales, can certainly have their own articles, see Little Red Riding Hood and indeed the long list in Grimms' Fairy Tales: List to know that it is quite possible to have an informative article on a story, complete with detailed 'Synopsis' of the story itself.

Also, Tokyogirl79's mention of cultural notability reminds us that we must be extremely careful of cultural bias: we are very much less familiar with Indian folktales, and there is no reason why there shouldn't be articles on them; and equally, we know it is much more difficult to source such articles, so caution is required.

In this article's favour, it already does have sources; it is fine to include summaries of stories, plots of books and plays (with primary sources only); and cleanup (like empty sections needing expansion) is not a reason for deletion.

Against, the article clearly needs better secondary sources; and it needs rebalancing so the synopses themselves form only a modest element of the article.

The dilemma would be resolved if anyone with expert knowledge of Indian folktales can help with sources. Help, anyone? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Chhail Batohi IS named in Chaube & Crooke on page 182, so the source is correct; and it is not surprising that different versions of the tales exist in a large subcontinent with rich oral traditions. Have done a little formatting, and removed the enormous "story" project, leaving the still-detailed "Plot". I'm inclining towards Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks like my college has an ebook version of the book "In quest of Indian folktales" available, so I'm going to try to get a copy and see what the folktale is called there. It might be worthwhile to rename everything and write it as described in the book. From what I've found through my college's library search, there appears to be enough scholarly reviews of the book itself to warrant an article about the book, so maybe a redirect to an article about the book that has a description of the fairy tale?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 13 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 20 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) 17:02, 27 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 due to insufficient participation. Rlendog (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Pumhösl[edit]

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

I'm not convinced of notability and there appears to be a COI issue. Eeekster (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, simply not notable enough. Pascal (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Make no mistake, this is a terrible article and would require a major overhaul. However, the artist has been in the Stedelijk Museum, Mudam, documenta, São Paulo Biennale, La Biennale di Venezia, manifesta and MACBA amongst many others. A quick google news and google scholar search shows plenty of German language hits including Die Presse and Artforum and many scholarly journals. This is actually pretty damn impressive and this easily passes WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. freshacconci talktalk 02:53, 16 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article has been significantly cleaned-up as of this post. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:35, 21 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) 17:02, 27 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reji Philip[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:PROF. Although I see a h-index of 15 from citations-gadget, I don't think that alone would be sufficient. — Pewfly (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 14 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 20 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) 17:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Absolutely fails WP:PROF. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Passing mention in a couple news hits, most of the hits are for different people with the same name. I agree with the nominator that the h-index looks ok, but looking closely at the books and scholar hits there is nothing to show notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 16:22, 5 March 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) 16:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muse Art Gallery[edit]

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

This article has an interesting history. It was written in the main by the curator, and looks to be very much a promotional vehicle to advertise the gallery. That editor then himself removed the speedy deletion tag on 'his own' article. Even so the gallery itself has laudable ambitions. Despite the numerous mentions in sundry media I'm not sure that it is actually notable, though the Marriott parentage may be sufficient notability. Many of the mentions seem to be 'mentions in passing' so to speak.

So, since I am not sure, I'm asking the community to look at the article with care, not to be bamboozled by the number of references, but to follow them (and consider removing irrelevant ones so that the wood may be seen from the trees here), and to reach a consensus about whether it should remain, and, indeed, in what form. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet wp:notability. Needs a rewrite. North8000 (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said it looks like promotional vehicle answer to this do you think Marriott requires promotion on wikipedia to help the society in a small part of southern India ? Muse art gallery is doing a good work to help the society and if USA Govt. web site is given a mention that they partnered with muse art gallery link is here http://hyderabad.usconsulate.gov/pe121010.html is this a mention of passing ?

If Microsoft Employees get to gether and do an photo show and raise money for charity and that was in the news in a prominent news paper is this a passing mention ? http://www.deccanchronicle.com/tabloid/potpouri/confluenceof-empathy-375.

(Gregx1872 (talk) 04:16, 14 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 20 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) 17:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : This article ,no doubt,needs a cleanup.But there are independent reliable sources to verify its existence and its notability.Thus it passes WP:N and WP:RS. Vivekananda De--tAlK 14:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and done a lot of cleanup, removed puff words and "exhibitions" for which no reliable references were found.Hope it is now upto WP standards.Vivekananda De--tAlK 15:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I can see many references from national newspapers. definitely notable and verifiable--Anbu121 (talk me) 14:46, 4 March 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 (non-admin closure). Nom has retired, no support for nomination after 2 relists. -- Trevj (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spark Networks[edit]

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

non notable article. Almost no decent sources that I can find other than their website. Kumioko (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 14 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 20 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) 17:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It is easier to find coverage of the dating websites they own--especially JDate--but I did find a little bit of company-wide coverage in addition to the New York Times article already cited, notably an 2010 ABC News feature entitled "As Dating Pool Shrinks, Love Matches Grow". There's also one from Canada.com [11] and smaller mentions such as [12][13]. (Some other possibilities on GNews are paywalled so I can't tell if the coverage is substantial.) (Also, part of the searching difficulty may be that this company used to be called Match.net and ChristianMingle used to be called Relationships.com, which are both hard to search.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:06, 27 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hein de Haan[edit]

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

Unsourced biographical article, seems to be a non-notable architect and teacher. I can only find the briefest of mentions online in IRS Sionk (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 20 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) 17:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here worth saving! $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 12:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing showing notability in web search from multiple search engines, a few mentions in google books but nothing to establish notability, nothing in news or scholar. Fails WP:GNG MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 02:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not the place for unnotable topics. Cloudz 679 08:50, 9 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Animals (film)[edit]

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

Delete It is an finished and unreleased film - I don't see how this can be notable in any meaningful sense $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 16:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Independent low-budget film by first-time director with a fairly obscure cast that is still in the principal photography stage. There's a little bit of coverage but not much to build an article. Most of it is generated directly by the production company and cannot entirely be considered as independent third-party coverage. It should also be noted that the article itself and the related article Edward Drake (director) have been built by a team of single-purpose editors who clearly have a conflict of interest. Ironically, one of these editors has argued that Animals (film) should be kept "because of the publicity being generated form a production of this size". Pichpich (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough of a mention in reliable secondary sources at present to reach notability, in the future it may be notable but wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect / Merge to filmmaker's article at Edward Drake (director)#filmography as we do have enough sources for this to be mentioned there in context to his career,[14][15][16][17][18][19] even if not currently meriting a seperate article. If or when it is released and gets additional coverage, the redirect can be undone and the article expanded accordingly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge + Comment. Isn't it interesting that Reg Gorman is up for deletion at the same time, but I just remember reading a news article that he is helping this film maker produce his first movies and start to get going. Otherwise this fails notability and should be merge with Edward Drake (director) Ray-Rays 01:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete Not practical to merge with Drake, as that article will probably be deleted also. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 8 March 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Noela Castañeda[edit]

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

Pure hoax. Article attempts to assert the notability of this person based on links to her twitter account, and comments she has posted on news sites (claiming the title of one article as "Prince Harry's friend Maria Noela says..." where Castaneda was merely one commenter among many on an online news story). Request that the page be salted based on repeated creation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being the ex-girlfriend of University basketball player is not notable. No reliable references. Just plain nothing. Bgwhite (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no RS, it's all basically fluff and silly postings. Someone's having a bit of fun but it's not an encyclopedia article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably qualifies for speedy delete yet again. Concur with the nominator's salting recommendation. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources in the article aren't about Maria Noela Castañeda (also known as Elle Castañeda). This article used as a source in the article is about Karina Castaneda. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:17, 29 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. Stifle (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Drake (director)[edit]

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

Delete The subject has made one film that has not yet been released and the article really does not establish notability $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 14:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Animals (film). I could live with a redirect but I'm hesitant because the film itself is of questionable notability. (It's a low-budget independent film by a first-time director and it's still in the principal photography stage.) I wish all the best to the film and to Mr. Drake himself but he just doesn't pass the threshold of WP:BIO. There's one short interview in a reliable source but it contains basically zero in-depth information. In fact two thirds of the interview are about his plans if he wins a prize that we now know he did not win. The biography was written by someone who knows him personally (see User talk:WoodyChaucer) and supported by two other fresh accounts JamesHollandson (talk · contribs) and Leosinger (talk · contribs) who were adamant that their friend was notable enough to erase this other Edward Drake from memory. Interestingly, it has been argued that the film is notable because it's generating a lot of publicity but I'm not too happy with Wikipedia being used for self-promotion. If all goes well, Drake's movie will come out within the next year and if it's even moderately successful we will get plenty of in-depth coverage about him but we're not supposed to jump the gun. Pichpich (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, some small coverage for WP:ONEEVENT. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as just barely notable enough and we do not expect a new fimmaker to have the coverage as might Spielberg or Lucas. Since this young filmmaker is involved in more than one project, it's not quite a WP:BLP1E. That he and his most recent project ARE receiving coverage,[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] the concern for ONEEVENT does not quite apply, as it is expected that filmmakers receive coverage for their latest projects, just as has this fellow. With just enough coverage, we have WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER being met. I have already suggested elsewhere[28] that the film Animals (film) should be redirected to the filmmaker for the time being, and we can allow this new article to grow and be further improved over time and with regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few quick points. First, there is absolutely no question that Drake fails WP:FILMMAKER and by a comfortable margin. Which of the five criteria do you think he meets? You say that he has been involved in "more than one project" but this is misleading. He is currently shooting a feature film, that's true. The other project is a 90 second amateur film that was entered into an amateur film contest which he did not win. Finally, you seem to call for lowering the notability bar for young filmmakers on the grounds that they're not Spielberg or Lucas. The creator of the article likewise asked me to "Give the kid a break". The bar is set at the same level for everyone: multiple instances of coverage of Drake himself (not his film, not the actor in his film, not the contest he entered) in reliable sources. I don't see that right now. Pichpich (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I read the applicable guideline stating ""The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work... that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," and look at the numerous sources speaking about this person and or his work, I cannot conclude that this guideline is failed. We have two intrically related new articles brought to AFD... the filmmaker and his film. Both have coverage.[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] In granting that the film is getting coverage, it is not yet released and so fails WP:NFF. BUT in looking for alternatives to outright deletion, I see how policy instructs how a covered topic might still be discussed even when not yet meriting a separate article... and that led me to this AFD on the filmmaker. I am not calling for a lowering of the bar... only that it not be raised beyond its intent. I am not saying "give the kid a break"... no exceptions asked and none expected. What I am saying is we have a filmmaker who just bumps over the bar for notability and that it serves the project and its readers that this article remain and be further improved through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a completely unreasonable stretch of all the parameters of WP:FILMMAKER. For starters, the phrase "has created" implies that the work in question is completed but the feature film has not even finished principal photography. "Well-known work" implies that, you know, people actually know about it. But it's interesting that you chose to drop the word "significant" in that sentence. For the record, let me point out again that the works of Edward Drake are a one-minute video used to audition for a contest and a low-budget independent film currently shooting. That is miles away from the spirit of criterion 3 of WP:FILMMAKER. You also casually list 8 links above but I'd like to point out that links 15 and 17 are the same and are not a reliable source, link 16 is not independent of its subject, link 14 has zero information and is basically a blog, links 10 and 12 have nothing to do with Animals (film) and link 11 only makes a passing mention of Drake. Pichpich (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability, also looks like this page can get a lot bigger if the AFD for his animal move gets merge to this page. [Ray-Rays 02:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Contact ]
Delete I almost always follow the expert views of MQS in this subject. This time I think he has it wrong; the film is not yet notable, and neither is he. Perhaps he will be. I agree with Pichpich & others that this is really too far a stretch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 02:15, 8 March 2012‎

Comment/Request While I can accept that this article may yet be deleted, I do believe it has the potential to be improved to better serve the project. IF it is deleted as a result of this discussion, and IF it is not returned to its author, I request that it be be moved to User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Edward Drake (filmmaker) so that I may work on it and improve it over time and through regular editing as sources come forward when this filmmaker and his film receive more coverage upon his film's release. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per above request. Cavarrone (talk) 12:01, 10 March 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 sources just don't stack up the one RS is for the less notable electricity theft rather than the SEG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Searl. --Salix (talk): 08:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Searl Effect Generator[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable perpetual motion machine. The references in the existing article are very poor and there doesn't seem to be any decent sources out there so that it meets GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BALETE. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at the available sources when researching a closely related AfD. The nominator is essentially correct, in that there aren't any reliable independent sources about this machine. There are merely a handful of distinctly fringe publications. Jakew (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete whatever the sources, and they look flaky enough at a glance, anything that claims to work by violating the laws of thermodynamics is basically Utter Non-Science (to be as polite as possible). There's nothing like a salvageable article in any of the material. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to John Searl. There is certainly some notability here, given the many references to the SEG, although it's all WP:FRINGE. -- 203.171.197.232 (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the article are mostly unreliable; the only reliable sources are about the energy theft conviction (which don't really have any bearing to this article). As such the article fails all notability tests. Fringe sources by their very nature should not be used to establish due weight. We should be looking for signficant coverage by independent, reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to John Searl. Enough sources, but adds to John Searl's article and is mainly linked to it. --Any replies should keep a copy on my talk >> (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are you referring to? I suggest you look at the quality of the sources in the article at present. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally non-notable perpetual motion device. Such devices are not even within the rather open boundaries of fringe science, but psuedoscience, and only belong hee when they are of historical importance or truly notable nonsense. ` DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to John Searl where the SEG is discussed. The self-published sources are valid for verifiability about the claims made by the author, so a short description of the device would be a good fit in that article. Diego (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except if there are no reliable sources for the section then it's undue weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:57, 8 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Waheed (suspected aircraft bomb plotter)[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor 2.27.98.195. On the merits, I have no opinion. Note that the article was initially tagged on 25 February, and the nomination dated likewise; I'm processing it on 27 February, so use that as the start date. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Abdul Muneem Patel

The original rationale, from Talk:Abdul Waheed (suspected aircraft bomb plotter), reads as follows:

I strongly believe this article should be deleted, and it's important for privacy and neutrality within Wikipedia that it should be deleted. The article refers to a suspect in the 2006 transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot I believe that is a notable event: however, this suspect is not notable in his own right. This article contains a lot of personal biographical information that is not relevant to the event and does not belong in an encyclopedia such as this.

A previous discussion, in 2006, resulted in a 25-27 vote. A record of this is linked above. Since the time of that vote, the subject of this article has been cleared of any crime. And, several years have passed without anything further notable around the subject. I have not had the opportunity, but articles on other suspects, such as Cossor_Ali might also be considered for deletion on the same basis. A fuller list of suspects can be found at the AfD link, above.

I am not a regular wikipedian, so please forgive any errors, but I did check the documentation for relevant deletion policies: - Person was notable for being charged in a terrorist plot: since he was cleared, he is not notable for this one event (WP:BLP1E "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.");
- extensive biographical information that's not relevant to the charges (WP:NOTWHOSWHO "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)");
- I previously made a speedy deletion tag where I said (in addition to the above 2 points): biographical information is likely to be incorrect/is contradicted elsewhere. A more experienced wikipedian deleted my speedy deletion tag on this basis with the explanation that this info comes from "RSs" - I do not think this makes it encyclopedic or notable, and this doesn't answer my other two points which are backed up strongly with Wikipedia policy; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.98.195 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst there are reliable sources in the article, they are all news sources from the same time period (August 2006) when this subject was newsworthy. He has received minimal (no?) coverage since, so WP:BLP1E applies. See also WP:CRIME, which states: "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Given that he was not convicted of any crime, we should not have an article on Waheed unless he is otherwise notable; we do not have or need articles on everyone ever suspected of a felony. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I usually am not terrifically sympathetic to the "privacy concerns" of public figures as a rationale for deletion. In this case, however, the fact that the "suspected aircraft bomb plotter" was convicted of nothing — as nearly as I can determine — convinces me that BLP1E might be reasonable invoked here. I'll leave that as a comment rather than a definite delete recommendation for now. Carrite (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What the hell, I talked myself into it. Carrite (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 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) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Subroto Roy[edit]

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

The notability of the academician is not clear and BLP which needs more sources. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 11:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A noted economist, policy advisor and writer. His Pricing, Planning and Politics featured prominantly in the Times (London) editorial May 29 1984. Also I think he was an advsior to Rajiv Gandhi on the 1991 economic reforms. His theory book Philosophy of economics: on the scope of reason in economic inquiry is also well known and well cited and I have added multiple independent reviews of it to the article. Published a lot in The Statesman as "contributing editor". (Msrasnw (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Also renamed page Subroto Roy (economist). (Msrasnw (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keep: Professor Roy has likely influenced a significant number of individuals in his academic career and through his writings. "Philosophy of Economics" is notable in economic literature for its plain language and use of dialogue to illustrate issues. — Preceding Scott Peterson comment added by (talk • contribs) 17:41, 27 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 will userfy upon request. Rlendog (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likuyani patterns of education[edit]

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

Contested prod. Clearly original research - the article even says "just one of the great scientific research work carried out by micah samba" (i.e. the author). Unencyclopaedic too. andy (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Text dump of somebody's academic paper, with abstract and so forth. Original research and possible copyright violation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Smerdis. As a remote second choice, if the article creator requests, the page could be userfied to allow him to revise it into Wikipedia style. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that we do have an article on Education in Kenya that could stand improvement, and where at least some of the facts contained in this paper might go. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research essay. Possibly userfy, if the creator of the article would like, as some of the information could be useful in the Education in Kenya article, provided that information is backed by reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:24, 29 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond Agius[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator, no rationale given. This player fails WP:GNG, as well as WP:NFOOTBALL, as he has never appeared in a fully-professional league. Giant Snowman 09:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maltese football is not fully pro, he has not appeared for the national team, and there is insufficient coverage for the article to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 28 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 User:Ronhjones under criterion G7. (non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 22:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of TV-14 episodes of The Simpsons[edit]

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

Another contribution from TBrandley (talk · contribs), who has had several articles up for deletion this week and really needs to learn our proper article criteria. Unsourced information about Simpsons episodes that meet a certain parental ratings guideline (the American TV Parental Guidelines) only applicable to airings in the United States, and even then only in the original airing (if true); episodes are edited down below TV-14 to meet standards in syndication. A related category is also up for a CfD. Nate • (chatter) 09:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Gran² 10:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and block editor per WP:DISRUPT. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as an indiscrimanate collection of information. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate, pointless fork of List of The Simpsons episodes, US-centric. Reso lute 17:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless American-centric trivial list. Lugnuts (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His contributions are not helpful and no matter how many times his stuff if deleted he still does not get it! JayJay^{Talk to me} 22:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article in question doesn't seem to exist...... -- Jelly Soup (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Apparently it was speedied by G7 - the author blanked it and requested deletion. - Jorgath (talk) 17:58, 28 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 Rejecting Jane. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Lassman[edit]

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

We already have an article for the hoax which he perpetrated. There are a few citations, but I don't think that the other things he has done are noteworthy enough NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are 18 citations; the question, clearly, is what do they show. If they relate only to the Rejecting Jane hoax then a merge is in order, not a matter for AfD, just consensus on the two pages affected. If they show he's notable, then no action is required. Either way it doesn't seem a matter to bring here.

By the way, if you do mean to bring this to AfD, someone needs to mark the article itself as being under this threat. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice -- I have added the template now. I don't think there is any content in the Lassman article worth merging into the 'Rejecting Jane' one. The 'Rejecting Jane' section in the Lassman article simple reproduces the content in the 'Rejecting Jane' article. As for the 'Crazy About Jane' section -- I don't think the fact that a few quotes by the subject were reproduced in a number of ephemeral newspaper articles is worth a Wikipedia entry. Hence why I think this article should just be deleted outright. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect OK well then delete, notability not established. But perhaps a Redirect would be more helpful to readers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Perfectly reasonable search term for the article on the hoax. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 8 March 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 keep (SK1). Withdrawn by nominator here [37], procedural reclosing, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tsuen Wan Transport Complex[edit]

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

Delete. Unremarkable transport hub, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, fails WP:GNG. WWGB (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've long wondered why railway stations are automatically notable but bus stations aren't. (Satnavs seem to ignore bus stations too - very frustrating at times...) Peridon (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable hub of buses and ferries. Connected to West Rail station. Jeremy Hopkins (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have expanded the article and added ideas for further improvement on the talk page. One source mentions that it was "The first of its kind in Hong Kong", being at the time of construction a hub for road and water transport. A search through Chinese language sources should yield additional results. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Underwaterbuffalo's additions to the article have established notability and encyclopedic worthiness of the topic. Der yck C. 11:26, 29 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. Stifle (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protective Action Guide for Nuclear Incidents[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: Reads like a manual or essay, unsourced OR, doesn't seem possible to re-write neutrally Eeekster (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems to be an attempt to present a specific HOW-TO manual as an article in its own right. If the manual itself were contentious and the subject of heated debate in the press, etc, this could be possible, but since Wikipedia is not itself a HOW-TO manual it seems inappropriate. An "External Link" entry in one of the nuclear radiation articles (say, the first blue link in the article) might be suitable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder. The article reads like a how-to guide and I don't see it being reparable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A summary based on important documents, not how to do it, which would be much more detailed. This sort of information is of public interest and is reasonable encyclopedic content. The necessary rewriting is perfect feasible. I started by changing the title of the article to Protective action for nuclear incidents, which avoids the impression of being a how to. I also removed the confusing section summarizing earlier accidents; the articles on them should simply be linked. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, let's assume you are right, an article on Protective action for nuclear incidents is necessary. That would be about the general principles of what to do in such an event. But we had here a different article, about a specific document, where we had a HOW-TO if not an ADV problem. It's changing from MyShop, Notown to a whole new piece on Notown: you're still deleting MyShop, but muddying the waters at the same time. If the article on the new topic is indeed needed then let's create it from scratch, not from this messy mistaken HOW-TO guide. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a summary version into Radioactive contamination under a new "Protective measures" section per WP:PRESERVE. Content is verifiable and the provided references would make a good starting point for people interested, until we have a real article about "Protective action for nuclear incidents". Diego (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever else this may be, it's not an encyclopedia article. The mere fact that some of its content might be useful in writing actual articles doesn't make it salvageable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:30, 11 March 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 per DGG --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coopism[edit]

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

WP:NEO at its finest. Invented on Facebook. No CSD category covers it, so here we are. (ie: fails general notability guidelines for a neologism) Dennis Brown (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete We honestly don't even need a discussion about it JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we do. There isn't a category for speedy delete for WP:NEO. That is why I brought it here, I kinda said that in the nom itself. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know but I'm saying it shouldn't be necessary to have a AfD for such obvious topic that should be deleted JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's already covered in History of the cooperative movement A10 might have worked. Eeekster (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Won't break my heart if you want to tag it. Don't think it would be appropriate for me to CSD and AFD the same article. It might work, some admins will stretch A10 farther than others. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's already in AFD so speedy tagging isn't something I would do. Eeekster (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Goofy Facebook neologism by individuals who would learn much from History of the cooperative movement, for starters... Carrite (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eeekster (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as a hoax. →Σ τ c. 02:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But I don't quite see it as rising to that level. But not opposed to the idea either. ;) Eeekster (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax. But an unnecessary page, considering we have the article Cooperative movement. I changed the speedy to a10--duplicate on that basis, because there's no need for a redirect from a NEO that nobody uses. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aalener Jazzfest[edit]

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

Non-notable event and unreferenced. JayJay^{Talk to me} 00:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Miles Davis (arguably the most important figure in the history of jazz), Dave Brubeck, Herbie Hancock, Fats Domino, B.B King, Buddy Guy, Al Jarreau, Van Morrison... Non notable event you say? LOL. Do you really think those legends would play at a non notable festival? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Dr. Blofeld, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article asserts "one of the top five jazz festivals in Germany." That's notable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* WP:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously notable and reasonably referenced. Sasha (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 28 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 is clear enough already. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphanage Animation Studios[edit]

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

Vanity production company for Genndy Tartakovsky only one series produced then the company ceased operations. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per the nominator. 71.43.67.115 (talk) 20:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely misses WP:NOTABILITY. Rangoondispenser (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I move that this discussion be extended so that we can get a better consensus. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 02:55, 4 March 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 21:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Kursk submarine dead[edit]

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

I'm a little surprised that this list has lasted as long as it has, as it's a direct violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL: 'Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.' In general, 'lists of the dead' do not belong on Wikipedia, and have been rejected in many previous discussions. Tragic though this disaster was, creating online memorials is not what Wikipedia is for. Robofish (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though reluctantly. It pains me to have to agree with this, but as the individuals are not previously notable, and the event is covered in the article Russian submarine K-141 Kursk, I am forced to agree. However, if anyone knows a relevant policy that allows the article to stand, I'm willing to listen. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge awards to Russian submarine Kursk explosion or Russian submarine K-141 Kursk, delete the rest per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think when I made this article, I was trying to do something to save a list from Wikisource or something to that effect. I have no attachment to this article and the list could probably go away. I believe an external link to a list of the dead offwiki would suffice. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize & merge or the other way around. Not a standalone page though. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. wikipedia is not a memorial. Nothing encyclopedic in the list of names. Info about awards is indeed missing from the parent article, but must be put there, with proper references (probably available from Russian wikipedia) Locador (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize & Merge; the event which this list is related to is notable, and as such this content can be summarized and be added to the article about that event. If the article grows sufficiently, see WP:TOOLONG, then perhaps this can one day be spunout. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally inappropriate now and always, and not appropriate material for the article on the event either. NOT MEMORIAL is the valid policy for this. We already have an article on the Captain, which covers the award. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 8 March 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.