< 2 February	4 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. Rlendog (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MitosEHR[edit]

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

Non notable software Jac16888 ^Talk 23:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not turning up coverage in independent sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No RS significant coverage - only reference is to wiki for software. Created by an SPA as possible promotional article. Dialectric (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This sort of software is de facto notable. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? Says who?--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 8 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. Clear consensus to keep, nominated by a single purpose account, and the "strong delete" !vote is discarded as it was made by the nominator who already cast a !vote in their nomination statement. (non-admin closure) B music ian 02:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Eizenga[edit]

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

not sure how this person is noteworthy? must we list every single lawyer in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegasps (talk • contribs) 3 February 2012 — Renegasps (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Hi Renegasps, welcome. No, we should not list every single lawyer in Wikipedia. However, this particular individual is also a former president of the Ontario Liberal Party and held several senior positions in a major national political party. Sources are available detailing his career, and he meets the notability guidelines. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and in regards to this diff - I didn't create the article, I just added a couple of refs because I noticed it was tagged as unsourced. You can find the whole article history using the "history" link above, if you're interested. And the welcome message isn't "intimidation"... Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete googled for notability,could only find work done on a class action from back 20 years ago, nothing since. Too much like an advertisment for the liberal party. Is this guy notable for being a lawyer or head of a Canadian Riding party? understand if he was a Prime Minister or even an MP but does not seem to be the case. This appears to be advertising for drumming up business for his law firm.~~

Also notice that article creator is a UWO graduate like the subject, is this a vanity article? perhaps a conflict of interest? Eizenga appears to have taught at UWO Renegasps (talk contribs) 02:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The creator is an IP who geolocates to the US, and the article was created five years ago. FYI. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a three-year president of a major political party in Canada. He's had coverage in that role - see [[1]] an archived copy of a Toronto Star 2006 report., for example. If kept, the material relating to his legal career seems less notable and could be reduced. Colon el Tom 03:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable politician. It is, btw, very difficult showing notability of lawyers, other than the few famous trial lawyers. About the only things that can work or head of a state bar or similarly important professional association or national award, or notability as something related, such as as a politician or author. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 7 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. -- Lear's Fool 10:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of Legal Studies (Hons)[edit]

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

I think it is highly unlikely that individual undergraduate degree programs offered by particular universities are notable. The lack of independent sources in this case bears that out. Mkativerata (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coatrack advertisement. I see no reason to believe this degree is especially notable. OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Academic credentials are de facto notable. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question isn't really about an academic credential, it's a promotional piece for a specific universities degree program. OSborn^arf_contribs. 03:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - individual degrees, programs, and majors at a particular college are almost never notable, and this one lacks reliable sources to prove that it is generally notable. An academic credential, such as Juris doctor, is notable, but not J.D. (Albany Law School). Bearian (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Rlendog (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgecrest Intermediate School[edit]

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

Pardon me if I have incorrectly tagged this article for AfD. Article is about middle school. Are middle schools notable? Comments invited. AKS 20:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district, Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District#Intermediate Schools. This school lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Gene93. As a middle school it has to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG, but it appears to be a run-of-the-mill middle school. Someone should also redirect Palos Verdes Intermediate School. The third middle school in the district, Palos Verdes Intermediate School, has already been redirected. MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect, not delete. This is what we do about 95% of the time for intermediate schools, except when there is some really important obvious factor of notability . The whole point of the school working compromise was to avoid bring all of these here--the situations are almost identical. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Convention with schools such as this one is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable, given the lack of substantial multiple coverage in RSs in gnews and gbooks. "Merge" should not be considered IMHO, as that would run contrary to wp:CHALLENGED. If this wholly uncited text were sourced with inline citations, it would be just as easy to recreate it at the target.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 7 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. WP:SNOW. Moving, if desired, can be done through the normal processes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Anderson Moore[edit]

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

"article" with only hatnotes, templates and infobox. No real article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable war hero; the infobox states that he won the Navy Cross 3 times, and this is backed up by his entry at Military Times[2]. So he passes WP:MILPEOPLE. Also, he had a notable ship named after him. This article needs to be fleshed out, not deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that I put a couple sentences in the article — purple heart + ship named for him = notable. Seriously, how damned hard was THAT?!?!? Lazy editors are lazy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article is short does not mean it should be deleted. A simple Google search leads to many results about him. And as Ten Pound Hammer did suggest, there was a ship named after him. Simple expansion of the article is all thats needed. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Move- Substantially improved since nomination. Notability now clearly shown. Move after closure to John A. Moore as primary topic & stylization of namesake vessel. Dru of Id (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the sources added by Mr. Hammer above. Having named a ship after the guy would seem to be pretty much snow-worthy... Carrite (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. SL93 (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable does need a lot of cleanup though. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:07, 4 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, due to coverage in multiple reliable sources. Rlendog (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network (Canada)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Violates WP:CRYSTAL. JJ98 (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup The last AfD for this article had a consensus of Speedy Delete due to it being a hoax. However, according to this Huffington Post article it is no longer a hoax. It is indeed an upcoming program, however, there could be some information that has not been properly sourced, or is a rumor, etc., and should be removed immediately. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Teletoon for the time being with a section eventually expanded to a full article. At this stage, the only thing said about the network is it will exist in the near future, nothing about a schedule or acquired shows. It's best to be cautious with this article so the usual gang of hoaxers aren't putting up false 'sources' (i.e. fan boards and inane-minutia fansites) to back up upcoming programming. Also, has to actually be run somewhere and have CRTC approval, which reading this it does not have at this point in time (without CRTC approval, it won't ever air). Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we're being hoaxed, so is everyone (Google news link). There are multiple RS which are covering this announcement as reality, so I see no reason why past AfD consensus has anything to do with this apparently plausible new network. Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG; significant coverage in reliable sources:

Harris, Bill (February 2, 2012). "Teletoon launching Canadian Cartoon Network". Toronto Sun. Retrieved February 3, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Wilford, Denette (February 2, 2012). "Cartoon Network, Adult Swim Coming To Canada". Huffington Post. Retrieved February 3, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First, this is not a hoax. There is even a press release posted on Teletoon's corporate media website outlining the matter. Second, there is a decent amount of coverage of this in the media which would make it noteworthy enough to warrant an article.musimax. (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Cranley[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played in the League of Ireland. This league not being fully pro means that playing in it does not grant notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -per nom. Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NFOOTBALL League of Ireland not Fully Pro. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails guidelines mentioned above. Cloudz 679 17:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL GauchoDude (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL easily. The above !votes look like WP:CANVASSING. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly? – Kosm1 fent 13:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject has never played in a fully professional league, and lacks media coverage. – Kosm1 fent 13:15, 6 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 Spectrum management. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum planning[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. ~~Delete per~~ WP:NEO. Pol430 talk to me 19:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)))[reply]

Keep as notable. There seem to be approximately 1900 Gbooks and 1000 Gscholar which mention this phrase. A cursory glance shows many with the meaning ascribed here. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this a genuinely discrete concept, or a minor variant on Spectrum management which seems to include planning? If the former, we should Keep; if the latter, Merge/Redirect would be appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it's a case for normal editing rather than deletion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Merge doesn't necessitate coming to AfD. I suspect that's the right option here as the article is close to OR (and stubby) whereas Spectrum management seems to cover the ground properly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spectrum management. There doesn't seem to be anything worth merging. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spectrum management, as per above. -- The Anome (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spectrum management - same concept. --He to Hecuba (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment didn't even notice Spectrum management. Endorse redirection over deletion. Pol430 talk to me 13:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Fleming[edit]

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

WP:BLP without sufficient sourcing from reliable sources. Insufficient sources available for an article. Novangelis (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She has no notability beyond one event. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Fails WP:BIO. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for her connection and media attention concerning her association with the Innocence Project, also her case has been covered by two major crime shows which is an indicator that this crime isnt "just another crime". Does not fail WP:BIO.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PERP makes this one clear. The victim was not WP:WELLKNOWN and the motivation is not spelled out in the article at all (and therefore not a well-documented historic event). --Tgeairn (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Russell (radio presenter)[edit]

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

unremarkable radio personality. References show local coverage but not much beyond there. Broadcasting record is trivial. Promotional article largely edited by the subject of the article himself, when COI concerns were raised, highly suspect WP:SPAs cropped up. RadioFan (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet wp:notability. Needs wikifying. Has peacock and promotional type wording. North8000 (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you expand on how you see this meeting WP:N, specically the concerns about the amount of minor local coverage and lack of significant, coverage in more depth than just passing mentions.--RadioFan (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in sources that are reliable and unrelated to the subject, and once we remove the promotional fluff there is nothing left. VQuakr (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Google search finds this Wikipedia article as the top hit, and the remainder a bunch of social media sites. Google News Archive finds one hyper-local article about his marathon broadcast, and a bunch of articles about other people named Mike Russell. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close as disruptive, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stripper[edit]

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

Inapropriate Bloope (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep That is not a valid reason for deletion. Do not make any more frivolous nominations until you read Wikipedia:DELETION. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Frivolous nomination or user needs to read WP:5P. Dmcq (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indisputably notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:42, 3 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Keiber[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Has only played minor supporting roles in a few TV shows productions, which doesn't satisfy the WP:ENTERTAINER (significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions). Fails WP:GNG. The "references" are pretty much actor databases, nothing substantial. GrapedApe (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information has been updated to include newer material showing work on significant TV shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsantandrea (talk • contribs) 06:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Bit roles do not count for WP:ENTERTAINER: "significant roles in multiple notable ...television shows." --GrapedApe (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--GrapedApe (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage to establish notability. I found a few mentions but nothing substantial. -- Whpq (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:16, 3 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. BabbaQ's opinion does not address the verifiability issue. Sandstein 20:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Ming Sheu[edit]

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

Google News searches produce nothing. We are left with the sources given in the article and the blogosphere, which cannot count as reliable--and certainly can't verify the claims and allegations made in the article. Half of the sources in the article are primary sources anyway. If this isn't deleted, it certainly needs to be rewritten in a neutral manner on the basis of reliable sources--which I was unable to find. (Of course, it could be a media conspiracy dictated by the federal government...) Drmies (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - shouldnt be deleted but rewritten in a neutral manner as Drmies points out.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would love to work with Drmies to address any neutrality issues with the article. None have been raised on the talk page thus far. Claims made in the article are verifiable in the Black Star News. Greg Comlish (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC) (Note: User:Greg Comlish is the author of the article in question. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Delete It's disgraceful for Wikipedia to have such a non-neutral, unsubstantiated article. The only sources found in a Google News search, and the only ones offered in the article, are from the publication Black Star News, which does not even pretend to be a neutral or fact-based publication, and the opinion blog nakedcapitalism.com, and an anonymous blog at Daily Kos. Not a Reliable Source to be found anywhere. --MelanieN (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MelanieN. No apparent reliable secondary sources. Deor (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question What are the claims that people believe are "unsourced"? Greg Comlish (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject fails Wikipedia:Notability. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. SaveATreeEatAVegan 19:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to WKNR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Really Big Show[edit]

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

Not notable. Local radio show with lack of significant coverage. WP:SIGCOV Lack of reliable third party sources online or in print to verify article contents; of the three references present, one is simply a link to the website for the show's station. Only three other article pages currently link to this article. Most of article's content should be moved to local station article WKNR. Note: article was previously nominated for deletion once before in 2007 under a different title — see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizzo on the Radio. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - show has never aired in any radio market but Cleveland; show has not aired on any other station but WKNR. Most mentions of show via Google news search relate to LeBron James leaving Cleveland for Miami and do not focus on show itself. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content with WKNR. Possibly add a paragraph describing this show in WKNR's "Programming" section. Very little coverage in reliable, third party sources, and the few sources listed on the article are local sources. Almost no coverage outside of Cleveland. Frank Anchor^Talk 18:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and User:Frank Anchor. While the show may not be independently notable, it's significant in the context of the radio station. There probably doesn't need to be so much detail about it, however. ... discospinster _talk 23:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, or mention just briefly in the article on the radio station. -- Alarics (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- As it is WKNR's most promoted and listened to show, it deserves a mention, but having its own page I can take or leave. Vjmlhds 14:09, 9 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 Kenya Kongonis Cricket Club. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kongonis[edit]

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

Non-notable cricket team. While the East African Premier League is notable, I would say that by extension its teams are not. Also seems to clash somewhat with the Kenya Kongonis Cricket Club article. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The existence of the Kenya Kongonis Cricket Club article suggests that a merge should be possible, and I think that would be the right thing to do. In WP:CRIN terms, neither article would probably meet the notability criteria, but I'd be very open to persuasion that this is notable in the context of "sport in Kenya" or even "cricket in Kenya", and I think in any case we should be encouraging rather than discouraging to articles of this kind. Johnlp (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd go along with that reasonable suggestion, particularly in the context of "sport in Kenya". I'm more open these days to articles on teams with some historical merit to them, like the Kenya Kongonis Cricket Club. Come to think of it, not entirely sure why I wasn't bold and just went ahead and merged it! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yep, a merge and redirect looks like a good idea to me, too. Jenks24 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really having this debate again? Anyway my feeling is that whatever the outcome, there needs to be a distinction between Kongonis, the franchise that exists as part of the East Africa Cup and Premier League on one hand, and Kenya Kongonis, the cricket club that is one of the founding teams of Cricket Kenya and runs teams in the Nairobi Provincial Leagues. To that effect I propose that if merging is the way forward, then it is better to merge this article with the East Africa Cup and East Africa Premier League articles than with the Kenya Kongonis article. Kimemia Maina (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm happy to defer to your knowledge on this, but I think if merging to the Cup and League articles is done then there should still be a reference link at the cricket club article, simply on the basis that any reader looking for information on this franchise might well go there. Johnlp (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment . Sounds reasonable enough. Merge the Kongonis page with the two East Africa Cup and Premier League matches then add reference to the Kenya Kongonis Cricket Club page. Kimemia Maina (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I fully agree, a merger to Kenya Kongonis Cricket Club appears to be the best option. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to East Africa Cup (cricket) and East Africa Premier League not Kenya Kongonis Cricket Club and include explicit link to the club article. Kimemia Maina (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-creation[edit]

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

Little more than a dictionary definition and utterly devoid of references. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:Dictionary. If you want to make a distinction from reenactment, do it on the page for reenactment and redirect to there. Illinois2011 (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically a dictionary entry. North8000 (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No way around it, falls afoul of WP:NOTDIC. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to reenactment. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are not a dictionary.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) B music ian 02:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Landi Khana[edit]

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

I do not believe the subject meets the criteria for inclusion. I can find very few references to this station beyond semi-reliable websites that verify that it does exist (not in itself an argument for notability, of course). I do not believe it could ever be expanded into a stand alone article of worth, and I don't believe there is even enough verifiable information for it to be merged into Torkham (or Towr Kham). S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, no indication of wp:notability, rw notability looks unlikely. No content to be lost, just one sentence that says that it exists and where it is. North8000 (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reason above. Can easily be merged in elsewhere if needed for some reason. Calabe 1992 16:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added 10 references to the article. Haus^Talk 18:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The station is notable and several reliable sources demonstrate this. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An unusual railroad station, possibly the last one built by the British Raj in South Asia. The station was built at an unusual historical crossroads in tribal areas, and there is plenty more written about it, even in English, than is required for notability. "Notability looks likely." Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't seem to state any of that. Needs to be added. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to add anything you feel needs to be added. Pseudofusulina (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has plenty of references now, and railway stations are generally considered notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Issues about the current state of the article fall under AfD is not cleanup. Haus^Talk 15:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Longstanding precedent says we keep articles on railway stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources given in the article to verify notability. Mar4d (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) B music ian 02:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kei Sato[edit]

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

Offers no claims of notability and has no references. The article also has no context, and the only indication of whether the subject is living or not is the verb 'was'. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Kei Sato is one of the most prominent film actors in the Japanese New Wave, and has appeared in hundreds of films and TV shows. I quickly added a reference from a major dictionary noting some of his major awards. Many more sources can be added. It is nice the user JoshuSasori has been adding new pages about important people and texts in Japanese film and TV, but unfortunately the user is still a beginner when it comes to format and sourcing. I will warn the user about that, but we should be patient with such users. Michitaro (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few more references. Michitaro (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reviewing the references, I have concluded that he easily meets the WP:NACTOR guideline. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Russell (radio presenter)[edit]

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

unremarkable radio personality. References show local coverage but not much beyond there. Broadcasting record is trivial. Promotional article largely edited by the subject of the article himself, when COI concerns were raised, highly suspect WP:SPAs cropped up. RadioFan (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet wp:notability. Needs wikifying. Has peacock and promotional type wording. North8000 (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you expand on how you see this meeting WP:N, specically the concerns about the amount of minor local coverage and lack of significant, coverage in more depth than just passing mentions.--RadioFan (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in sources that are reliable and unrelated to the subject, and once we remove the promotional fluff there is nothing left. VQuakr (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Google search finds this Wikipedia article as the top hit, and the remainder a bunch of social media sites. Google News Archive finds one hyper-local article about his marathon broadcast, and a bunch of articles about other people named Mike Russell. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baytown Fire Department[edit]

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

I found nothing except for trivial mentions and normal news stories relating to their job. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The refs cited in the article do not appear to satisfy WP:ORG, (also called WP:CORP, the relevant notability guideline,. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a directory of every organization that exists. Edison (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete No indication of wp:notability. Enclyclopedic coverage of a typical local fire department. North8000 (talk) 16:17, 3 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. L Faraone 02:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zipfizz[edit]

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. Plenty of links here, the only significant coverage seems to be a write-up on a local paper's website and several energy drink blogs, as well as press releases related to a sponsorship of figure 8 racing. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. North8000 (talk) 16:19, 3 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Eye (energy drink)[edit]

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. North8000 (talk) 16:19, 3 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. L Faraone 02:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)~~ The result was soft delete. L Faraone 15:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Powerking[edit]

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. North8000 (talk) 16:20, 3 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. L Faraone 02:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drone, Drugs and Harmony[edit]

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

Album exists (as one article mentions it), but lacks multiple, substantial RS coverage. Article has zero refs. Tagged for notability for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its (one sentence) content can easilly be covered in the band's article. North8000 (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a review at Tiny Mix Tapes but not much else that I can find to get this to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Gongshow ^Talk 20:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I Love You (Yah Tibyah La Blu)#Discography. The album isn't notable, but I cannot see how deleting this article is preferable to simply redirecting it to the artist's page. -- Lear's Fool 10:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Ten[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jeremy Ten

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

This individual clearly is not notable (Wikipedia:Notability (people)) enough to warrant his own article. He has no Winter Olympic appearances and seems to be only active on the local circuit.--TheBigNatural (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject meets the notability guidelines for figure skaters. He has competed in both the World Junior Figure Skating Championships and the Four Continents Figure Skating Championships, meeting criterion #2 under WP:NSKATE. In addition, it appears that he has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources, establish his notability under the biography notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This individual also competed in the 2009 ISU Senior World Championships and has competed in 6 ISU Senior Grand Prix events.216.13.191.98 (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.191.98 (talk) 00:11, 7 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 Giannis Ploutarhos#Discography. Sandstein 20:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Den Einai O Erotas...Paidi Tis Logikis[edit]

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

While the singer of this album is notable, this album lacks substantial coverage in RSs. Nothing of the sort appears in gnew or gbooks or gscholar. Tagged for this -- and zero refs -- for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability, zero references. North8000 (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with points above. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Giannis Ploutarhos#Discography. The album isn't notable, but I cannot see how deleting this article is preferable to simply redirecting to the artist's page. -- Lear's Fool 10:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Storm[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete. I did a search and there weren't any articles that came up that showed that this group was independently notable outside of the series. I've said it before, but this is precisely the type of thing that only belongs in fan wikis. There's no independent notability to this. I can't really see making this a redirect either- there's no reason for it and the term is fairly loose. I agree that there's nothing that could be easily merged into the article for the series. It's just excessive plot summary, like you said.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete nothing to WP:verify notability of this topic, making it impossible to improve in accordance with our guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:24, 4 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. -- Lear's Fool 10:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Traction League[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Sandstein that there is too much duplicate information for a merge. Miniapolis (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - excessive coverage of an in-universe topic lacking real-world notability. Robofish (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT because there's only in-universe information. Needs third-party information about reception, but there isn't any in existence. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:25, 4 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. This discussion has been stale for 19 days and isn't going anywhere. Der yck C. 22:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kurtagić[edit]

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

Unremarkable columnist. Sourcely largely to author's own site. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Add more citations for verification and the article should be keep in the page. Thundersport (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:42, 3 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--Ankit Maity^Talk _Contribs 11:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Beaussant[edit]

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

Article is strongly written as an advertisement or resume. The subject does not meet WP:GNG. Sources are primary (press releases or financially connected websites) or are not reliable (see fredofrest.org). v/r - T P 14:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards keeping and cleaning it up. I don't know much about French media, but it seems like he gets a decent amount of hits on Google news. It looks to me like he might just meet WP:GNG: [3][4][5]. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not going to say we should delete an article about a French national working in France who has an article in both French and German Wikipedias. True, each Wikipedia has its own standards, but for BLPS, the standards at both of these are much narrower than ours. Judging it in its own right, a sufficiently notable president of a major company, with adequate references. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 7 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. L Faraone 02:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turquoise Holidays[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Review in the London Standard (okay it's an advertising feature so it might count as WP:PRIMARY) here plus many other reviews of the company turn up on a simple news search. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:35, 3 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. Der yck C. 22:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ID Experiential[edit]

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

Not notable. Has won a lot of industry awards of the type they all have. (I previously removed Bronze awards etc) Philafrenzy (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable experiential marketing business. SaveATreeEatAVegan 19:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This discussion has been stale for 24 days and isn't going anywhere. Der yck C. 22:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Jones (comedian)[edit]

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

No evidence that this meets WP:BIO. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the article already cited which describes him as a "comedy legend", there's this, this ("alleged to be the highest-paid stand-up comedian in Britain" - The Independent), this, an autobiography written with Garry Bushell, and several other brief book mentions. --Michig (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:33, 3 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) B music ian 02:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Rae White[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails N/GNG. Google News, Books or Scholar all have no results for "Sydney Rae White" and google main has nothing that approaches an RS on the first couple of pages. Looks like she hasn't made the crossover into major films yet. With regard to the submitted references we have a BBC link to their own programme so that's primary and COI, we have IMBD which isn't a RS, we have simple wikipedia and her agents. Clearly not ready for a standalone article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last Dragon (Sisqó album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NALBUMS states: "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004. However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects — generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." The comparatively fewer bits of apparent available information for this album suggests it does not meet the above standard. Gongshow ^Talk 20:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Gongshow. Virtually everything is unsourced or original research anyways. (For instance, is it really a "dragon trilogy", or does he just name his albums with the word "dragon" in them? Are those tracks really confirmed? Was it delayed for "no reason"? Virtually nothing of real substance... Sergecross73 msg me 23:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to banana ketchup. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banana sauce[edit]

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

Non-notable sauce that is made from bananas. Not to be confused with banana ketchup, which is what is usually refered to as "banana sauce". ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to banana ketchup. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 23:46, 3 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Gutiérrez y Muhs[edit]

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

Dubious notability as an author. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 02:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to pass WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like an average associate prof with article created by WP:SPA. Papers on Google Scholar with single digit citations. No coverage in major media (reference from Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association)... Tradedia (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Promenade (band)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines in WP:BAND. This article has been speedy deleted a few times already, so an AfD probably makes more sense then another speedy deletion or a PROD. Singularity42 (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and temporarily salt. Repeatedly recreated article on a non-notable band. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources, and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G5. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Obeng[edit]

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

Player fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in Fully Professional league & has not revived significant media coverage also failing WP:GNG. Article was created by User:2012 is a LEGENDARY year who persistently creates articles on non-notable topics. PROD was contested by User:Zbase4 as the player played in FA Cup (for Wrexham) against Brighton. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Recreate if/when he plays for Swansea or another team in a fully-pro league. Giant Snowman 14:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cloudz 679 21:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the person who de-proded this article I believe it shouldn't be deleted anyway. We have lots of articles on players who have just played in FA Cup/Carling Cup. Michael Keane and Karim Rekik are two examples. Zbase4 (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's saying that playing in the FA Cup isn't notable - it is, if you are playing for a team in a fully-professional league against another team from a FPL. Obeng's team (Wrexham) play in a semi-pro league. Giant Snowman 11:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL GauchoDude (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#G5. It turns out the article's creator is a sock puppet. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:19, 6 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. -- Lear's Fool 10:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aboubacar Camara (Guinean goalkeeper)[edit]

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

PROD was contested by article creator. This article is about a non-notable young player, who fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Being called up to a tournament as a 3rd-choice goalkeeper, and not playing, does not infer notability. Giant Snowman 13:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Although Aboubacar Camara is a common name, a search for "Aboubacar Camara (Guinean goalkeeper)" -wikipedia is guaranteed one hit less than a googlewhack. If the search term is uselless, you could use html to provide a search (like this one), and interested editors can check all the other footballers with the same name. Pseudofusulina (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should have noticed the AfD was not improperly formatted but that a user had improperly removed the AfD nomination from the article. Pseudofusulina (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL GauchoDude (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - going to a major tournament is definitely notable enough, and to delete his article would make WP's coverage of the 2012 ANC incomplete. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you point me in the direction of policy/guidelines which state being a squad member at a tournament makes you notable? That sets a dangerous precedent for squad members at professional clubs (say they're 17, just got their first contract and given a squad number) who "make coverage of Arsenal/Man Utd incomplete". Giant Snowman 09:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about policy or guidelines, I was just expressing my opinion - we're allowed to disagree with policy, or they'd never change. An ANC squad member differs from an Arsenal squad member in that Camara will always be on the 2012 ANC squad list, whereas a club's squad list changes all the time. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Arsenal squad member will always be in the 2011-12 Arsenal squad, will they not? Giant Snowman 10:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that's a lot less significant than a major international tournament. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'd say an Arsenal prospect probably gets more coverage than a young ANC 3rd choice keeper... Giant Snowman 10:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but in terms of Wikipedia, the ANC will make the front page, but a club's season will be secondary to the club's article. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ANC might; Guinea's 2012 squad list probably won't. Giant Snowman 11:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But surely a tournament's squad list is a much more important page than a club's season? It's also more selective, so I don't see why one would set a precedent for the other as long as the policy/guideline was specific. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm inclined to agree with ArtVandelay on this. Regardless of whether they end up playing or not, players called up for major international tournaments generally receive a fair amount of media attention. Furthermore, the case isn't completely without precedent either. I'm not able to find it, but there was an afd about a year ago that of a Japanese goalkeeper who has been called to the Olympic squad but didn't play, which resulted in keep. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to evidence the "fair amount of media attention" this player has received. Giant Snowman 09:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Egghead06 (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above plus WP:BLP1E, according to which, a low-profile individual being in the news only in the context of a single event (i.e. the 2012 ANC), does not mean they should have a Wikipedia article. The fact that the "news" about this player amounts to just above zero, since he didn't even participate, adds weight to the decision to remove the page. Cloudz 679 12:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani English[edit]

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

This article is mostly original research and is based on the writings of a single author named "Robert Baumgardner", an author who has written about the use of English in Pakistan. He is not a notable authority on the subject. Most of the article is unreferenced, with multiple misrepresentations. The section on "Further reading" appears to have been concocted to suit the requirements of the authors. Another author featured in the further reading section of this article is Ahmar Mahboob (who coincidentally has an article on Wikipedia) but is not notable as per WP:PROF. Upon further examination of the references in the article, I observe:

The primary reference for the article does not use the term "Pakistani English" anywhere.
E-commerce Times does not qualify as a reliable source.
The use of the Guardian link to Shashi Tharoor's article is a misrepresentation.
The UElowermall.edu.pk link (dead but was archived with the Way Back Machine) is a misrepresentation of the source.

Much of the article is concocted, unreferenced, and there is no credible proof for the existence of this English dialect in mainstream, academic sources. Parts of the article have been directly lifted from the article on Indian English.

I recommend deletion and redirect to Indian English. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you make clear why you do not consider Robert Baumgardner a reliable source? A quick google scholar search shows that he is the author of two books, one published by Illinois University Press and one (on South East Asian Englishes) by Oxford University Press. He also has several papers in refereed journals such as World Englishes. These are mainstream reliable sources. I am not sure whether this makes him a 'notable authority' but he is definitely a reliable source, which is what Wikipedia requires. Francis Bond (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The term is cited [6] [7] [8] [9] in reliable sources. Afd is completely inappropriate here. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Analysis of citations:
  - Pakistan Research Repository, hosted by the Government of Pakistan. The author is Mubina Talat, a casual google search proves that she has no credible works on the subject.
  - Debate on Pakistani English, this article refers to Tariq Ahmad, and focuses on the use of English in Pakistan and does not make any claims to it being a separate dialect.
  - Patterns of Pakistani English, by Wajdan Raza, who is not a credible authority on the subject of languages. The research is hosted by a site run by an Economics and Technology Institute in Karachi.
  - The author Tariq Rahman is a professor at Quaid e Azam University and has written on "English literature in Pakistan", not Pakistani English. Unfortunately, his work has been used as a source to misrepresent this by creation of another article on Pakistani English literature. His work has been published by his own University, and hence is not a secondary source required to establish notability.
- None of the works by these authors qualifies for the creation of a new dialect based on your synthesis of their research. I would also like to note that you have previously edited this article and inserted unreferenced claims. This article is not different from the article on Indian English.
- — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure I can source what I've previously added. And I assumed there is no WP:DEADLINE to work in progress (it can be seen I've been periodically editing the article) and this was on my to do list. Anyway, that is irrelevant to the deletion of article. As far as the citations I presented are concerned, HEC has been the official body for Pakistani education and this source is credible. You might want to read WP:ABOUTSELF for a source's credibility on them selves (which is the worst case of this being taken as a self published source). This is also backed up by WP:PRIMARY. But being an official body, this happens to be the appropriate source to cite this. The second source from dawn news (a main stream media source). This debate is exactly about this topic. Infact some of the content you pointed out to be added by me can simply be sourced by this. The third and fourth sources are academic work. The work itself does not have to be notable or have an article in wikipedia to be credible. Notability is different from credibility. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is a ridiculous AfD, to say the least. Pakistani English is just one among a number of many English dialects spoken throughout Asia (Sri Lankan English, Burmese English, Hong Kong English, Philippine English, Singapore English etc; see this template for a complete range of English standards throughout the world. Being a former British colony, and English being an official language of Pakistan, this article is independently notable. Mar4d (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles on Sri Lankan English and Burmese English are similar cruft articles constituting original research. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it's a notable dialect, we need to keep it. But Nick's analysis of the sources is pretty damning - are there others that the Keep editors above can point to? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a notable dialect covered in reliable sources. Here are a few more per request which precisely mention the term "Pakistani accent" or "Pakistani English dialect". [10] [11] [12]. Above citations are also credible in my opinion. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Nick's analysis of the sources does not appear to be very accurate. For example, Tariq Rahman's "Pakistani English: The linguistic description of a non-native variety of English" is clearly a description of the variety of English and is not a collection of literary studies. Here is the table of contents. The author is a well cite academic, who has held posts all over the world. The book is published by a reputable university press. The page can definitely be improved (and I have done a little work) but the subject is definitely notable. Francis Bond (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A non-native variant of English in Pakistan? How can it be that a "non-native" variant be the recognised variant of English as spoken by Pakistanis? Surely, Pakistani English, should it exist as a recognised contruct, would be spoken by natives of Pakistan, i.e. it would be a native dialect, not a non-native one? Plus the article is not available online to confirm the author's interpretation. AshLin (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia does not require sources to be on-line. Francis Bond (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I fully agree and normally I do not comment and do accept offline sources in good faith. The problem here is the type and quantity of sources bandied around as "reliable" in this discussion does not engender any confidence in the issue. Granted that Baumgarten is an RS and discussed a wide varieties of English spoken around the world including Pakistan, is one scholar's treatment of this language adequate evidence of the existence of P. E. as a recognised form of English internationally by linguist? AshLin (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't understand what "non-native" means in this context. Go and read doi:10.1017/S0272263100005805 and indeed Wikipedia's very own article on nativization. "Non-native" is not a synonym of "unrecognized". Uncle G (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The new emergence of a new dialect in itself does not make it notable. In this regard a previous discussion on the talk page is relevant. I enclose below, the opinion of a respected editor on South Asian affairs : AshLin (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can always find one or two books that use the expression "Pakistani English," however, that doesn't mean that there is consensus among scholars that such a dialect (i.e. distinctive one) of standard English exists. There isn't even much of a controversy about the issue that we can report. It is more the case that "Pakistani English" has as yet not made it into the various corpora of English that are used in linguistics and descriptive grammars. The Oxford English Corpus, for example, includes only India (among South Asian countries) (see "full picture" section) and only Indian English among different (South Asian) standard dialects of Global English. If you want to claim that Pakistani English is a "highly differentiated local dialect of Indian standard English," then you'll have to produce sources that say that. It is more likely though that "Punjabi English" or "Sindhi English" might constitute such local dialects. Producing examples of English authors who are citizens of Pakistan is not enough because they don't write in the local dialect of English. As I've said above, perhaps Pakistani English might someday become an independent dialect or subdialect, but it hasn't yet. We can't, therefore, pretend that it does. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- And above I provided reliable sources which call Pakistani English a dialect and an accent (both of which are the scope of this article). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Further analysis of sources:
  - See Ms Tallat's abstract (Ref 1 above) which says.... "Since Pakistani English is not any 'one stable' system, the process of 'ongoing' change is difficult to study." AshLin (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That does not make it non-notable. Being difficult to define or unstable is something to be discussed in the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - It means that even amongst Pakistanis there is no one prominent form of English, much less one recognised as Pakistani English by linguists. AshLin (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Isn't that the issue with the whole of English language? Certainly stuff for inside the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Movie Review of "Love mein ghum" - Not only does User TG consider this a reliable source, ~~he cannot understand the difference between an accent and a recognised form of English.~~ AshLin (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I said the 'accent' and 'dialect' are both in scope of the article. Do not say things on my behalf. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - My mistake, if you intended to include refs about Pakistani accents, they are not necessary. Pakistani accent is uncontested. Pakistani English is disputed. But do you feel a movie review is a RS about a distinct Pakistani accent? AshLin (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough. The idea was to prove notability - the publisher was reliable and it was not being discussed within the fiction. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Mind your pronunciation - A self-improvement oriented article about the need for correct pronunciation, the author says with reference to a common speech pattern..."a mistake found almost naturally among people here and is part of Indian-Pakistani English dialect." The word "dialect" is used nowhere else in the text. The article does not refer to an internationally recognised Pakistani dialect/variant of English . AshLin (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The discussion is about the same. The term is once used to refer to it, but the notability is proven in my view as the dialect is being discussed. Another reference given above is purely on this subject. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - See BBC Article on British PM Cameron. The article is nothing about Pakistani English being a recognised form of English. It could as easily have been an Indian accent, the journalist chose to mention. AshLin (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You might have missed to notice that the author mentioned the "Indian" English separately. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The crux of the matter is that this cannot constitute as "significant coverage" which is required to establish notability (see WP:GNG). Even now, we are discussing "Pakistani English" (a dialect) and not the accent, conflating both to prove notability is a bad idea. As AshLin pointed out earlier, there will be times when we will find passing references to the term "Pakistan English", but that does not establish notability as such. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        True, it mentions the Peter Sellers depiction too. Anyway, the point is it does not say that Pakistani English is a recognised variant. You need to make a different argument. AshLin (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Dawn article on Pakistani English - The article reports on various aspects of a symposium. One session Dr Tariq Rahman on misleading words in English - when spoken by a Pakistani and liable to be misunderstood by a British English speaker - refers to English spoken in Pakistan. The examples spoken are common to India too. It does not support by wording or insinuation that Pakistani English exists as a recognised variant. AshLin (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, AshLin. I find it intriguing that one of the participating editors here decided to create an article on Pakistani English literature, instead of "English literature in Pakistan", as it should have been. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure English is spoken differently in Pakistan in context and accent than in other places. It also appears to be an evolving one. But the refs do not prove that it is an internationally recognised variant, which affects notability. Insisting that it is so, without suitable and relevant referencing, would be OR. Please add reliable sources. AshLin (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - One good aspect of this Afd are that slowly better sources are emerging. Imho, should the decision be "keep", the article needs to be rewritten to correctly portray the state of the language using only reliable sources. All the sources of the kind which User:TG has paraded before us need to be deleted. AshLin (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources need to be deleted? If you mean content related to that, don't think that applies either. Given that this is backed up by secondary sources now the primary source can easily be used to contribute to the content about self. The news articles are also relevant to the topic as explained above. Anyway, that is not the discussion for an AfD. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the quality of sources which give the article its notability and reliability. If academic sources of the quality now coming into play were provided before, this issue of Afd would probably never have risen. It is defective sources that I am targetting. Usually, if the sources are okay, the content is generally okay, barring other considerations such as NPOV etc. That apart, I agree that it may not be the topic for discussion for this Afd, however since these absolutely irrelevant sources were also placed in the same Afd by you, I felt it was pertinent to mention this fact here. AshLin (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete & redirect~~ per nom. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Change of vote, having discovered the first reference in the article is incorrect I went in search of the real one, it is Concise Oxford companion to the English language [13] Edited by this fellow Tom McArthur We also have A Handbook of Varieties of English A Multimedia Reference Tool. Volume 1: Phonology. Volume 2: Morphology and Syntax [14] with a full chapter devoted to it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No shortage of source on this topic, "The position English in Pakistan - Pakistani English - shares the broad characteristics of South Asian English in general and is similar to that spoken in contiguous regions of northern India" Legacies of colonial English: studies in transported dialects Darkness Shines (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Darkness Shines points out, a quick look through Google Books reveals a number of scholarly sources on this dialect. (Couple of things in JSTOR etc. as well.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've just tidied the references somewhat; it took me some time since there are plenty there, and all looking plenty scholarly to this librarian/ex-linguistics student. The article still needs a bunch of tidying, but it's notable and well-sourced. As far as I can tell, redirecting to Indian English would be as wrong as redirecting New Zealand English to Australian English, or Canadian English to American English. --Zeborah (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is wanting "deletion and redirect" to another article (Indian English). Deletion would be redundant and disruptive as redirection is performed by ordinary editing. Warden (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of sources which would allow the article to be expanded. Pakistani English may resemble Indian English, but it is certainly distinct enough to have its own article. Some loanwords are uniquely Pakistani, for example. See also this book. -- 202.124.74.17 (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's the google book search, 519 books with preview available, the search term in quotes. The subject of the article, "Pakistani English," is an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. AfD is not "Articles Requiring Fixing." This AfD should be closed. Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clear and convincing evidence shows this is generally notable. AfD is not the place to debate or quibble over the strength of particular sources or the credentials of a specific authority or academic. There are enough sources to make do right now, and the emerging overwhelming consensus appears to me to be a keep. Nursing in Pakistan is not the same as Nursing in India, and neither are their dialects, even only 65 years after the two nations split: "Pakistani English (PE) shares many similarities with Indian English, however since independence there have been some very obvious differences." Bearian (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request to close: Per overwhelming consensus above. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the AfD based on the discussion above. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Sufficiently made up out of nowhere to count as hoax. May also be an attack page. (A7, however, does not apply.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a parkie[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS, seems like a hoax. At best non-notable. SupernovaExplosion (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax, this is not the place to coin phrases one has made up on a boring work day--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 11:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Looks sufficiently hoaxy to merit a G3 to me, tagged accordingly. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per WP:CSD#A7 - it's almost a Googlewhack (save the "a" in the middle) as it returns one inconsequential hit, doesn't say why on earth this is worth an article. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7.--Ankit Maity ^TalkContribs 12:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those voting for speedy deletion: A7 only applies to individuals, animals, organizations or web content. This is none of the above, so A7 does not apply. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:53, 3 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sogi (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This DAB page should never have been created as there is nothing to disambiguate. Per WP:Dab "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." gråb whåt you cån (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete nothing to disambiguate so therefore this page is useless--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 11:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the initial creation was weak, I've added a number of ambiguous uses that are addressed within Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 14:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nicely done. On the basis of BKonrad's edit I now support keeping. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Well saved by Bkonrad and the nominator appears to have withdrawn the nom. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Artilce moved back to AfC namespace by creator. (non-admin closure) Pol430 talk to me 10:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roomi S. Hayat[edit]

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

VSCA. Appears to be a non-notable person. Many of the, at first glance, more reliable sources do not mention him by name at all. Pol430 talk to me 10:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Reaper Eternal. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rankmaniac 2012[edit]

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

Non-notable event, page is used mainly for Search Engine Optimisation by students from CalTech university. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, slightly disappointed that a respectable academic institution would be encouraging spamming in this way. EyeSerene^talk 11:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I'll not WP:SNOW it, but I invite another admin to consider it. Manning (talk) 12:24, 3 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 The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!. full prot on redirect Xavexgoem (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enrico Pallazzo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Enrico Pallazzo is the name of a fictional opera singer impersonated by Lt. Drebin (Leslie Nielsen) in the film The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!. An earlier AfD apparently redirected this article to that film's article. Some months later, an editor with a grand total of three contributions (all related to this article) created the article again. This time it is supposedly about an actual individual, a deceased man who worked in the field of advertising. I suspect the article is a hoax—

its subject's claim of notability lies in a mention of something—"the Creative Revolution"—that is redlinked;
the article is entirely unsourced;
one of the two external links is dead and the other leads to an English-language entry on a German-language Google Books page (!) that, while evidently relating to advertising, makes no mention of Enrico Pallazzo (it does mention "the Creative Revolution" but the context is unclear);
the wording is suspicious;
a Google search for Enrico Pallazzo and Creative Revolution results only in Wikipedia-derived pages

—but am using AfD instead of anything more drastic because I'm not completely sure. If the result is to delete, may I suggest a sprinkle of salt? (If it isn't a hoax and the result is keep, the notability has got to be established once and for all.) Rivertorch (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while that was certainly a memorable scene, this is a character with maybe a minute of screen time, tops. The rest of the article is some kind of hoax/nonsense/etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax or a coincidence of names in which the Mexican individual fails GNG. This from WP's piece on The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!: "During the Queen's visit to a California Angels baseball game, Jane tells Frank that one of the team's players will conduct the assassination. While hiding from his fellow policemen, who are now under orders to arrest him, Frank first attempts to disguise himself as the opera singer Enrico Pallazzo, brutally singing the U.S. national anthem along the way, and manages to secure the position of the home plate umpire and begins calling the game while simultaneously frisking all players for weapons." Carrite (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Leaving a redirect to The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! would be appropriate. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This was previously the above-mentioned redirect, hoaxed up by single-purpose editor Heyits in 2008, I see from the edit history. This is definitely a hoax. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my impression. But resurrecting the redirect seems both unnecessary and unwise: the name is low-hanging fruit for anyone who has just watched the movie and is feeling playful, and this bogus version sat here for three years, mirrored on countless sites, its content copied onto blogs and Facebook and even translated into other languages. (See this for just one example: they saw it on Wikipedia and believed it.) That's why I suggested salting it. Rivertorch (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I've always considered it harder to convert a standing redirect page into a content page than it is to create a new content page from scratch. Obviously this case has shown that it CAN be done, but unless you're suggesting Delete-and-Salt, a redirect would seem to me more of a deterrent to vandalism that a simple deletion, which can easily be recreated. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I suggested deleting and salting. Twice. If it helps, I'll suggest it a third time now. :) Rivertorch (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - I am reverting back to b4 the hoax - its been published and mirrored by en wikipedia for plenty long enough. You really can 11:47, 5 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) 11:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Hadžić[edit]

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

Contested PROD; this is an article about a non-notable young footballer who has never played in a fully-professional league, meaning he fails WP:NFOOTBALL; he has also not received significant media coverage, meaning he fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL GauchoDude (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:29, 8 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. Since recreation has been an issue, salting, at least for a while, seems appropriate too. Rlendog (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Andres[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted for lack of notability. WP:G4 declined by reviewing admin due to speedy close of previous discussion. No sources found with WP:BEFORE check, sources in article are subject's own website, facebook and IMDb pages. That's about the best I could come up with too. Please do not nominate for speedy close to enable G4 if recreated. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor film actor, self-promo facebook, website etc etc, no serious notability, no RS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete was already deleted twice and recreated by autobiography user. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete twice A7'ed for good cause, and that criteria still fits. Might need salting if it is going to keep getting created. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Former child actor trying to establish a career as an adult actor. He never had a leading role, so meets WP:SPIP and fails WP:NACTOR.--Ben Ben (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Wasn't notable the previous times this article has been deleted, and nothing's changed since then. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:55, 3 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 over the application of relevant notability guidelines. Der yck C. 16:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Beloya[edit]

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

Non notable, Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Banana Fingers (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Banana Fingers (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL GauchoDude (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm not particularly well-versed in WP:NFOOTBALL but, for all intents and purposes, the SEA Games isn't exactly a "non-international" competition (plus the fact that he contributed two goals is something that makes me think twice before considering this article for deletion). --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that this person fails the notability guidelines for footballers. However, the subject of the article has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources and meets the general notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources from Alpha_Quadrant check out for me to confirm subject passes WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, I think we all agree on that. But I also think that he fails WP:GNG, as well. The GNG calls for "significant coverage", yet Alpha Quadrant's link is to a few news articles where Joshua Beloya is mentioned once in passing. None of the articles addressed the subject in depth or gave any biographical information – they were articles about a match with a line like "Beloya scored in the 23rd minute" and then they don't mention him again. As such, I don't believe it amounts to significant coverage. Jenks24 (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alpha's rationale.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: On the contrary, Alpha's rationale leaves out a couple of important elements. First off, the GNG doesn't merely require that the subject be mentioned in reliable sources; it requires that the subject be discussed in "significant detail." None of the sources presented in Alpha's Google list do so. Further, WP:ROUTINE explicitly debars the type of routine sports coverage, such as match recaps, that comprise these hits. Ravenswing 10:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This source and this source seem to indicate that some notability exists here, and both seem to go beyond routine coverage of a routine player. I would understand a delete here, but I think it's borderline leaning keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Deleted by JohnCD (talk · contribs) under CSD G3. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Picnic[edit]

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

LGF1992UK (talk) 07:36, 3 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. Snow closure. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cobalt (video game)[edit]

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

Non-notable upcoming video game. Mythpage88 (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm sure this game is notable, it's also the second result in Google for "Cobalt". l'll find some sources for it, and it's not exactly "upcoming" if it's in playable alpha. Wagner ^u t c 07:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS. Mythpage88 (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This game actually gained a LOT of interest from articles posted by Mojang (The guys who made Minecraft), and by many Youtubers and Bloggers. Just search "Cobalt" on Youtube. ----* Alan.comek - [ Talk • Contribs ] 15:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't reliable sources in the slightest. Mythpage88 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean not reliable? Thousands of people read and watch that stuff every day. Yes, there are more reliable sources out there, but who says that this isn't? ----* Alan.comek - [ Talk • Contribs ] 04:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our guidelines do -- WP:RS. See the links below as to what reliable VG sources (WP:VG/RS) are. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HellKnowz is correct. See my post below for a list of articles for on the game that are considered reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 6 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) 12:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage in reliable, third party sources, to establish notability. Source list:
- GameSpy
- GameSpot, x2
- GameZone
- IGN Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Sergecross. SL93 (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add the sources listed above to the article. Multiple independent RS'es meet the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game was released, although it is in the Alpha stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkill51 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It will be mentioned at upcoming 2012 PAX. Wilsonlu (talk) 06:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALL Mythpage88 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are several "Keep" !votes here that are for the wrong reasons, like that one, or the one about Google hits, but ultimately what matters here is that it is getting plenty of coverage in third party sources, as I listed above, and should be kept for that reason. Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It gets coverage. Remember to use the custom Google search for video games sources. [15] Makes it easy to find things. Dream Focus 12:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There appears to be a rough consensus that the subject meets the notability guidelines for musicians and the current coverage in reliable third party sources is sufficient to pass the general notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashthon Jones[edit]

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

An eliminated contestant of American Idol has not meet WP:MUSICBIO requirements and does not sign a recording contract. Therefore, my choice is either delete or redirect to her season which she competed. ApprenticeFan ^work 07:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable contestant. Just keep it as a redirect to season werldwayd (talk) 07:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Idol (season 10), per nom. Cavarrone (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article about American Idol finalist that has multiple, reliable sources passes WP:MUSICBIO #1 & 9 and passes WP:GNG. Aspects (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources with full articles on the finalist, not just a brief mention are present; thus meets WP:GNG (and WP:MUSICBIO's guideline #1 at the minimum). Allens (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources to establish notability. Tinton5 (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has no post-Idol notability and has no present reliable sources for this singer. This hasn't updated since her elimination. ApprenticeFan ^work 00:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ashthon Jones has pre-Idol music recording history. She is working on her first post-Idol album proper, which will be released in short order. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment: Why miss Jones is working on release for her post-Idol album? Is there a reliable sources on it? ApprenticeFan ^work 11:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Idol finalist who has multiple reliable sources, therefore passes criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. Hzh (talk) 21:23, 9 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, after recent edits. Further reorganisation with self storage and Personal Self Storage may need to be done, but the details are beyond this AfD. Der yck C. 21:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mailstorage[edit]

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

This sounds too much as if it was covered already. At least it should be merged to self storage. It also sounds very speculative of the future of the subject.Jasper Deng (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Merge) as above, self storage seems enough coverage on this very dull subject. Perhaps Mailstorage is basically a (sourced) joke? (Can we get away with a real dullard parody of an article?) Anyway, no need for yet another article on the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a free encyclopedia, it may be that some people will actually find this useful. Just because some may find it 'dull', doesn't mean that some may not find it useful. It is a new industry just as car sharing was a new industry (different to car rental) and both have their own Wikipedia pages - not sure how this is different... As it is different to self storage, would be better to delete it rather than merge if people feel it is too 'dull' for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.163.17 (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, whether the information is useful or not doesn't factor into the debate over whether it should be included in the encyclopedia. The critical factor is whether the subject is notable. In this case, the subject might be too new a concept to have the sources we'd need to keep it - which just means that an article is premature. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into self storage or just move to storage by mail. I'm not convinced that enough sources exist to render this particular topic notable on its own and it's especially clear that the term "mailstorage" isn't a common way to refer to the concept in English. §everal⇒|Times 15:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep merging in the contents from Personal Self Storage . This seems a distinct topic from self-storage in general, with just about sufficient references. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article as it stands cannot stay in terms of its tone and formatting. Not a common name for the topic.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe rename to Mail storage. Topic just meets WP:GNG:

Palmer, Shelly (March 31, 2011). "Storing Your Stuff by Mail". Fox News, New York. Retrieved February 4, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
Chicago Sun-Times. "Naperville-based Storage Firm Thinks Outside the Box". Chicago Sun-Times.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NorthAmerica1000 has found coverage providing this topic is notable and well covered. Dream Focus 11:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is now well documented and shown to be notable. Although apparently not considered for AfD discussions, users may well find this article to be useful. The rename suggestions should be seriously considered once the AfD is resolved. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: No matter the outcome of the AfD, fixes are needed. At the very least, this article and Personal Self Storage need to be combined. As to whether Self storage should be an ultimate merger target of all three articles, I am leaning to yes. At first glance, "mailstorage" sounds like a baloney term. It has no authentic English hits on google news, google news archive, and google books. I also can't ignore that this article was created by a new account, which also has created one other questionable article related to a [16] apparent small niche business venture. The concept of storing stuff by mail, however, clearly exists based on NA1000's research, and would merit some mention in the self storage article. Lastly, people need to throw or give more stuff away.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Check out this search, under the terms "Mail storage" - page hits are there: Link. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Renamed article to Mail storage (grammar correction). Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Blatant hoax. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Powerball Golf[edit]

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

Anon-created, unreferenced article about an invented sport. World rankings given but only appears to be played in once place. Google reveals the licensor of the sport and amazon hits for their products, but nothing that looked like independent coverage rising to the level of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically made up at school one day. The article cites a "world cup" and "world rankings" for a game played by less than ten people in the world. Entirely non-notable. JIP | Talk 07:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly made up--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 11:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is a game entirely invented, played and documented in a single student flat in Durham. I'm tagging it as WP:G3, the attempt to legitimise it with "World rankings" makes it an obvious hoax. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 3 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) 11:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irwan Jamil[edit]

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

No evidence this person meets WP:N. No significant coverage (single provided reference is only a trivial mention). Footballer who isn't shown to meet WP:FOOTYN. Cloudz 679 06:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 06:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL GauchoDude (talk) 19:11, 4 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) 11:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J Paper Sizes[edit]

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

I am unable to locate any independent sources that discuss this paper series. The single source referenced in the article, controlled by the inventor of this product,^{*see AJHingston's comment below for perspective on this description of the subject*} references this Wikipedia article almost as if the article was created by the inventor. PROD was contested by author. VQuakr (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. To describe this as a product is, I suggest, potentially misleading. It is a set of measurements for reducing standard cut paper in ISO (A series) sizes (ie the way paper is normally sold in most of the world except the USA) to the proportions of the golden ratio. That is something the artist would do themselves just as they might cut it into any other shape. There is nothing wrong with that as the subject of an article and actually nothing wrong with the person who has come up with the table contributing to it, provided that it is already notable, including the name. We would expect it to have been written about in detail, adopted by others, etc if it were notable. The fact that other artists have used the golden ratio for centuries does not help here. --AJHingston (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You have an excellent point that the subject of this article is not best described as a "product," and anyone !voting here should take your observations into consideration. VQuakr (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also suspected the author created this page to give a sense of credibility to this subject. Seeing it linked within minutes of creation on the author's blog supports this hypothesis. I did a good faith search for independent sources, and found none. I even left the author a note on his talk page offering help to improve the article if he could provide such sources, and nothing was forthcoming. AstroCog (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:15, 6 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Dillahunty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't believe that enough sources exist to demonstrate actual notability of the subject. He's the host of a public access talk show and the president of a large atheist club in Austin, but without significant coverage in independent sources he cannot be considered notable.

Secularstudents.org is an activist site and not much of an WP:RS
A collection of youtube excerpts is not an RS
Iron chariots is a wiki and therefore not RS
Austin American Statesman is actually an RS but a single one is not enough to establish notability, especially since it's local
Atheist-experience.org is an SPS and can't contribute to notability
Another youtube vid that can't establish notability

Searching google news turns up nothing substantial.

Jclemens introduced this at AFD in 2008 but withdrew it I'm guessing because he thought that more sources would be found but it doesn't appear as though this person has become any more notable. N^oformation ^Talk 04:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous AFD looks like it was a snow delete before Jclemens withdrew, I'm pretty confused by it as he stated that he found sources in gnews while another editor responded that no such sources existed. I will notify him of this discussion. N^oformation ^Talk 04:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple separate articles in the Statesman are multiple RS references, which meet the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think there would have to be more than just a local source (even if it has more than 1 article on him). If no one outside of Austin is writing about him is he really notable? This has always been my understanding of the notability policy but I'm happy to be corrected. N^oformation ^Talk 05:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I see no requirement in the WP:GNG for coverage to be national rather than local sources. Indeed, for non-biographical articles, the only coverage of a subject may be local newspaper sources. The GNG simply specifies that sources must be significant, reliable and independent of the subject. The statesman.com articles satisfy the general notability guidelines, therefore weak keep. If there is consensus to delete, I would suggest that it would be appropriate to leave the door open for a possible redirect to a new article on the Atheist Community of Austin, as both of the sources on Dillahunty, plus others about the group, could be used to create a new article. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the redirect idea. There may not be a specific requirement for national sources but I'll ask again: if no one outside of Austin is writing about him is he really notable? There are articles about me in my local newspapers but I guarantee I do not qualify to have an article. N^oformation ^Talk 20:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched for extra sources, but couldn't find any more in RS. There doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. Robofish (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he, his life and his message is very important, especially for us-citizens (and so - unfortunately - for the rest of the world). being big on youtube his show is going to be growing and growing and people will be interested in the article as well.--77.6.45.139 (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That his work may be important is not relevant in regards to WP having an article about him. Having a youtube show is also not generally indicative of notability and per WP:CRYSTAL we can't make decisions now about what might happen in the future. N^oformation ^Talk 20:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is the main host of weekly show, which is going on since many years (at least 7-8 years). He is quite notable for his Atheism activism and have been invited for debates. Abhishikt (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's the host of a public access show, something that you or me could do fairly easily. Notability has to be demonstrated, not asserted, and thus far he doesn't have substantial coverage in reliable sources. I'm honestly surprised by the keep votes, rarely do we keep an article if the only sources are from a single local newspaper. If he meets GNG then so does my family business as it had reviews from at least 10 local newspapers over the 28 years it was open, but that's definitely not the case. N^oformation ^Talk 20:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep, per gng Pass a Method talk 09:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He most assuredly is 'interesting' and 'unusual' per standard, his public tv show is much better than the one by the other rather more famous atheist from Austin, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and the lack of more mainstream references can at least partially be attributed to their typical avoidance of such topics, often a very labored willful ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechtheist (talk • contribs) 01:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Race[edit]

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

Removed PROD, still does not meet WP:NMUSIC or the WP:GNG. Quoting from the former, "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." A412 (Talk * C) 04:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to Allmusic review, a decent notability thingy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, extensive coverage in this source, plus an Allmusic review that is already present in the article. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. A412 (Talk * C) 06:29, 3 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 Earthquakes in Vanuatu. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Port Vila Vanuatu earthquakes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a significant earthquake. Doesn't align with WikiProject Earthquakes notability guidelines. Frequent moderate to major earthquakes occur in Vanuatu. This one is not exceptional. The article was previously nominated for deletion. The result was "no consensus". Dawnseeker2000 03:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Earthquakes in Vanuatu. Earthquakes of this magnitude seem to occur several times a year in Vanuatu, and these are not exceptional for the area.-gadfium 04:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Earthquakes in Vanuatu. There is a list of earthquakes in Vanuatu, many of a similar (and greater, e.g. 7.3 and 7.4) magnitude to this one, in that article. I don't think that these earthquakes are significant enough to have an article written about them. Rm1271 ^talk_contribs 23:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Earthquakes in Vanuatu. Not enough for own article. Git2010 (talk) 21:27, 9 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 General Nutrition Centers. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kore (energy drink)[edit]

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. Generic house brand for GNC. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability for products. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to General Nutrition Centers. Although notability not sufficient enough to have an article of its own, it would not hurt to have a redirect, given that it is a plausible search term. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus based on multiple reliable sources that the subject is notable.Rlendog (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BIG Star Entertainment Awards[edit]

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

No notability established for the awards. I was unable to find a single reliable source for them, and the awards are not decided by judges, but rather are voted by any user with a facebook account, if I am not mistaken, and the ones with a majority vote secure the winner. They have not been given every year, after establishment. X.One ^SOS 08:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Bollywood Hungama is considered as a reliable source. Completely-viewer-based-award cant be a reason for deletion. Indian Idol and many shows run on votes. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You missed out my other points. They are not notable. There are separate pages for the categories of the awards, and they are all unsourced. They are not given every year, after start and there are only three reliable sources I could find, 1, 2, 3. How can these be enough to sustain the article? The first one gives a list of 5 awards won by Dabangg, and they can or are already mentioned in the List of accolades received by Dabangg article, and the second and third do not mention any specific award, but only some minor details. That is certainly not enough for this article, and definitely not enough for keeping separate award pages for each category. X.One ^SOS 16:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your concern is for separate categorywise pages, you can propose merger of all these pages into the one that you have proposed to delete. I will agree to that merger. They started in 2010. They were given in 2010 & 2011. That means they are given every year. All the three sources you have cited are reliable (you too agree with that) and are independent. 3 are sufficient! (With tons of filmy awards alredy existing, you should not expect any book to be written on this particular award. Give it some time.)
Important point: The third reference you gave (& also what article says) states that these awards are given to personalities in movies, music, television and sports. With such a unique blend and variety, this page should definitely be a Keep Keep. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do not give "time" for notability to create itself. If the awards are not notable, they should not be here. The three sources indicate trivial coverage. X.One ^SOS 14:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goodness! They are given only two times till now. How much coverage do you want? All the 3 references you gave are fully for this event itself. They are not like some passing mention of these awards. And you cant be sure that these are the only references. Look! I found one more independent news reference which focuses on these awards. Also found another reference that says "According to TAM, the award ceremony generated the highest TRP of 4.63 on December 31, 2011 among all GECs in the time slot of 10 pm to 12:30 am." Does the fact that majority of television audiences chose to watch this show make it notable enough? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, chill! Those two did not show up on the news search, so I assumed that the awards were not notable. Issue settled. But still the others need to be merged with this one. X.One ^SOS 15:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So what happens now? Do you withdraw and then the AfD closes or does it still remain open for others to comment? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can withdraw it, but this will come to a close 7 days from now, and I doubt if anyone else will be interested to comment, and if they want to, I cannot object. X.One ^SOS 11:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you are really caring about the notability, Google will surely help you out. -- Karthik Nadar 09:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look up at my post? The only three useful sources available from that search are the ones I mentioned, and they are not enough to sustain the article. X.One ^SOS 09:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just saw! Those all three sources are heavy reliable sources. I don't think there is need for deleting the article. The award is a new one, just kicked off few years back. Will receive quite a lot of notability soon. -- Karthik Nadar 09:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And when it does, we can create it. Starting off a few years back, and having just 3 reliable sources with little info in the topic is certainly a sign that this article is not notable. X.One ^SOS 09:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate?! I dont think this is a good idea. Some fan is gonna get up few weeks from now & recreate it. Its better to use this article itself and develop and clean it. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Delete this for what reason? Non-notability? In that case, even the 6th Asian Film Awards shouldn't be there, but contrarily there is a page for every AFA. And they are also very new. I doubt that this award should fall under the axe. They are important but completely viewer-based awards, and hence may be less famous than the panel-based awards, but that does not necessitate their lack of notability. Actually, to whoever created this article, a big thank you from my side. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 13:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is a page called WP:GNG. Subjects which are not notable should not have their articles, no doubt on that. If you feel the 6th Asian Film Awards is not notable, you may tag it with WP:AFD. You noticed what one user has said "Will receive quite a lot of notability soon." That is clear enough. X.One ^SOS 13:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~So far, no one has addressed the notability concern with respect to Wikipedian guidelines like WP:NOTE. The closing person, should take note of this.~~ Issue has been addressed, and notability proved. X.One ^SOS 13:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some references :
- The Hindu Businesss Online mentions BIG STAR Entertainment awards in a press release regarding a statutory disclosure to the Stock Exchange.
- An account of the 2nd Awards ceremony has been showcased in bollycric.in, a film news portfolio. Enough big names in Indian cinema attended to make it notable. Here is another [17].
- Many more refs online.

Imo, the event is genuine, though yet to become very widely familiar, sponsored as a serious business venture by the owners, a leading Industrial House of the country and accepted by the Bollywood Film Industry. Notable. AshLin (talk) 16:57, 5 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) 11:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6 Video Arts by Mania Akbari[edit]

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

Unremarkable group of films, possible COI/promotional. Google search on "6 Video Arts" "Mania Akbari" shows only 56 unique results. No references provided, no significant coverage from independent reliable sources - primarily directory/festival listings and social media. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and just blend aspects of this into the Mania Akbari article (which needs lots of work, as well!). SarahStierch (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (shout) 21:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt made to establish notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:41, 7 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) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Jai Maharashtra Maza[edit]

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

This song exists, but has only two passing gnews hits, no gbooks hits, and no RS refs in the article. Tagged for notability for 3 years. Epeefleche (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The song is quite old song and quite popular too. Try avoiding this song on some National holiday in Maharashtra. Impossible! The article surely should be improved and more weightage to the old original version of the song should be given. Will start editing it accordingly. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Per our verifiability and notability policies, we need more than personal knowledge to support a keep !vote. See WP:IKNOWIT. If you can demonstrate notability, per our guidelines, please do so. Simply asserting that it is notable will not help us. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have to keep in mind that for Indian articles you would not necessarily find the sources you look for. & btw, the song is more known as "Garja Maharashtra Mazha". If it does not get deleted in this AfD, it will probably be moved to this name after a consensus. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free, if it is verifiable that they are the same song, to add refs relating to that name. But for a proper keep !vote, we need verifiable RS sources, per wp:v, not attestations by editors (even though they may well be accurate).--Epeefleche (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is a very popular song in maharashtra state in India.But this article must be improved(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia. As I said to your above colleague, who made the same assertion that you make, per our verifiability and notability policies, we need more than personal knowledge to support a keep !vote. See WP:IKNOWIT. If you can demonstrate notability, per our guidelines, please do so. Simply asserting that it is notable will not help us. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedian is a colleague to me just as he is to you. You need not draw lines or have impression that we are teaming. :-) (Thought its better to clarify) -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I did notice that he is pretty much a brand new editor, and always find it interesting when brand new editors turn up at AfDs early in their careers.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep per improvements made during AfD. Sources appear adequate, expecially the book "Bombay, meri jaan: writings on Mumbai" that defines the song as "one of the most popular songs in Maharashtra". A withdrawal is suggested. Cavarrone (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm open to considering withdrawal, to save time. I see that one of the refs is a passing mention 1-sentence mention, a second is 2 sentences but quite laudatory, and I can't see the third ref that you base your !vote on, as the link fails to even show me a snippet. Can you give me more info about it? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i didnt see your this comment somehow. This reference is about the release of the new album that includes this song, which i assume is the one you refer as "quite laudatory". This one mainly talks about the Recording company's business but has important quote of the writer about the use of swear words in it. This i assume you refer as passing mention but is important for the reason explained. And i cant help if the book reference doesnt show you a snippet. I cant even imagine what the reason could be. Can you ask someone else to look it out? This hyperlink should take you directly to the snippet view which read.... of folk theatre work whose 'Garja Maharashtra Mazha' became one of the most popular songs in Maharashtra: 'Earlier, everyone spoke Marathi in Bombay. Today you have to speak in Hindi. That is the tragedy of the Marathi language. There was a working-class..... If not, you can try searching Garja Maharashtra in Google books to find this book. NOTE: As mentioned earlier this song is also called as "Garja Maharashtra Mazha" and thats what is used in this reference. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Am I missing how I can verify (in an RS) that this song is also called "Garja Maharashtra Mazha"? Also, if we can verify it, one of us should put that important fact in the article, where it is not mentioned at the moment.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RS for checking that both are same? I doubt i will find. But the lyrics should help. They go "Jai Jai Maharashtra Maza, Garja Maharashtra Maza". So the song can be known by its 1st or 2nd line. Just like how "My Heart Will Go On" can be called as "Every night in my dreams" by some people. Now ofcourse there can be numerous different songs also having these two lines, although i know none. But i guess you should just believe in the editors who know this song and say so. You can also query other editors. Thats much better. Just you & me talking here wouldnt work. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even just the book source would be good for an article where sources would likely not be found in English. SL93 (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has sufficient source/references, I agree with SL93 even just book source would be good for article if no source available in English. I request to withdraw this nomination, should save our time. KuwarOnline ^Talk 19:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to withdraw if I can see the info requested above. If it has multiple substantial RS coverage, it should be kept.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:11, 8 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. Page may be redirected at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Bernadette Hymn[edit]

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

Non-notable school song of an individual school in the Philippines. While there was an WP:OTRS request filed to cover off the copyright issue in reprinting the song's lyrics, this article still lacks any information to suggest that the song is actually notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. The article's only "reference" is the school's own webpage, which is a primary source and thereby fails our reliable sourcing rules — as always, the topic is not automatically entitled to an article just because it exists, if that article cannot demonstrate why the topic is notable enough to belong in an encyclopedia. It also warrants mention that the creator has repeatedly removed any attempt to flag the article for notability or quality of references, so this may need to be monitored as well. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saint Bernadette College of Alabang without merging the lyrics. As a second choice, delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable secondary sources to establish notability, and falls foul of WP:NOTLYRICS. Deor (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 Greatest Metal Guitarists[edit]

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

Book about guitarists. Unremarkable outside of bruhaha on discussion forums. Disagreements about who should be included in a list do not mean that the book itself is notable. Fails WP:BK. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BK, published by a nn publisher, written by a nn author, on a subject we could all write upon. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Carlos. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems we keep anything with product reviews, and this book has been reviewed even if the review isn't cited yet. It's a well-written article, consindering. So, keep. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete. Sorry, but it has been reviewed? Where? I can't find anything--at least, not anything reliable. It's no surprise that the metal blogs have plenty, but those aren't reliable sources. Book isn't published by a very notable press (not that that would help much anyway) and isn't written by a notable author (which might have helped). So, delete. (Oh, and Dave Mustaine at no. 1?) Drmies (talk) 15:10, 7 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine Alexander-Goulandris[edit]

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

This article fails to meet notability guidelines for biographies. It contains no reliable sources or in-line citations. The sources provided are either irrelevant or make no mention of the subject. Searching Google Books came back with no reliable sources (one hit- a book that is a collection of Wikipedia articles). Google News archive search came back with three articles, none from reliable sources, and all of which cite the Wikipedia page as their source of information. Original author requested the article be taken down multiple times to allow time to “fact-check” and “confirm its complete accuracy,” however it remained with no additional reliable sources being added. Numerous other editors have asserted that this person is fictional. Robfrederick (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is passing mention of him in this Wall St. Journal blog entry and in this Luxist entry. So if it's a hoax, they were taken in. Even if he does exist, I'm not convinced that this is enough RS coverage to warrant an article, but I'll admit to not being an expert. Meelar (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The non-WP:RS Luxist says he's the billionaire buyer, the WSJ blog cites them while regurgitating this non-fact, then Luxist admits they were wrong. WSJ does not bother to correct their blog entry--it's just a blog, after all, I guess. This is the type of sourcing we're dealing with here, when there is sourcing at all. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not making a claim one way or the other about the article--that's why I made a comment instead of a !vote. But it does cast some doubt on the alleged non-existence of the article subject, and the claim that "The sources provided are either irrelevant or make no mention of the subject" that was made in the nomination. Meelar (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Luxist article claims its “source” is a “well-connected Luxist follower” and then cites this Wikipedia entry for its additional information on Goulandris. This hardly qualifies as reliable and as far as my research has shown seems to be the only “proof” of his existence on the internet. Robfrederick (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Many grand claims, mostly unsourced, or else poorly sourced from gossip pages. Substantial coverage from WP:RS sources is sorely lacking. Fails WP:GNG, and could well violate WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Repurpose the article goes to some length to explain why there is not sufficient information--but his companies are probably notable, and this could redirect to articles on them. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no pages for either of the companies to be redirected to. No reliable sources could be found that verify either of the companies this page claims he owns even exist. There was a WP on one of these companies, Victory Carriers, which was created by the same user that created this page, however it was deleted “based on lack of reliable third-party sources, and findings of invalid/missourced original information.” Within the deletion discussion for that article the nominator also asserted that he thought Alexander- Goulandris was a WP:HOAX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfrederick (talk • contribs) 15:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have flagged this article as a possible hoax (in whole or part). See discussion on Talk:Constantine_Alexander-Goulandris. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. There is absolutely no reliable source. The whole history of this article looks extremely fishy, and it's a pity we did not delete it when the author asked us to. The only mention of its subject in the references is a Wall Street Journal blog, which quotes "Luxist", whose sources are "A well-connected Luxist follower" who is immediately contradicted by "an insider." With no more than anonymous gossip to go on, the article fails WP:V, and careful research reported on the talk page has failed to find confirmation of anything it says, including the companies.

Ghits are almost all based on this article, or on the Luxist gossip, but among them I find this, according to which he is married to Susanne Livanos de Kasa-Hunyady. A year ago we had a string of Kasa-Hunyady hoax articles, and that confirms my view that this is a hoax rather than just unsourced BLP. JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 9 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. Plaza Middle School (Virginia Beach) will redirect to Virginia Middle School Xavexgoem (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plaza Middle School[edit]

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

Seems to be about two completely unrelated schools, neither of which are notable or sourced. The usual delete or redirect? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Virginia Beach City Public Schools per convention, not finding coverage in 3rd party sources that would indicate this can or could ever meet notability guidelines RadioFan (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect of course.If there is any confusion about the redirect, make a suitable disam page. Totally unnecessary nomination -- these redirect/merges are routine & only need to come here if challenged. No reason given against a redirect, which is understandable, since there is none possible. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so clear that no argument for deletion over redirection is possible. And find it curious that you would say that, as you have out a nomination (which I agree with) of a mall for deletion -- not redirection -- at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plaza Kota Tinggi.

It is not clear to me what the benefit of a redirect would be. There are hundreds of thousands of schools. If we were to redirect all of them to pages such as the indicated one, would that be a good thing? I'm not sure, at this point. In this case -- though admittedly things could change -- all readers would see would be ... the name of the school. As well as the names of other schools, but that is not what they are searching for. What is the benefit of leading the reader, rather than to a dead end, to ... the name of the search term he entered? As best I can tell, not much.

I'm guessing that is why we do not redirect non-notable malls, corporations, partnerships, organizations, and people as a general rule. If the opposite were in fact the general rule, we would likely term this exercise "Articles for Redirection". Still, I have an open mind on the subject, because while I see the benefit of a redirect as quite small, it may be that the cost is quite small as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we have two or three different opinions expressed in this discussion. That alone justifies the discussion. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambiguation- Kansas City, Missouri Park Hill School district has a Plaza Middle School as well (which someone kindly coatracked to the bottom of this article), a Plaza Park Middle School in Evansville, Indiana, I didn't find others, but 2 and a one-off support disambiguation, not redirect. Dru of Id (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation- Dru of Id has made the case for disambiguation, and a brief mention in Virginia Beach City Public Schools would be reasonable. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree with disambiguation, since none of the schools named Plaza Middle School is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for piping up on that point. As you know, I'm at this point in time generally open to redirects (disambig being simply one form of redirect). But -- largely prompted by comments such as "No reason given against a redirect, which is understandable, since there is none possible", I've started to think more closely (as reflected above) about them. I appreciate that there can be differing views on the subject, and suspect that the differing editors may well have reasonable rationales.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I generally oppose school redirects when the name of the school is not unique. (I would be OK with a redirect if the article name was unique, such as Plaza Middle School (Virginia Beach).) And I oppose disambiguation when the subjects being disambiguated are not notable enough for their own article. Wikipedia policy backs me up on that: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles." (my emphasis) --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure ... pull out the "I'll point you to the unambiguous policy" card, why don't you.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Sorry! --MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equintium[edit]

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

This game lacks substantial RS coverage. Article has zero refs. Tagged for notability for over 3 years. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 01:20, 26 January 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) 15:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. There has been no edits to it since 2008. That would be long enough for any RS to have been found. There simply is none.--MLKLewis (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete as per nominator's assessment of lack of references and notability. The only sites that mention this game seem to be a hodgepodge of blogs and forums as well as the game's site, all of which are unreliable sources. -Most Serene Wikipedian (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no sources and lacking information about the game. Unlike other game articles this has no pictures and structured weird. Jwjkim (talk) 05:19, 8, February 2012 (UTC)
Delete All sites which have any description are the main site, and sites that let companies advertise their games. The quality of these sites are not good, either. Everything else is forum discussions or fan groups. Can find no credible sources. SilentVendetta (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wargasm (word)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The user has fails WP:N with respect the concept of "wargasm" because the concept is extremely obscure and is already covered by war. The word itself is an extremely obscure (and not even slightly witty) portmanteau neologism, which has a grand total of 4 recorded uses, apparently used by the users in different ways, and certainly not jargon. There is apparently (and I leave room to stand corrected by someone more knowledgeable) no evidence of the discussion of the actual word itself which would merit an encyclopedic article. A Google search for "wargasm" shows up more discussion of a video game, and the opening track of some random album Bricks Are Heavy. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write the article on "wargasm" to add it is a dictionary term. However, its closeness to the word "orgasm" (which has an extensive Wikipedia entry), together with its usage in public debates in the 1960s and 1970s by public figures of great importance, i.e. Norman Mailer and Dean Rusk, merit its inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, the prospect of an abrupt and potentially devastating nuclear war, is just as threatening as it was in the 20th century, although the Cold War has ended. I believe that "wargasm" is pertinent in linking current political and literary debate to what was said when the word was first introduced by Rusk. Wargasm=the abrupt outbreak of warfare is something which readers should have the privilege of appreciating. Has Wikipedia become so shallow as to only include "Wargasm" as a video game article? Does a pertinent article get deleted merely because it does not technically satisfy the requirements of a rule?Robert (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is a Google search the extent of your research? If so, then it's no wonder you are looking for things to delete on Wikipedia instead of being creative enough to add to its content. Would you at least be kind enough to identify who you are, with some description of yourself, rather than raiding people's efforts in anonymity. Your username is certainly not one conducive to intelligent thinking. What assumption did you employ to state that the word wargasm has been used a grand total of four times?Robert (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine question. Is it an article about a word or concept? If it is the former, how is the word notable? Note that the comparison with orgasm is not valid because orgasms is a genuine physiological reaction that has been subject to large studies in sexology. We have articles about individual words, but none that is quite as bizarre as this. If it is the latter how does it differ from the article about nuclear war? Furthermore, noting especially that a "wargasm" has never occurred, how can any article concerning it be free of WP:OR? Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to orgasm is a valid one, especially among wordsmiths like Mailer and Goodman. The likeness comparison merely means volatile, explosive, and combustible, which is characteristic of both terms. There are many terms which bring to mind sexual terminology but have no real relationship to them. Once a UNC teacher said that she was careful to pronounce organism distinctly because it was once misinterpreted by a student. The references which I retrieved the word from are each valid, solid refs., i.e. not spurious. The word was has been employed by very noteworthy individuals in both the literary and political fields.Robert (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Wargasm" is not, repeat not, a physiological reaction and it has not been well studied academically. How can you compare the two? Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google searches with additional terms, e.g. (wargasm "dean rusk"), (wargasm "norman mailer"), failed to turn up any evidence that any single meaning or closely related cluster of meanings or concepts attached to the word. While it occurs in any number of sources, there's no consistency of meaning. It's apparently been used for a massive launch-on-warning nuclear attack, for a 1969 event staged by the Weathermen, for group sex practiced by the W'men, for high-intensity tours of Civil War battlefields, for water-balloon fights between fraternities, and for any number of other things. I find no evidence that the specific meaning given in the WP article ever achieved significant penetration in popular or academic culture; as an obvious and mildly racy portmanteau, the word's been used in many different and only peripherally related ways, with no majority or strong plurality endorsing any of the meanings. Ammodramus (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it imperative that the word have a single meaning? It seems to be more meaningful and pertinent, seeing as you've found additional uses by the Weathermen, frats, and other groups.Robert (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The different meanings of a word are pertinent to a dictionary, not to an encyclopedia, which is about things and concepts rather than the words that denote them. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dictionary definition and an original essay on the origin of a non-notable neologism. This should be enshrined by our friends at Urban Dictionary. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The pertinence of Wargasm (word) is evident in its usage by noteworthy persons in the 1960s and 1970s. It is not a word which will appear in standard dictionaries and should be kept for its importance regarding debate on politics, literature, academics, and general interest. The suggestion that it should be relegated to a dictionary is not sufficient. The term is getting numerous hits and should remain as a topic which readers may have access to. This debate was introduced by an individual who chooses to remain completely anonymous, giving no identification of who he is aside from a ridiculous sounding moniker unfit for a "Loony Tunes" segment, much less as the user name of a Wikipedia editorRobert (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per: "The pertinence of Wargasm (word) is evident in its usage by noteworthy persons in the 1960s and 1970s. It is not a word which will appear in standard dictionaries and should be kept for its importance regarding debate on politics, literature, academics, and general interest." Actually, that pretty much is the case for deletion — the fact that is is a non-standard, cutesy, lingo word would imply that it is probably NOT encyclopedic. In my opinion this belongs at Urban Dictionary, for sure, and Wiktionary, maybe — but not Wikipedia. Please note that I'm completely down the middle on this topic, being against war and in favor of orgasms. Carrite (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The word seems to have been coined independently several times, each time with a different meaning. None of the meanings has had any long life or notability. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the meanings are notable. SL93 (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per: I differ with you that none of the meanings are noteworthy. Usage by Mailer and Rusk, the important issues which were being debated when the term was applied, along with additional uses in dictionaries and the New Yorker magazine, make the meaning and its usages significant, albeit not oft used.Robert (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word "wargasm" is used exactly once in the ten pages of Daniel Lang's 1971 New Yorker piece, cited in the article under discussion here. It is used in a parenthetical aside; unfortunately, I didn't copy the page, but as I recall it occurred in a passage like "A full-scale nuclear exchange (in the jargon, "wargasm") would lead to..." Note that WP:GNG states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..."; but a trivial mention is exactly what occurs in the Lang piece.

I apologize for not being able to quote the passage exactly; if Robertg9 has a copy of the article at hand and can reproduce the sentence, it might help other editors decide how important or trivial Lang's use of the word was. Ammodramus (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a copy of the article unfortunately. I write virtually all of my Wikipedia articles on what's past, lot of it the distant past, i.e. film stars, buildings, people, and events. I believe that as with the content I have contributed earlier, "wargasm" is important because of its use by men who contributed much to public debate in the 20th century. Certainly it was not used often, yet it is memorable that it was employed by Mailer and Rusk during a crucial era in the history of the United States. Insightful people will be able to reflect on this. For example the term "groovy" is used seldom if any these days. However, to understand more about the Charles Manson and Jeffrey MacDonald murders, it is helpful to have a resource which explains terminology like this, along with the context of its usage. The term groovy was discovered on the walls of both crime scenes. One can sit back and say that we should have an alternate source, a dictionary, etc., for this kind of thing. Yet even if published, it will not have anywhere near the circulation that Wikipedia does. So what you have are high school and college students who see these expressions and need to go to an older person, their parents, instead of being able to find its meaning right in front of them. Wikipedia should make allowances, broaden its range of inclusion.Robert (talk) 16:53, 7 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) 11:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Forever: A Manifesto of Fractured Imagination and Wreckless Living[edit]

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

Non-notable album by obscure side-project of notable musicians; merely a track listing of non-notable tracks. Orange Mike | Talk 00:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sole reference does nothing to establish notability, and I can't find anything to get it past WP:GNG. CityO fSilver 00:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Gongshow ^Talk 04:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A9 since the artist doesn't have an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:30, 3 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 Proprioception. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Properception[edit]

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

While working with Wikipedia with a psychology lab on campus, it was pointed out to me that "properception" isn't actually a psychology/psychiatry term. The closest term is proprioception, which has its own article. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'speedy redirect as a possible mis-spelling. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to proprioception as a possible mis-spelling. JIP | Talk 07:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article states "properception is related to proprioception" so the author was clearly aware that the terms were distinct.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence of this. The first version of the article doesn't make any such mention. It wasn't until over a year and half later that the distinction to proprioception was added to the article, by a different user. JIP | Talk 20:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Possible mis-spelling of proprioception, but also because half of the article is about proprioception, which does in fact seem similar to "properception". Rm1271 ^talk_contribs 00:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the article appears to be about interoception.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No such word, a redirect would therefore be confusing and unhelpful. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to proprioception. This seems to be a rare variant spelling – Google Books shows this word used in a handful of books. -- 202.124.74.36 (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "Proprioception". Plausible misspelling. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:11, 8 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.