< 3 February 5 February >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 02:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Gentile[edit]

Brandon Gentile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent autobiography, or at least someone with a similar name created the article. Non-notable minor league hockey player. A prod tag was removed by the article's creator. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 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. LFaraone 02:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Black Light[edit]

Order of the Black Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a box set containing recordings that already have their own articles. Box set not notable enough to have it's own as it does not seem to meet WP:NALBUMS. --Non-Dropframe talk 22:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 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 speedily deleted by Fastily (WP:CSD#G7, author requested). --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rasheed Sulaimon[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rasheed Sulaimon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:NBASKETBALL. --Non-Dropframe talk 22:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This page was recreated but I cannot verify how close this page is to the original, so I did not nominate for speedy. --Non-Dropframe talk 22:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Worth Noting - The article creator seems to be conected to the subject. Rikster2 (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG, also seems that persons recommending delete have possible COI as they are creators of similar pages or go to alma maters different from the ones on this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.142 (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment you can put the COI stuff in your pipe and smoke it. I am a Carolina fan, but I'm also the guy who put Leslie McDonald up for AfD. And I didn't vote delete either. Jrcla2 is a Duke fan so don't you look like a bozo? Rikster2 (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just wanted to let the record show that that yes, I am a Duke fan even though I graduated from William & Mary. I've created UNC basketball players' articles in the past and I'm voting delete on a future Dookie. Wow, that sure came back to bite you right in the butt. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments about the IP who !voted keep - This is a comment to any closing administrator that the IP who !voted keep is most likely the same person who created the article. This IP blanked the first AfD nomination, removed the AfD notice from the article, removed Rikster's and my comments from this AfD and also blanked Rasheed's talk page. Furthermore, this IP tried to !vote keep by saying it "meets GNG" without specifying how it does (which, by the way, my delete !vote clearly explained why GNG doesn't apply here), and then finally attempted to diminish Rikster's !vote by using the strawman fallacy. Whatever administrator is reading this should think very carefully about how much weight s/he wants to give this IP sockpuppet. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:48, 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. LFaraone 02:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devils drop[edit]

Devils drop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed prod - see article talk page. I cannot find any evidence for this place, let alone the extensive history given in the article. Fails WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. The proposed film that the author mentions on the article talk page, and about which there are "rumours" according to the article, is Devils hill, which I have nominated in a separate AfD. Jll (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 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. Note: 1 IP voted twice, maybe thrice Xavexgoem (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al Garza[edit]

Al Garza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It should be noted this BLP is for Al Garza II, son of the founder of the Matrix System. The subject has no supported claims of martial arts notability. His MMA record on Sherdog is 1-2, but the author keeps changing it to 15-2. Training with notable fighters does not show notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Having received a $2000 government contract doesn't show notability, either. Finally, I can find nothing to show his writing passes WP:AUTHOR. Papaursa (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should noted that Al Garza's MMA record is before Sherdog became an online fight status. He has been fighting since 1996 and his record is 15-2-0. Sherdog has only 2 fights recorded because when they started recording fighters they didn't have access to his total record. His government contracts show credibility for his background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.55.60 (talk • contribs) 6 February 2012 98.112.55.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's fine as long as there are sources for his MMA record, otherwise the SOP is to go with what is sourced--and Sherdog is the standard reference for MMA records. I know Sherdog's records go back to at least 1996 (see Travis Fulton). Papaursa (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources for his underground fighting, that is why you cannot find sources for fights that have not been sanctioned. Even with fighters like Rickson Gracie who has hundreds of fights and most of them cannot be verified except through the family. Many fighters come in with a previous record not found on places like Sherdog. Let's get real here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.200.90 (talk • contribs) 7 February 2012
Please don't post comments in front of the nomination. If there are no sources, then it doesn't meet WP:V and shouldn't be listed. Please leave the verified facts alone unless you can source your changes. Papaursa (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove votes by other editors. I would also suggest you might want to look at WP:CIV and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Papaursa (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can comment all you want, but just vote once. Papaursa (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a hoax. Kubigula (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weight-Increase Phobia[edit]

Weight-Increase phobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NEOLOGISM, zero Google hits. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and perhaps wp:hoax. --Non-Dropframe talk 22:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what this article is about. This is someone posting about an insult he and someone else had for another over weightlifting. That's it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article's scope and content have been completely revised (see below). Northamerica1000(talk) 02:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cassell, Dana K.; et al. (2000). "The encyclopedia of obesity and eating disorders". Facts On File. ISBN 0816040427. Retrieved February 4, 2012.
  • Ruggiero, Giovanni Maria (2003). "Eating disorders in the Mediterranean area: an exploration in transcultural psychology". Nova Biomedical Books. Retrieved February 4, 2012. ISBN 1590337131
—Northamerica1000(talk) 02:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying in effect is that you've gone ahead and unlaterally deleted an article that was under AfD so that you could create an article on a different topic under a different name? That is tremendously inappropriate. If you feel that there should be an article on weight phobia, good for you, go start one, but changing title and content of an existing article is not the way that that is done. I am going to go revert the article to what it was so that this AfD can properly continue. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking care of that, and for putting in good effort on weight phobia! --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:45, 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Community Treatment Solutions[edit]

Community Treatment Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found nothing that shows this organization's notability. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 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. Snow consensus for delete. Topic currently lacks coverage to show notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devils hill[edit]

Devils hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed prod - see article talk page. Fails WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. I cannot find any references to this project apart from its website. Jll (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 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 keep. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angélica Lozano Correa[edit]

Angélica Lozano Correa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is more than a month old and yet has multiple issues 1. No biographical information 2. Does not meet the layout requirements 3. Is not adequately referenced.

So please delete Wikishagnik (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't understand issues 1 and 2. The article does have biographical information, and I don't know what the layout requirements are, but the layout of this article looks perfectly normal to me. On the other hand, the article does need better referencing, so I would recommend that that issue be the one focused on in this AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep None of the deletion reasons given seems valid. 1. There is biographical information: birthplace, date, education career. 2. The layout is just what it ought to be for a stub article. 3. It is indeed not fully referenced to third party sources, but the criterion is unreferenceable, not unreferenced. Furthermore, the idea that articles need to be completed in the first month is against policy. There is no deadline. (As for the merits of the article, recent precedent is that members of the city council of major cities are notable , and Bogota qualifies. there is pretty sure to be references for the GNG, also.) DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable for her position per precedent on councilmembers of major cities being notable, probably notable per coverage in reliable sources, nom hasn't provided anything policy-based. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability is established - seems to be a case of WP:SOFIXIT issues StarM 17:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luce–Celler Act of 1946[edit]

Luce–Celler Act of 1946 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This act is not noteworthy because the act was just symbolic—the immigration quotas were for 100 people each. It doesn't deserve an article of its own. The current article misleads—the last sentence is the crucial part—the bill was a token grant of rights.

See http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/immigration_chron.cfm

    1946
    ...
    The Luce-Cellar Act extends the right to become naturalized citizens to Filipinos and Asian Indians. The immigration quota is 100 people a year.

I tried to dig up secondary sources on the act to correct the article, and realized how non-notable it was:

This kind of an article has real consequences; enotes has already copied us (http://www.enotes.com/topic/Luce%E2%80%93Celler_Act_of_1946).

PS: Even those who oppose immigration, granted a source with an agenda, do not mention this act: (http://www.fairus.org/site/PageNavigator/facts/research_us_laws/). For 1946 we see: "Procedures were adopted to facilitate immigration of foreign-born wives, fiance(e)s, husbands, and children of U.S. armed forces personnel." That is not the Luce-Celler act. It is hard to see why FAIR would fail to mention a notable immigration act, given their agenda. Ajoykt (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is being an "Act of Congress" enough to fulfil the Wikipedia notability criteria? 68.126.188.48 (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By analogy to criteria 5 of Wikipedia:Notability (books), I suggest that it may be. James500 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The US Code which lists all acts of Congress is 200,000 pages long, many times the length of Encyclopaedia Britannica. By your criteria, Wikipedia will become a law encyclopedia, with the law articles interfering with most searches and eating up most of server space. Ajoykt (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Wikipedia is not paper. (2) I am not proposing that we should include the full original text of any Act, because that can go on Wikisource. (3) I think that you seriously underestimate the amount of material available on subjects other than law. I also think that you overestimate the number of people who are willing to work on articles related to law, a subject that is, for the most part, only taught at an advanced level to relatively small numbers of people. WikiProject Biography, for example, says that it has about a million articles. WikiProject Law, on the other hand, says that it has about twenty thousand. I do not think that we are in any danger of being "swamped" by articles on the subject of law, even that was a problem, a proposition for which you have not offered any evidence, and which seems to conflict with Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. James500 (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case there does not appear to be an assertion that the Act does not meet WP:GNG, per WP:BEFORE, only that it is either not mentioned or is only briefly mentioned in a list of specified sources, to the exclusion of all other sources. Moreover the sources that are offered do not look like the type of sources that I would expect to be looking at. My knowledge of the literature that is available on the law of the United States is limited, but, to begin with, does the United States not have publications equivalent to Halsbury's Statutes and the like? James500 (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure the list of all laws of every country gets published in some official document or the other. Is that grounds for notability? By this criteria just the legal statutes alone will amount to most of Wikipedia. I think for a law to be notable, it has to have been mentioned by the media, academia and the like. If you can point me where to look, I am happy to update the article. The AfD is because WP:RS is impossible, and WP:GNG is questionable (mention in a federal gazette isn't notability) These abstract objections don't really help; does anybody have any sources which can disprove assertion of non-notability? Ajoykt (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, this does satisfy WP:GNG. James500 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The example that I gave, Halsbury's Statutes, is not merely a list of legislation. For each Act it provides details of all case law, amendments and subordinate legislation, and extensive annotations explaining what the Act means. And it, and several publications like it, are conclusive proof that that sort of information is notable. To begin with, I want you to positively tell me that there are no amendments to this statute, no case law on it, and no secondary legislation under it, and I want you to positively tell me that you know where to look for this sort of information.
Could you clarify what you mean by a federal gazette, and why you think that a mention in it isn't notable? James500 (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the federal gazette, I meant the US Code which is just a listing of laws. To answer your question, Luce Celler was overridden by the Hart-Celler Act of 1965. As to the rest, we are not a law encyclopedia. If we really included all statutes with case law, I think Wikipedia will soon become a law encyclopedia (what about laws of states like California, laws of other countries?) I think the onus really is on those who want to retain the article to show where reliable information shows its notability. The Google books results are pretty much one-line summaries. I agree with merging it into a larger article on US immigration, and making this title a redirect. How does one do that without deleting the article though? Ajoykt (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a law encyclopedia, just as much as it is a geography encyclopedia or a mathematics encyclopedia or a popular culture encyclopedia: it is a general encyclopedia that includes all of these. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Ajoykt: The Google Books results are not just one line summaries. If you look more closely you will see, IIRC, things like the number of people naturalized under the Act, and one that says that the East Indian community in the US would have disappeared if the Act had not been passed, that it took four years for it to pass, and etc. James500 (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC) In my view, we do need to include all statutory provisions and all case law somewhere. James500 (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That article (History of immigration to the United States) already says all the article on L-C says: "In 1946, the Luce-Celler Act extended the right to become naturalized citizens to newly freed Filipinos and Asian Indians. The immigration quota was set at 100 people a year". 68.126.188.48 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which would make Luce-Celler Act of 1946 a plausible redirect to History of immigration to the United States even if there weren't sufficient sources to expand it, which there probably are. And merger does not involve deletion. James500 (talk) 07:34, 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 keep. Nominator has withdrawn his deletion nomination, and there are no other advocates for deletion. (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Rego[edit]

Jayson Rego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is more than a month old and yet has multiple issues 1. No biographical information 2. Does not meet the layout requirements 3. Is not adequately referenced.

So please delete Wikishagnik (talk) 19:39, 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) 10:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies Live Longer[edit]

Ladies Live Longer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

So please delete Wikishagnik (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salesi Tongamoa[edit]

Salesi Tongamoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has multiple issues 1. Does not meet style layout 2. Does not meet notability requirements 3. Does not say much about the player at all

So I suggest delete it Wikishagnik (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SmitFraud[edit]

SmitFraud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no notability for this computer virus. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 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 no consensus. LFaraone 02:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thewittyshit.com[edit]

Thewittyshit.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A7 speedies on this article have been declined twice before, and a third nomination just popped up. Although I personally see no reason to advocate the deletion of this article, I've brought it here to settle the matter once and for all. Neutral.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:GNG. If it has received significant coverage in reliable sources, it's notable.--Michig (talk) 07:29, 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:20, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Underdark (band)[edit]

Underdark (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this meets WP:MUSIC. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
for now, change to Neutral per below. I took a look at these websites, and at first glance they appear reliable secondary sources. Probably more in-depth researches in Polish websites could reveal further sources. Cavarrone (talk) 08:43, 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 talkabout my edits? 16:59, 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 talkabout my edits? 18:02, 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 redirect to Iris (software). JohnCD (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dexetra[edit]

Dexetra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to WP:ORG, An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. There is no secondary source that discusses Dexetra (the company) in detail, the sources are about Iris (the product, not the company). The only reference I can find which has an incidental and trivial coverage about this company is this which I believe is not sufficient to meet the criteria of WP:ORG. SupernovaExplosion (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 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 talkabout my edits? 18:00, 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, default to keep since deletion obviously isn't the correct outcome. Whether the article should be merged to Pez is now beyond the remit of AfD. Deryck C. 16:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Pez[edit]

Star Wars Pez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of WP:GNG. While cited sources verify the existence of the line, they do not offer significant, focused discussion of impact, relevance, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 29 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 talkabout my edits? 17:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is this particular set of pez's not notable? The vast majority of the coverage in the article is not about the generic pez, but specifically the Star Wars Pez. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Panagiotis Andreou[edit]

Panagiotis Andreou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 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 redirect to Legality of cannabis by country. Anything useful can be merged from the article's history.  Sandstein  17:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of drugs[edit]

Legality of drugs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is not what the title says; title is too broad/undefined. Article as it currently exists largely duplicates information in Legality of cannabis by country; encyclopaedia would be better served by a series of articles, one per drug, perhaps, which seems more intuitive a search. Cheers, LindsayHello 17:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 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. Possible renaming can be considered as part of normal editing. JohnCD (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth completion[edit]

Smooth completion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is better suited for Wiktionary Wikishagnik (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a mathematical error on D.Lazard's part. If the affine curve is nonsingular, then it is indeed imbedded in the smooth completion. Tkuvho (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understood your logic but the article still belongs to Wiktionary Wikishagnik (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think your comment is based on the assumption that the current form of the stub is its current form. You may have noticed, however, that the article was only created a short while ago, and has not received the attention it deserves. The "wiktionary" idea does not apply to it more than any other math article in wikipedia. Tkuvho (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Short While Ago? The Article was created on 5th Jan 2012?Wikishagnik (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the "compactification" title is more logical, but I happened to have heard "smooth completion" in this context. I guess the thing to do is to look at reliable sources. What would this be called in a standard textbook? Tkuvho (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this confusion will exist till the time people think of Wiktionary to be an inferior cousin of Wikipedia. Agreed that people and experts spend more time on Wikipedia but that does not mean we create pages for every documented variation of a mathematical formula. Wiktionary is better suited to understand a concept while Wikipedia is better suited for giving it a historical context, contribution to humanity. I know that a lot of people try to use Wikipedia as a textbook on scientific topics but that defeats the whole purpose of an encyclopedia. We cant confuse an article on sauce with its cooking instructions. Wikishagnik (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Just a concept": We have many articles that are "just" about "concepts". That's a silly reason to vote delete. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Getting hits on Google scholar is not a criterion for keep. First, are you getting hits on the actual topic or hits on the same phrase being used with a different meaning? You have to actually follow the links and understand what they say to make that determination. Also, are any of the hits for secondary sources? Again you have to follow the links and determine if they are primary research. WP shouldn't have articles where only a few researchers can verify their accuracy.--RDBury (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The material is in Hartshorne chapter 4, a standard reference (see current version of article). Tkuvho (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly where in Hartshorne is the term "smooth completion" used? Does he call it something else? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@RDBury: Well, I am not an expert in algebraic geometry, but I hope I am not totally incompetent. Obviously, I have looked through the some of the links (to the best of my modest ability) before posting the link to google hits here. Most of the links that I saw are secondary sources which refer to the same mathematical object which is discussed in the article.
As to accuracy, the same reasoning can be used (and has been used) to argue that there should be no technical mathematical articles on Wikipedia at all. Sasha (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I maybe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikishagnik (talk • contribs) 21:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article "Variations of Hodge structures of a Teichmüller curve" by M Möller in J. Amer. Math. Soc. 2006 uses the term "smooth completion". Tkuvho (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant to say was that before this AfD, I had never heard of "smooth completion", though when I searched for it on the google I found many results. The difference in terminology seems to be partially a difference between which field of math you're reading. Another difference may be that "complete" is usually used for varieties, so if you are looking at more general things (which may not even be schemes), you might use "compactification" (as a synonym of the never-used "properification"). From looking at a few papers it seems like a "smooth completion" of U might be a variety V that has a divisor D which has locally normal crossings and such that V\D = U. One might use "smooth compactification" more generally. RobHar (talk) 19:05, 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lokmanya nagar[edit]

Lokmanya nagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has multiple issues This article reads like a travel advisory so a website like TripAdvisor seems to be better suited for this article There is no geographical (state, city, country information), population or other info available. Is this a ghost town? Any notable persons from this town? I think articles like this which are more than a month old need to be deleted. If the author is not interested for months then so should we. Wikishagnik (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not necessary for notable people to come from a town for a town to be notable. The town is clearly not a ghost town since it has public transport services. Inactivity of the articles author is in no way an indicator of an articles notability. The town has been mentioned in a "The Times Of India". This nomination is a clear example of cultural bias.Flaviusvulso (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt: Are localities in a town also automatically notable? This is just an area of Thane city. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:51, 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) 17:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry of John Seymour (Semer) of Sawbridgeworth[edit]

Ancestry of John Seymour (Semer) of Sawbridgeworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a genealogical paper about a WP:NN cobbler who lived in the 1500's. While some of his descendants may be notable, it does not appear that this individual is. As a genealogical study, it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, #2, "Genealogical entries." Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As previously noted, John's notability is completely irrelevant. There are countless Wikipedia articles on a wide variety of topics, many of them not being notable persons. His ancestors, however, are quite notable, and the article has interest for a variety of reasons far beyond whether John himself was notable or not. Again, I implore you to actually read the article, and to glean it's very obvious subject matter, which is that historical evidence supports the fact that he's descended from very notable people. His notable descendents are merely further evidence of that fact.
This is obviously not original research as proved by the 70+ historical references cited. It is merely historical data presented in a new form as explicitly covered in Wikipedia's definition of original research
I would assert that the subject of John's ancestry is quite notable on its own merit without regard to whether or not John was able to live a notable life. I would further assert that the article would probably find wide interest by many in the general public who are not as interested in the genealogical aspects, as probably would be the 100,000+ descendents of John Sawbridgeworth, and possibly descendents of other branches within the clan as well totaling millions of people. This period of history continues to generate great public interest, and in particular any facts related to Henry VIII, and his royal court. This has been recently evidenced by the fact that Hilary Mantel, in 2009, won the Man Booker Prize for her novel Wolf Hall (named after the Seymour family manor although given more modern spelling). This article merely expands on that seemingly interesting subject by gathering together many related historical facts in a new way.
Therefore, as it's been repeated over and over again that John is not a notable person, I'll reiterate that the notability of his own personal accomplishments are not the subject of this article, and are therefore irrelevant. Furthermore, the subject of his ancestry, due to the notability of the other people involved, and the period of history which it affected, is completely notable and worthy of being included in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talk • contribs) 13:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose that I should be flattered that my little article is receiving so much attention. It makes it hard to imagine how so many millions of articles currently exist on Wikipedia. Keep up the diligent work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talk • contribs) 13:35, 5 February 2012‎
Just so you know, it's not your article. Toddst1 (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also so as you know, Pablocombiano, Original Research is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody here has questioned that the subject is interesting. But because Wikipedia simply cannot be a repository of everything interesting, any more than it can catalogue everything that exists, it is necessary to apply guidelines and policies on what should and should not go in. In this case, we accept that there have been a lot of Seymours on both sides of the Atlantic who are very notable and should be in Wikipedia. There is already an article on the Seymour family. The probability that they are all connected in some way seems quite strong. However, anyone who has involved themselves in this sort of research knows that it frequently impossible to conclusively prove family relationships especially this far back. Other possibilities exist than the one premised here. We expect articles to be properly referenced, but the point about the original research rule in this context is that also applies to conclusions. These need to be referenced to reliable sources. And even if the conclusions are right, the topic seems to belong within an article about the Seymour family, or one part of it, and does not appear to have a notability of its own. --AJHingston (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you Toddst1 for very correctly pointing out that this is a Wikipedia article. Secondly, Chiswick Chap, I think we've previously more than adequately addressed whether or not it's original research. Under the original research guidelines of Wikipedia, it is not. I will repeat--that it's existing historical evidence simply reproduced in a new format. If anyone would like to remake the same erroneous comment, please address this point. Thirdly, AJHingston states that it's "frequently impossible to conclusively prove". I'd like to make a point on that topic as well, by paraphrasing George Dudley Seymour as stated in his book A History of the Seymour Family: "Admittedly, we lack direct record evidence. This is not the same as to say that legal proof is lacking. Many things can be proved in a court of law by cumulative circumstantial evidence. Historians too look with favor on this type of evidence when its weight is sufficient. A single piece of direct evidence may be a lie; it may have been forged by a fraudulent dealer for the sake of profit, for example. But when we review all the known facts, and each circumstance harmonizes with all the other circumstances, and every bit of evidence fits neatly into the picture as if by magic, - then we feel entitled to claim that theory has given way to proof." The article doesn't purport to draw any particular conclusion, it's merely a conglomeration of facts on a single topic. Why don't we just let the reader decide? Is there something to fear here? Finally, I can't help but feel a little bit demonized. If the article needs a few changes, please suggest them. To say that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, doesn't seem a valid point. I think I've already adequately pointed out that it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talk • contribs) 12:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take any of this personally. You're not deliberately disrupting wikipedia - clearly, you are here to contribute and doing so with the best of intentions. However, this article appears to fall outside our guidelines on what we have articles on. I'm sure that you could add tremendous value here, but probably not on this article. Toddst1 (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess persistent would be a better word than offended. I feel strongly about this articles inclusion on Wikipedia, and so far I haven't seen a valid reason, under Wikipedia guidelines, to exclude it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.169.113.186 (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, you haven't been paying attention. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This could well be an accidental IP usage by the creator (rather than intentional sock). If so, it's a duplicate vote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Al Thuwaini[edit]

Youssef Al Thuwaini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Existing references do not verify any asserted information. No indication of notability. Cloudz679 15:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 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, since the presence of significant external coverage has been established. I also implore editors involved in this discussion to expand the article with the references given here to prevent another AfD. Deryck C. 16:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-Dutch[edit]

Afro-Dutch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Good effort but this is an un-encyclopedic article. 1. There is no history 2. This article is best suited for Wiktionary unless many of the mentioned people credit their heritage with their success 3. There is no independent source referred. The website linked is a dead-end. The topic might be good the page isn't Wikishagnik (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guagua National Colleges[edit]

Guagua National Colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded with "secondary and tertiary colleges are generally accepted as notable". However, I still think WP:GNG trumps that, as I find virtually nothing in the way of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 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 redirect to Hyperion Cantos. Consensus is that this should not be a separate article, but there's disagreement about whether and what to merge. A redirect allows merging whatever's useful (and sourceable!) later from the history.  Sandstein  20:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Shrike[edit]

The Shrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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 coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the author of the fictional work described. Not appropriate for a merger, as it consists only of excessive plot summary (WP:WAF). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 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. As a navigational list, maybe retitle?  Sandstein  20:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of South Asia[edit]

History of South Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At the moment, this page is simply a massive See Also section, just listing various history articles. This isn't much of an article. If this page was an article, its contents would have to be almost identical to those of History of India, and although there is perhaps some room to say the two topics are not exactly identical, there is no denying that there is such a huge range of overlap that any article will suffer from massive duplication. CMD (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't mind if it was set up as an outline article, but even if it was, it would still be hard to justify it having a different title to the article it is outlining. CMD (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see what is currently in this article being part of an outline, which would make sense if we make it stretch up to modern times. However, the page History of South Asia shouldn't redirect to the Outline, but to the history article. CMD (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve History of South Asia is a different topic than History of X country articles. A lot of books are available titled "History of South Asia". Before the advent of present-day nation-states, there were interconnection between the different geographical regions. In many aspect, South Asia stands as a unique and unified whole compared to the other regions. For example, South Asian Stone Age is different from Stone Age in general. The article in its current form is unencyclopedic, but there is scope to improve and expand this topic. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of India is not a History of a country article, but basically a history of (at least the vast majority of) the South Asian region. CMD (talk) 10:18, 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 keep. Masturbation is a suitable topic for an encyclopedia and has been subject of scientific publications. If you disagree with some specific part of the article's content, please take it to the talk page. (By the way, what do you mean by "Wikipedia policies 2.3, 2.7"?) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masturbation[edit]

Masturbation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This and other articles on masturbation infringe Wikipedia policies 2.3, 2.7. In addition any attempts to make articles more scholarly and objective , even though they are not really general encyclopedia subjects, are being immediately deleted. RevRoland (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oppose. The good reverend has made four edits to this page which have reverted as unconstructive. sour grapes? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I'd also like to politely ask that the nominator please stop being disruptive and vandalizing the article itself. OSU1980 14:40, 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 Speedy keep, bad-faith disruptive nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naturism[edit]

Naturism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article contravenes Wikipedia guidelines on content policy. As confirmation, all editing to make the article more objective have been consistently deleted or 'vandalised' RevRoland (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

clearly not. Article is 96K long, and has grown bo 2k this year, so is being updated/ improved and not "constanly deleted". I see the Rev also wants to delete masturbation. Am I seeing an agenda? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
clearly not:RevRoland has only made two edits to the article both of which were unreferenced POVs. They were reverted. In March 2010 he added

Modern naturism is often associated with 'swinging' or sexual promiscuity, and some naturist magazines cater for this. Naturism may be seen in traditional terms as a form of natural witchcraft where no formally laid out ceremonies are involved.

And in September he had another swipe. Then again he comes out of nowhere with a AfD. I have 'watched' this page since I did the major rewrite some years back, and all serious suggestions have be taken to the talk page and integrated someway. This is the first time that vandalism has taken the form of a malicious AfD (edit conflict)--ClemRutter (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: See nominator's recent AFD. Lost on Belmont (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Well-referenced article about encyclopedic subject. --bonadea contributions talk 14:51, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trelby[edit]

Trelby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I hate to do this. I am sure you are quite excited about this product but I found the following strong negatives

1. No News articles or scholar reviews of this software. I am sure your page has this but its not enough 2. The only hits in Google are the odd troubleshooting questions. Please note that blogs don't count as articles. 3. The only reference on this page is the home page of the project and that's not enough. You need more independent websites.

Please get this work done urgently. Its important to keep this page Wikishagnik (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I added third party news references. Anil.verve (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that's not enough. You still need more verifiable third party references. Please go though all the guidelines Wikishagnik (talk) 17:34, 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 keep. Sourcing/hoax concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure)  Gongshow Talk 03:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samad (crater)[edit]

Samad (crater) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoax/mistake? Google found only mirrors of Wikipedia, without sources since 2005 and with unreferenced stub template since 2009. Bulwersator (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Core synchronism[edit]

Core synchronism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable alternative medicine modality. No sources found discussing it on google scholar and only three references on google books. The first two are references to a guy who practices CS (i.e. in the "about the author/s" section it mentions this) and the third is a wikipedia reprint. There do not appear to be any reliable sources that substantively discuss it, and Wikipedia is the third link to show up on google search with most of the rest on the first page being people who do it. I recently gutted the page since most of it was unjustified or used a series of unrelated articles to advance a synthesis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'cos I hate categories, the initial AFD autotemplate doesn't list medicine as a possible category, and I'll be damned if I'm going to put it in with "science and technology" WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:42, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forex Forecast[edit]

Forex Forecast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, written as an essay, possibly non-encyclopaedic material. Fails WP:NOT. Osarius Talk 11:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Books[edit]

Creation Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was incorrectly listed (the discussion page wasn't created, so was redlinked in today's log). As a purely procedural move, I'm listing it properly, and contacting the editor who attempted to nominate it. It should be recognised that the nominator (User:Electricpussycat) has made very few edits outside of this article and this attempted nomination, so there may be issues there. I'd leave the discussion open a day or so to see if they come and provide a deletion rationale, but I totally understand if someone wants to close it early as a speedy keep. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What "easily found" sources? If they're out there and I missed them, then certainly, I'll want to change my !vote. But the article doesn't cite any that could establish notability and when I did my own searches, I couldn't find any. Msnicki (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. All we care about here is notability, which turns solely on whether there are reliable independent secondary sources. Msnicki (talk) 07:52, 29 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  08:03, 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hotcow[edit]

Hotcow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. (Won the usual industry awards they all have.) Philafrenzy (talk) 10:52, 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 talkabout my edits? 13:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With only sources I found coming from advertising industry related sites it's difficult to tell if these are not just self promotion. Would suggest delete unless a source can be found that is truly independent of source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mddkpp (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:55, 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sal's Pizza (Dallas)[edit]

Sal's Pizza (Dallas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local restaurant. Only sources appear to be Dallas-area news outlets, with one mention being a rather trivial listing of restaurants in the entire metro area. I counted several pizza places in that list, with just two or three brief sentences devoted to the subject of the article. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of mention is not a trival listing; despite the whimsical naming scheme, those are annual roundups of the best local establishments. Yes, the sources are Dallas-area, which means they serve 2+ million people. D Magazine - Is Dallas not notable? Sal's has won recognition from two independent, credible news sources. In combination with the restaurant's longevity, that should be enough to establish notability. The Sal's Pizza (New England chain) article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal%27s_Pizza_(New_England_chain) has been online since 2008, and lists no awards. Sal's Pizza, in Dallas, has been around since 1982 and has won several awards. If you delete Sal's, by these standards, Restaurants_in_Dallas,_Texas is going to start being a very small category! D Magazine and Dallas Observer are verifiable, reliable, independent. No original research is required to furnish why the restaurant is notable; those sources have noted it. Awards and positive reviews are the baseline of significant coverage for a restaurant, are they not? Merely because no citations have been provided for non-Dallas news sources does not mean they do not exist, or could not in the future. Pawsplay (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, here's a short article:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 10:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 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) 11:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Audience section of the notability guidelines for organizations and companies looks for "at least one regional, national, or international source." I'm completely unfamiliar with the publications being used for sourcing here. If it can be demonstrated that they constitute "regional" coverage -- that is, that their readership, both online and offline, extends beyond Dallas -- then I think this clears the notability hurdle by a millimeter or two :). I'll see if I can determine this myself. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recognize that. Indeed, I used our article on the Dallas Observer to conclude that, while the publication is notable, it is not a regional publication. That the publication is notable does not necessitate that everything it writes about is, too. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are not merely "reviews" or trivial mentions, those are awards. D Magazine serves the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, which as noted in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas-Fort_Worth encompasses 12 counties. D Magazine is a glossy monthly magazine. You want to call The New Yorker a local magazine? It seems to me the primary criticisms of the sources are people who are not familar with D/FW. Sal's has won awards from two different news sources that serve more than two million people, not counting people outside the metroplex who take the magazine. It's not called Big D for nothing. I don't even understand the objection itself; Sal's a neighborhood restaurant that has won city-wide awards. Among Dallas restaurants, Sal's is notable; that seems sufficient. The underlying argument seems to be that Dallas restaurants are not notable. Pawsplay (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New Yorker's readership extends way beyond the NY metro area. I bet its print edition is stocked in Beijing airports. Somehow I doubt D Magazine, the "Dallas Guide to Restaurants, Nightlife, and Things to Do" is getting international distribution, or even distribution outside of DFW. That's not a valid comparison. And we look for notability that is beyond mere local notability. That is part of a guideline. A neighborhood restaurant that has won city-wide awards can't be presumed to have notability beyond its local city in the absence of sourcing that confirms this. And the D Magazine bit is a trivial mention. Sal's Pizza is presented as one of eight top restaurants in one of six neighborhoods (Oak Lawn) in one of Dallas' five areas (Central). I'm not going to take the time to count every restaurant in the D Magazine list, but there appear to be in excess of 150, in which Sal's gets a 3 sentence bullet point. So...I'm sorry, that's an extremely trivial mention. There's no way that source can be used to establish notability. This leaves us with the Observer source, which is demonstrably local. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just about any popular local restaurant is going to get some local coverage and when that restaurant is local to a major metropolitan area then it will likely get even more coverage and it will more likely be in major new sources. This to me amounts to WP:ROUTINE and is not indicative of significant notability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Small town papers cover everything in town. That's routine coverage. A large city on the other hand does not cover every single restaurant. Positive reviews from multiple reliable sources make it notable. Dallas has 1,197,816 in the city, with 6,371,773 in its metropolitan area. Dream Focus 19:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since most of the news sources are behind a paywall I cannot say for certain what each one is about, but several from the snippets provided in the search results explicitly fit the definition of routine coverage or trivial mentions. That the only mentions are from Dallas news sources says it all. Were it actually notable I would expect some news coverage from outside the Dallas area. Certainly I would expect there to be a whole news article, not a review, dedicated to discussing the restaurant as a major eating establishment in the area. Really, I would prefer some significant mentions in a paper based well outside the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. I can't even find mentions from Fort Worth-area news outlets.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see anything about "regional" coverage? Dream Focus 22:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"[A]ttention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary". Goodvac (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a secondary guideline. WP:GNG has already been met. Dream Focus 23:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSLOCAL and WP:IDONTLIKEIT? That !vote was easy to debunk ;-) Diego (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...but this one might hold some weight. Being local is not relevant, but what if the sources found can be seen as promotional? I'd like to find out what arguments are usually used with respect to reviews by professional critics; I consider this to be significant, but I could understand that someone could find this one bordering the routine and not significant. Somebody want to comment on this? Diego (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Best Of rewards are not routine. Any establishment in the Dallas area that wins one is more than likely going to display their certificate in a place of pride. Best Reason to Think You're in Brooklyn means "Best New York-style pizza and Italian comfort food" in Dallas. I can understand why someone unfamiliar with the publication might, at first reading, mistake "Best Reason to Think You're in Brooklyn" for a casual mention by a beat writer, but if you will review the categories, you will see that many of the awards are named that way, even if the award is actually for an established category. Those are are actual annual awards, with one, maybe two or three or three winners out of each category for entire Dallas area. Considering that the Observer doesn't hand out an award for NY slices every year, this is basically a case where they split the Best Pizza category specifically in order to recognize Sal's. Pawsplay (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:Corp: Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists generally does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is so notable that each entry can be presumed notable. That being said, on what basis is your claim being made? How is the Dallas Morning News Best of list different than Boston Magazine's annual Best of list? They give a plaque which the winners get, and they usually post it. Can you state what the criteria is for making the list? Is it some sort of metric, or is it a popularity poll? What makes this "Best of" list any different than any other one published by any other publication in the world? The answer you and others have been giving, It appeared in the biggest paper in the state of Texas therefore it is notable is not a valid reason to keep the article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy, the link provided does not just illustrate inclusion in a "best of" list, it's also accompanied by a review so it can still be used to confer notability as "significant coverage". My doubt is at what point a critical review stops from being routine and begins being significant. Often at AfD there's a view that all critical reviews (such as travel guides and restaurant critics) are routine, but I don't think that this view is sensible. Why being true to the letter of GNG should not be a valid reason to keep the article? Diego (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that I can't find any significant news outside of Dallas. And we can't have an article on every single restaurant discussed in sources in every city, as has been pointed out by people before. Local newspapers generally do a weekly feature or something on a local restaurant. The main issue with having such an article based on these sources is that the sources generally don't say much, not enough to actually make a complete article with all the sections that made at least a C class article. For example, this source listed in the article. If you read it, sure it's decently long, but it says absolutely nothing about Sal's in specific. The only thing usable from that source is the scores they gave, the text is just rambling garbage that doesn't have a point to it. SilverserenC 02:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not proposing to add every single restaurant that receives coverage. This specific restaurant is notable because it won category awards from two independent sources. Again, the links provided are not weekly features, but include annual roundup awards for the entire city. Out of every Italian restaurant in Dallas, there was a year that it was decided Sal's should be the one worth noting for being the best cheap eats, the best NY-style pie, etc. I find myself repeating once again that these mentions are NOT weekly featurings. The Dallas Observer's Best Of and D Magazine's Best and Worst are credible mentions. The Knockers article was not added by me; it is a supporting article only and provides some local color. The notability is supported by the separate accolades from Dallas Observer and D Magazine. Sal's is notable because Dallas restaurants are a notable topic, and Sal's is a notable Dallas restaurant. I don't see how Wikipedia becomes more valuable by deleting articles about actual cuisine and retaining articles about S'barro or whatever. Pawsplay (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We agree on one thing: The D Magazine bit is definitely a "mention." If it were significant coverage, and if D Magazine were a non-local source, then we'd have something. Unfortunately for Sal's Pizza, neither of these things are true. Sal's being a member of a notable group (Dallas restaurants) does not necessarily mean that Sal's is in and of itself notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia currently claims that a Metropolitan_area is a region. Examine also North_Texas which lists the Dallas/Fort Worth Area Tourism Council under external links. You are misusing the term "local" here as if D/FW were a single city. Do you understand you are talking about an area that covers 19 counties, around 6 million people, over 14,000 sq miles, and over 100 miles in distance? It is the size of Vermont, with ten times the population. Pawsplay (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know that the murder was not related to the production of allegedly very good pizza in the Dallas metropolitan area, which probably really has crappy pizza because Texans don't really know pizza and probably also eat cinnamon raisin bagels. Joking aside, I think where we come out here is that the regional coverage of Sal's, though not insignificant, is below the general GNG standard. One or two articles about the shop from a non-Dallas large paper, e.g., say the NY or LA times writing about what to do on a weekend in Dallas, might be sufficient, but that's not what we have here.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What complicates finding any other sources, if they exist, is that Sal's Pizza is a general pizza shop name for unaffiliated restaurants. So there's a bunch of them in other cities that have nothing to do with each other. SilverserenC 17:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The murder information is a classic example of passing mention, why it ever made its way into the article is beyond me. That was poor attempt to derail the discussion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added it because the local coverage of the murders mentioned his longterm employment at Sal's. The objection that he wasn't at work when it happened is absurd. The people writing the articles for the news were the ones who decided to mention the relationship. The reason it was mentioned should be pretty obvious; Sal's is a recognized and notable establishment, and David Jackson was cherished neighborhood figure. Notability does not apply to the contents of an article, only to the article itself. It seems pretty obvious to me that this section was axed simply because someone wants to see the article deleted, not because the paragraph itself was a problem. AFAIK it's still an unsolved murder case involving a well-known employee, and hence is still worthy of inclusion in the article. Please refrain from allowing contention over the article's notability to spill over into vandalism of the article itself. Pawsplay (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • *And there it is a resume of why the en wikipedia ia a f**ked up place with f***ed up content that is worthless, in fact, worse than worthless and total example of why quality contributors flee in droves. Youreallycan 20:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)striking my gripe as its not really specific to this deletion discussion. Youreallycan 20:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me see if I understand this correctly. So, winning some awards just for being awesome pizza is not notable enough. But being mentioned in an unsolved murder case is "worthless." Meanwhile, D Magazine is a "local" publication, even though its readership is the combined size of the entire population of several incorporated cities in Vermont. I want to assume good faith, but what I'm really sensing here is some anti-Texas snobbery. can we talk about, maybe? Pawsplay (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for the comments dismissing sources for being reviews, I'll point out to the main criterion in the WP:SNOWFLAKE essay. I think this article does have potential to be a beautiful snowflake (and thus above a cookie-cutter template), but will reserve my !vote as I'm undecided about the sources. Diego (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could easily become an article of this shape. Pawsplay (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then the ITSLOCAl section needs to be reworded, as there is significant past precedent that only local news stories without a single national or even other region source doesn't meet the cut. For example, see these past AfDs: here, here, here. There's many more besides those with similar results. SilverserenC 23:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How much of that "precedent" can be counted as community-wide consensus? This and this policy discussions make it clear that the general notability guideline is not bound by the requirement of non-local sources found at WP:Notability (organizations and companies). That's why WP:ITSLOCAL is an invalid argument for deletion (and the section shouldn't be rewritten), and why the above !votes don't hold weight. Previous AfDs can be used to inform consensus-building discussions at the policy talk pages, but their particular weight is small since the local (no pun intended) consensus they can met is mediated by the quality of their particular sources. Fact is that the argument against local sources has never reached wide consensus, or it would have be encoded in the primary guidelines and policies by now. As it stands, it's only used at the complementary guidelines that are used as alternate ways to inform notability but don't supersede the GNG. Diego (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I'd hope that all editors would devote more time to talk about the quality and significance of the sources, and less about their physical location. ;-) Diego (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a nice mention on gayot.com. Unfortunately, that site is currently blacklisted. I submitted a request to have it de-listed. Pawsplay (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The site has apparently had a history of being spammed in the past. Submitting a whitelisting for www.gayot.com/restaurants/sals-dallas-tx-75219_15df00108.html Pawsplay (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not affiliated with Sal's, nor does the article use any laudatory language. What exactly are you identifying as spam? Pawsplay (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Snow closure. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imbi Paju[edit]

Imbi Paju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient sources. TFD (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 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. (non-admin closure) Bmusician 01:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Liiv[edit]

Otto Liiv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Few sources exist to support an article. TFD (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 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. (non-admin closure) Bmusician 01:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Bogdan[edit]

Ruslan Bogdan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N Львівське (говорити) 03:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a member of the Ukrainian parliament, Bogdan meets the notability criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 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. Procedural keep as no reason for deletion offered and no deletion !votes. No prejudice against a nomination if reasons are identified. StarM 02:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Berezhna[edit]

Irina Berezhna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N Львівське (говорити) 03:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 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. Procedural keep as no reason for deletion offered and no deletion !votes. No prejudice against a nomination if reasons are identified. StarM 02:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Fisunenko[edit]

Oleg Fisunenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N Львівське (говорити) 03:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 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 redirect to iCarly (season 3). (non-admin closure) Bmusician 01:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IBeat the Heat[edit]

IBeat the Heat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable episode. Tinton5 (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to iCarly (season 3), from which the text was lifted verbatim. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 04:50, 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. Consensus is that this is still too much of a neologism for Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infodynamics[edit]

Infodynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism, apparently almost unused by anyone but Mansuri & Ceruti. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean for the comment above to be a keep !vote? Singularity42 (talk) 03:34, 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 Deleted as A7 by Quarl. Non-admin closure. "Pepper" @ 13:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Lawrence[edit]

Jackson Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability for 9 months and devoid of secondary sources to support notability per GNG or musician. I've looked for reliable sources related to the musician and his new album but have found nothing. Two other articles created by the same editor have also been deleted for lack of notability. Slp1 (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 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. Subject is an author, photographer and actress but the consensus is that she has not achieved notability, in WIkipedia's sense, in any of these fields. JohnCD (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jude Calvert-Toulmin[edit]

Jude Calvert-Toulmin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO, Non Notable subject[16] with some self published material. Clearly Using Wikipedia for Self promotion Hu12 (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is meant to be impartial. The comments by "hoary" are personal and sarcastic attacks indicating a lack of impartiality which totally contravenes Wiki's rules and ethics. If you read "hoary"'s user page, he has voluminous negative feedback from the Wiki community, being referred to as "the personification of everything that is wrong with wiki and the internet in general, one person who has a bee in his bonnet about something and won't listen to consenus and people with more experience and knowledge"

Sockpuppetry, posting under multiple accounts is illegal in Wikipedia and yet out of the blue, two users both with a specialist interest in Japanese history are citing this article for deletion. I am going to report this user to admin under suspicion of sockpuppetry under the usernames "hoary" and "Yunshui"

Jude Calvert-Toulmin has been referred to as an author in the Sheffield Star and in NowThen magazine, links cited by other users. She is listed as an actress on the IMDB, links cited by other users. She is included as a photographer in a list of contributors to a major photographic exhibition at the Mall Galleries: http://www.portelli-popicon.co.uk/index.php?inc=media - George583— George583 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

On the first two of your three paragraphs, please see your talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reply 1. Amazon rankings are notoriously ephemeral and manipulable; they mean nothing as far as notability is concerned. 2. Some books which are bestsellers in real life (NY Times list, etc.) are nonetheless by non-notable authors. 3. "local rag" was not my term. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:33, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Applied Modification[edit]

Creative Applied Modification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable theory of behavior change that is essentially original research. No clear record of mainstream scientific peer review. Completely unreferenced article created by a SPA. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:43, 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, Wifione Message 16:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My fault: I forgot to sign the "delete" !vote, above, which led to my views being mistakenly attributed to Tom Morris. Ammodramus (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, and I've amended my comment. Not a huge deal, in the scheme of things. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:52, 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Bienstock[edit]

Lee Bienstock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No major notability since at the end of the show that he had not won, but no current third-party sources. Therefore, it fails the present notability requirements. ApprenticeFan work 11:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 22 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 talkabout my edits? 17:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:03, 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 for lack of independent notability. Deryck C. 16:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volt Workforce Solutions[edit]

Volt Workforce Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTABILITY - gnews hits are all press releases, job listings, or minor mentions; ghits quickly come down to database entries and other minor matters. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Volt Workforce Solutions is indeed a subsidiary of Volt Information Sciences, but it is the customer-facing (and largest) division, and because of its corporate scope (employment agency), we feel Wikipedia readers may want to find information on the company. A cursory glance of Wikipedia content shows that many company's subsidiaries are included on the site (Sikorsky, a subsidiary of United Technologies, has a page; Avanade, a subsidiary of Accenture, has a page.) WReagan (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A simple inclusion on a list is a minor mention; it is not the sort of in-depth coverage that WP:NCORP calls for. The fact that the list is numbered does not make it significant. Subsidiaries certainly aren't barred from having their own pages, so long as the subsidiary itself is sufficiently notable. For example, there are chapters in aviation history books just about Sikorski. If a subsidiary is not notable on its own, however, it ought not get its own article; subsidiaries of notable companies can get coverage in the main company's article, which is what I earlier recommended for VWS, although others have now raised the question of VIS's own notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:02, 24 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 talkabout my edits? 17:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:02, 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. The article would be strengethened if independent reviews of his books can be found and cited. JohnCD (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David C. Fisher[edit]

David C. Fisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author and pastor with no evidence of notability. Can find nothing of note from news sources of Google Scholar. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he led two of the most influential evangelical churches in the U.S. and has published.Swampyank (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on this comment, there are fourteen other pastors in this list for which Wikipedia has articles, and only one interim pastor for which there is no article, and this information was available when this article was nominated for deletion 22 minutes after the article was created.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:01, 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 merge to Mortal Engines Quartet. – sgeureka t•c 10:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Haniver (airship)[edit]

Jenny Haniver (airship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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 coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the author of the fictional work described. Not appropriate for a merger, as it consists only of excessive plot summary (WP:WAF).  Sandstein  19:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:57, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Dobbyn Collection[edit]

Dave Dobbyn Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All I could find on this album in gnews and gbooks was one passing mention, and Allmusic doesn't seem to know it. Zero refs. Tagged for notability and refs for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Happy to withdraw if you can point me to the RSs. I just now double-checked gnews/gbooks/gscholar, and saw only one passing reference.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I included said RSs in the article. I'm not some fly-by-night !voter - I try to fix the article up first, and argue it should be kept second :). Ironholds (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused. Dobbyn had 2 collections that I've seen reference to. One -- the subject of this article -- was entitled He also had a second collection, as I understood it, entitled "Overnight Success". The Allmusic EL in the article bears (in the article) the name of one, but points to the other. And, I can't see the offline sources that you've mentioned. I'm happy to withdraw if we can clear this up, and perhaps it is all in the offline sources, but am a bit confused.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources I have give it as Overnight Success: The Definitive Dave Dobbyn Collection 1979 – 1999 as the full title. I'm thinking that the confusion comes from the fact that we have one album with two potential shortened titles. Ironholds (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to withdraw, based on what you can see in the offline sources (which I can't see). It might make sense to bring some harmony to the references to the article -- since they are a bit all over the place ... if the title of the album is as given, the title of the article should be changed IMHO (to either "Overnight Success (album)" or, less likely, to "Overnight Success (The Definitive Dave Dobbyn Collection 1979 – 1999)". Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed; happy to move it :). I'll wait until after this is closed, though, just to avoid mucking with links and the like. Ironholds (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:54, 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. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

180 (drink)[edit]

180 (drink) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. Like most beverages there is an entry on the trade website bevnet. Otherwise there is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Possibly notable, but the article is kind of hopeless. Other than the ingredients and nutrition facts, there's nothing. Agent 78787 (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article fail to explain why the drink is notable. The brewery-energy drink claim is false, per talk page. Thuresson (talk) 19:01, 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. Unfortunately, without a single obvious redirect target, redirect isn't a good option. Deryck C. 16:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Herb Robinson[edit]

Herb Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant (non-trivial) coverage of this person in multiple reliable sources that are not local reports of his running (e.g. the Wicked Local Newton link). The second reference provided in the article (Craig Crawford) is a broken link. Subject doesn't meet criteria of WP:POLITICIAN as he his only a candidate and has not held prior elected office. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 00:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia notability guidelines are not based on "fairness" or any concept of equal time, but on whether subjects have received sufficient mention in "significant detail" in multiple, reliable, published sources, as per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Bielat was extensively covered in the national press and met that bar of notability. Robinson was not and has not. Ravenswing 16:25, 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.
More