< 15 January	17 January >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 19:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CorEnt Group[edit]

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

Zero refs. Zero gnews hits. Zero non-wiki gbooks hits. Tagged for zero refs for over a year. Created by a 1-article-only-ever SPA, whose name suggests a possible conflict of interest. Epeefleche (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO, appears to not satisfy WP:CORP. After a brief online search I found [1] but the company isn't the subject of that article. Refs in Korean may exist but no one has been inclined so far to seek them and include in the article. -- Trevj (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Note that part of the article matches material from their web site [2]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 23 January 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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global elite[edit]

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

I can't even begin to think of a single guideline that this violates. So far, I see flavors of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:POINT, and political diatribe, with it being very heavy on the soapboxing. This is NOT the place for this kind of material. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we should salvage any useful sentences from this article and merge it with the Power elite article. After that, this article should become a redirect to the "power elite" article. GVnayR (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Power elite article redirect will need reverting before any merge can take place. However, the sources notice turns up a number of references to the term "Global elite" so it may be a notable term in its own right. This is NOT the place for this kind of material sounds like WP:IDL, which is not a valid reason for deletion. -- Trevj (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With that in mind, I think that I will change my vote to keep. GVnayR (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -while the article may have some problems, this can be solved through cleanup, not deletion. (AfD is not cleanup.) Additionally, per Trevj's reasons it seems to be a used term. A412 (Talk * C) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with a major rewrite. I have started on it - deleted some of the unsupported soapboxing and added some more reliable sources - but much more needs to be done. The term is used quite a bit at Google News, but I could not find much agreement about what the term means, or if it means anything (as opposed to just partisan/conspiratorial terminology). I don't agree with a merge to 'Power elite' as the terms do not seem to be interchangeable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 24 January 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. Arguments on both sides of the debate ranged from weak to strong. In the end however, those in favor of keeping demonstrated that there is significant coverage of these events in reliable sources, and this was not adequately refuted. This close implies no prejudice towards a possible merge of some sort. Jujutacular (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ProElite 1 (event)[edit]

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

The event fails WP:GNG and WP:ROUTINE. TreyGeek (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These events all lack signficant coverage and fail WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Mdtemp (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT as these are major events associated with a major promotion with major fighters. Events that occur every few months are not "routine". Moreover, because they could reasonable be merged and redirected to the ProElite article, there is no reason why we would have to delete them. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of your arguments support deletion, but I won't go into that. Can you provide sources to show that the events pass WP:GNG? --TreyGeek (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol what? By that logic then your nomination must actually support keeping, right? And of course I can. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all three articles in some manner or other, because they do indeed seem to pass the WP:GNG in the sense that 1) they are covered in news articles that list more than just results, which means these articles on Wikipedia can be expanded; 2) they involve champion caliber fighters from UFC; 3) the events were either televised or streamed on a major cable network or MMA website; 4) these events occurred months apart and so are not routine; 5) the first event of any promotion is a sign of notability; 5) other events include tournament bouts; etc. I could understand an argument to have a list of events like we do for Bellator, but I do not see any real reason to redlink these. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as they are All pages meet GNG as they all received a high number of articles covering each event and despite the few months apart, you can see the gaps between each event are shortening to the point where they might hold an event once every two months at the latest. Their first event was in August 2011, their second was in November 2011 and their third is happening two days from now (January 2012). If you can see the gap closing between the events (it was three months between ProElite 1 and 2, whilst it is just two months between ProElite 2 and 3), you'd notice this is one promotion to leave alone unless they really don't make events more regular, and even then each event has had enough articles on them to have them remain on Wikipedia. BigzMMA (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These fail to meet WP:GNG since all of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE. The first events of a new MMA organization are not automatically notable. These events decided no championships and received only routine sports coverage, so they also fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Papaursa, The main event of ProElite 3 is a championship fight to crown the Middleweight Champion, and both semi final bouts of the ProElite heavyweight tournament are on the same card, with the final bout being shown on a later show to crown a champion. BigzMMA (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creating its own champion, when consensus says it isn't even a second tier MMA organization (see WT:MMA#ProElite), does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete because if you're not going to allow articles for individual Bellator events, when they actually have a strong national TV presence, you certainly can't justify them for an even smaller promotion like this. 68.225.171.64 (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all, because they succesfully meet WP:GNG since all the coverage is not WP:ROUTINE. The first event of a mainstream promotion is automatically notable. The tournament matches help to determine a tournament champion and received non-routine sports coverage, so they also pass WP:SPORTSEVENT. Also, we should restore the Bellator events due to their strong national TV presence that justifies both their articles' existence as well as these ones here. No reason for deletion or redirects of Bellator or ProElite articles is likely to ever exist. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The organization is notable, but each individual event is not. These cards feature only a handful of notable fighters, which makes them not very different from the dozens of mixed martial arts events that occur every month. The issue isn't how often this promotion promotes events, it is how often events like them occur (which is quite frequently, given the increasingly mainstream nature of the sport). Having UFC cast-offs does not inherently make these events notable. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, all these events meet GNG, as they have all been a 'subject of multiple independent articles', which according to MMANOT, it does meet. They also meet all 5 point in GNG, which is a stronger notability system than MMANOT, so all in all, ProElite events meet GNG, and which they have the right to remain on Wikipedia. BigzMMA (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the articles are just routine coverage it doesn't satisfy any criteria. Papaursa (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all because if you don't, it prevent other people to see the relevance to add more important information on pages related to the fastest growing sport in the world in Mixed Martial Arts. Plus, these pages meet all the needed requirements to remain as a basic page on Wikipedia. FistsOfFury123 (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep pages meets GNG, plenty of articles out for all events and events are happening more frequently. MMADon101 10:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMADon101 (talk • contribs)

Strong keep all ProElite is becoming big and recently partnered up with DREAM to co-promote and exchange fighters. Glock17gen4 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a lot of coverage--that's typical of any sporting event. What no one has yet shown is how the coverage is anything but WP:ROUTINE--"routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article"-- or how these are significant sporting events instead of just another fight card of a new MMA organization. Papaursa (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a lot of atypical coverage of these notable sporting events. No one has yet to show how the coverage is routine or how these events are insignificant:
Pro Elite 1: first event of the promotion, aired live on major MMA website Sherdog.com, given a lot of coverage beyond just results and announcements if waaay more than "tabloids", which is a bit insulting to level at the serious journalists who covered this event, of fights for being the first event of a revived effort by promoters after the Elite FC debacle. Plus, participants included former UFC heavyweight champion Andrei Arlovski and Olympic medalist Sara McMann.

Pro Elite 2: first televised event of the promotion, which as a consequence caused it to receive more than just rudimentary coverage due to its TV deal with HD Net, in addition to the event featured bouts as part of a Heavyweight Grand Prix (the promotion's first ever tournament) and participation on the fight card of former UFC heavyweight champions Andre Arlovski and Tim Sylvia.

Pro Elite 3: aired on notable cable station HD Net, included participation from Olympic medalist Sara McMann, included participation from UFC veteran Kendall Grove, which also resulted in coverage beyond just one line results of the event, and occurred amidst additional coverage of the promotion's new alliance with Japan's Dream, which is indeed a significant event in MMA history. Also, USA Today] is hardly a tabloid and certainly not some niche newspaper site that only covers MMA. By the way, this event was previewed across many paragraphs with images in USA today's printed version as well, meaning it received national media coverage at length in the mainstream press, not just local coverage and not just coverage from MMA sites. That is hardly "routine" for mixed martial arts events. Whereas we may have multiple televised basketball et al games a week, we have maybe one or two televised MMA events in any given week, if even...
If anything, these article's just need some additional expansion. At worst we would have these merged and redirected to a list of events with the tournament brackets, but it is absurd to suggest that televised events which received considerable mainstream coverage due to the many firsts involved with these particular events as well as their historic significance due to the participation of mixed-martial arts champions and an Olympic medalists. There is simply no "need" or benefit to our project by suppressing this factual information from public view. Just not liking something or being ignorant about the topic is no reason to try to ruin things for others or to stifle human knowledge. And as far as this whole "routine" non-argument goes, well, as shown, these are simply not "routine," but even if you really think they are, well, so what? We are talking about three events! These are not somehow taking up all kinds of space that are making Wikipedia unnavigable or something. ROFL! Even if we did cover individual events in other sports, why on earth would we not want to be the most comprehensive source of verifiable information relevant to our readership that we can be anyway?! --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All three articles appear to be routine coverage containing simple fight results. They contain very little (practically no) "well sourced prose" such that the articles are not "merely just a list of stats" (WP:SPORTSEVENT). I just checked the articles; the first and second event articles contain only a single reference offering coverage of the event itself beyond fight results. The third article offers three references (which is getting better IMO). An earlier call in this discussion for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" have produced no results that I can tell, thus the events still appear to fail WP:GNG. A televised event is not inherently notable. A first time event for an organization (MMA or otherwise) is not inherently notable. A sporting event that includes a few notable participants is not inherently notable.

On a personal level, I have to say I am extremely disappointed by the number of !votes by people who do nothing but !vote to keep articles up for AfD. Looking at their contributions list, they do nothing to improve any articles on Wikipedia, MMA Wikiproject articles or otherwise. It is a slap in the face to me and others who put in time and effort to cleanup and improve articles. I'd have more respect for some of those keep votes and those editors if they contributed something more. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is flat out not true to say the non-routine coverage only contains fight results. Previews of the cards for example as what appeared in the print version of USA Today is by its nature as a preview not "results". Something covered across multiple paragraphs that discuss the ramifications of the fights and the history of the fighters involved is not mere "stats" either. The condition of the articles is a reason to improve them, not to delete them. Looking over the first draft of many articles, including ones on famous historical subjects do not always look good, but we improve them instead of delete them. As the commenter above me notes, quote, "the first and second event articles...contain...reference offering coverage of the event itself beyond fight results" and that is just in the articles, let alone the numerous sources that we can and should also add to the articles as well and also acknowledges that the third article's references added since the discussion started do indeed show signs of improvement. The call for additional sources has been answered and is in the process of being addressed to improve the articles as well, which undeniably and objectively pass the WP:GNG, because these are not just televised events, but notable televised events and yes a first event of a mainstream televised promotion featuring UFC champion level fighters and that is written about in not just blogs, but newspaper articles by non-MMA specific publishers is inherently notable by any reasonable interpretation of the concept. And if we are talking personal levels, I am far more disappointed by the number of delete votes we see in this and other discussions by accounts and IPs that never improve or add anything to these or other articles for that matter. TreyGeek, you may help add articles, but seriously, how many deletes from this and other discussions do we see that ever do anything more than just lazily dismiss everything as non-notable without actually doing search sourcing. And for the record, after I make this post, I will indeed add at least one source to an article under discussion here to show by example and not just words. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is phase one of my effort to expand these articles using mainstream sources. And for the record, I am not a mere AfD commenter. I made thousands of IP edits before creating an account and I created an account largely to create articles and have more credibility when I comment in discussions, because IPs seem to be dismissed. I may not be the best writer, but I am willing to contribute content as well, and have started Supremacy MMA and UFC: Tapout 2, for example, which are major MMA related articles that contain sections on background, reception, etc. I hate to call anyone out, but if you say look at these contributions, the consistent of templating and nominating things rather than improving them. Please do not lump all keeps together as non-article contributors when some of the more vocal deletes' mainspace edits consist primarily of just trying to get rid of stuff. The truth is some of the keeps do little more than say keep, yes, but the same goes for some of the deletes as well. My contention is that these articles are worth expanding or at worst as was the case with Bellator, having list of event kind of merge locals, and as I have demonstrated I am indeed willing to help improve these articles and not just argue about them. And to be honest, looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellator 55, I really do not see a consensus to merge anyway. The nominator has bizarre editing intentions to start things off, and the discussion is more of a no consensus, but in any event, the articles were still not outright deleted. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can see it, the consensus right now stands as 7-4 in favour of keep all the pages as they are, now we can debate whether they should or shouldn't be allowed on here or even merged with the main page, but the fact is that more people have voted to keep the ProElite event pages than those who'd rather see it go, so because of this unless anyone else votes within the next few days, I'd say we should close this debate because its going nowhere with all this 'comments'. BigzMMA (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This is not a vote and no valid reasons have yet been given for keeping, but WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT are valid for deleting. Being on television is not sufficient to show notability since virtually every MLB and NFL would meet that standard. Ghits are not valid when they're just routine sports reporting. The argument that everything should be in WP is also invalid. Astudent0 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as no valid reasons have yet been given for deleting, as the articles clearly pass WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT because they go beyond just being on television like some weekly MLB or NFL game due to the fact these non routine events occurred months apart and are one of only a handful of internationally televised MMA promotions. There are thousands of annual baseball and football games that are televised around the world, but that is simply not the case yet with MMA. These are exceptional events and anyone who actually reads ghits will see as has been shown above that these events received more than just routine sports coverage due to the participation of Olympic medalist and UFC champion caliber fighters as well as because of their relevance to the history of the sport, notably the heavyweight tournament that has occurred across two of the events and the significance of the women's fights that are discussed at length in sources and not just reported upon briefly. No one is arguing that "everything" should be on Wikipedia. I doubt anyone here thinks made up nonsense should be on Wikipedia, but the first event of a major promotion, the first televised event of a major promotion, and event featuring a tournament to determine a promotion's champion from a promotion that is partnering with a major cable network and a major Japanese promotion is notable by any rationale stretch of the concept of notability. And no, this is not a "vote," but the facts remain that the majority of the community who has commented here interpret policy as such that support these articles' inclusion on this site; the fact remains that no one has provided any reason why at worst these articles would not be merged and redirected to the page on the promotion itself (there are no BLP violations in the articles' histories...) and nor has anyone factually demonstrated, because no one can honestly do so, that multiple paragraph length coverage in non-mixed martial arts specific PRINT, not just online, newspapers both before and after the events that discuss these events rather than just list the results is not significant coverage in multiple sources. Comparing the first event in a promotion's history with any bi-weekly or what have you baseball game is apples and oranges. Comparing an event that features a tournament round is not comparable with a regular season game. Comparing an event that occurs months apart from the previous one and when that event is from one of the handful of currently televised promotions (UFC, Bellator, and Strikeforce being among some of the only others currently) is also not a really valid or fair comparison. No one here has argued that events from local promotions receiving one or two sources that just list results should be covered. No one here has said all MMA events are "notable", but what the majority of editors are saying is that something discussed at length both before and after beyond routine results from major websites (Sherdog, MMAFighting) and major newspapers (USA Today) and that is televised on a well-known cable network (HDNet) that features an undefeatd Olympic medalist and two former UFC champions as well as tournament bouts is worthy of at best continued improvement and at worst merging and redirecting. There is simply no purpose, no actual benefit to anyone by taking the needlessly drastic and unjustifiable step of outright redlinking these pages. By contrast. Surely "ProElite 1" is at worst a valid search term and given their partnership with Dream and the continuation of the heavyweight tournament, their notability is if anything only increasing as well as reader interest in these in addition to journalistic coverage of them as articles on future events will likely refer back to the three that got it all started. --WR Reader (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at worst, keep #1 and #2 and redirect/merge #3 back to ProElite... but reducing a reader's understanding of a topic is never a good first choice when issues are addressable. The applicable guideline indicates that an ongoing series may have notability, and "ProElite 1" PerElite 2" and ProElite 3" appear to have the coverage to meet WP:GNG and thus allows us improvable topics. With respects to the nominator, improving a reader's understanding of any topic is always the greater consideration. Better to improve the improvable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:11, 24 January 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. Tone 19:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spandex fetishism[edit]

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

A non notable fetish. All ghits on the first page are of the nonreliable variety. Guerillero | My Talk 22:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are a vast number of forms of fetishism. Indeed, Fetishism is encyclopedic topic. This subject isn't notable, however, in that it is not the subject of multiple, independent, substantial published sources and worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Carrite (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) — I'm seeing a sufficient amount of secondary source coverage in order to warrant retention and further improvement of quality to the article page. Particularly in searches of books, news sources, and even among scholarly academic sources and references. — Cirt (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the references provided by Cirt, the topic is notable and the article can be referenced and improved. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per references, this is a notable fetish. a_man_alone (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a Google book search containing the two words turns up plenty of hits and the subject matter is encyclopaedic as contributing to comprehensive coverage of fetishes. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:02, 23 January 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. Tone 19:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rao Shobhit[edit]

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

I cannot find substantial RS coverage of this person, even searching in gnews and gbooks under the short version of his name. Tagged for notability for over 2 years. Zero refs. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, unnotable and unlikely to be useful. X.One ^SOS 04:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Muhandes (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 20 January 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. Tone 19:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Developments under the Delhi Sultanate[edit]

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

Zero refs. Appears to be OR. Perhaps a school paper. If there were anything RS-supported in it, it might be worthy of merger. But there isn't. Epeefleche (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Appears to be full of OR. The Islamic cultural developments in India were not restricted to the Sultanate alone. Not much significance with regard to the Sultanate either. X.One ^SOS 04:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As said above, this is just an OR essay. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no citations. (Not much of a school paper at that.) 67.239.100.244 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:05, 23 January 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. Tone 19:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aga Syed Haider Rizvi[edit]

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

Zero refs. Zero gnews hits. Zero non-wiki gbooks hits. Zero gscholar hits. Appears non-notable. Tagged for zero refs for over 2 years. Created by a 1-edit-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:V and WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The rough consensus is that while the topic is notable, the current content is not worth keeping, and this AfD should not prevent any editor from creating a better article on the subject in the future. Der yck C. 21:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Race in hip hop[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, factual errors. We have sources saying Mr. X was born in city Y, which is a bit misleading, these sources are not about this subject. It should've been deleted at the first nomination. Von Restorff (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The story about hiphop spreading all over the world is covered in the global innovations-section of the article hip hop. Von Restorff (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a good example of WP:SYNTH, read the first two sentences of the section called Overview. The 3rd sentence of that section is even worse; it says "some believe this discrepancy is a good thing" but the Kanye West quote is totally unrelated. Von Restorff (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the text in this article has nothing to do with "race in hip hop"; and for example the first sentence of the "Discussion"-section is just plain weird. If the article does not get deleted I will have to delete all the nonsense and there won't be enough left for an article. Von Restorff (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 22. Snotbot t • c » 19:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Possible~~ Keep Hip hop seems to be saying that only black people are involved in true hip hop, other races do not seem to be mentioned (in my quick scan of the long article). On the other hand I know the question of race in popular culture generally is a notable topic, and certainly deserves an article here. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's true that hip hop is only a black thing then this article is not needed since that information is given in the opening sentence of Hip hop.Steve Dufour (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misinterpret the word "originated". The opening sentence of that article is "Hip hop is a form of musical expression and artistic subculture that originated solely in African-American communities during the 1970s in New York City, specifically the Bronx". This does not mean that hip hop is only a "black thing", whatever that may be, but the ~~people who started it were African-American~~ communities in which it started were mainly African-American. Von Restorff (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC) I striked through part of my comment and corrected it[reply]

MC Serch is Jewish-American, Edan is categorized as a Jewish rapper and the Beastie Boys are categorized as a Jewish hip hop group. Would you consider them to be "black"? I think you missed the section called Global innovations:

Though created in the United States, hip hop culture and music is now global in scope. Asia, The Middle East, Africa, Australia, and the Caribbean have long-established hip hop followings. According to the U.S. Department of State, hip hop is "now the center of a mega music and fashion industry around the world," that crosses social barriers and cuts across racial lines.[39] National Geographic recognizes hip hop as "the world's favorite youth culture" in which "just about every country on the planet seems to have developed its own local rap scene."[40] Through its international travels, hip hop is now considered a “global musical epidemic,”[41] and has diverged from its ethnic roots by way of globalization and localization.

Although some non-American rappers may still relate with young urban Americans, hip hop now transcends its original culture, and is appealing because it is “custom-made to combat the anomie that preys on adolescents wherever nobody knows their name.”[42] Hip hop is attractive in its ability to give a voice to disenfranchised youth in any country, and as music with a message, it is a form available to all societies worldwide.

From its early spread to Europe to an almost worldwide acceptance through Asia and South American countries such as Brazil, the musical influence has been global. Hip hop sounds and styles differ from region to region, but there is also a lot of crossbreeding.

Von Restorff (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Then Keep. The topic is clearly notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. As you may have noticed I did not say the topic is not notable (and I haven't said it is notable either). In this case starting from scratch would be the best option if the topic is notable since the current article is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and it contains factual errors, for example look at the part I just deleted. Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. So far the only reason you have given for your keep-vote is that the topic is notable, which is not disputed and not a reason to keep the current article. If it is deleted you can list this topic on Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Hip hop; maybe someone is willing to write a good article based on reliable sources about this topic. Von Restorff (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC) p.s. This is off-topic but I noticed your userpage contains text that is probably copyrighted. Is it copyrighted? Did you get permission to use it and release it under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL?[reply]

I would think a direct quote attributed to the person who said it is fair use. And my understanding is that AfDs are generally about the notability of the topic, not the quality of the article. This is clearly a topic that has received a lot of attention. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Don't let the numerous references fool you: they support certain brief factual statements (like birth places and quotes) but not the conclusions this opinion piece hinges on. Maybe some useful tidbits can be merged to hip hop. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 07:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:42, 8 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) 21:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tee hee hee. I am used to moderators taking decisions, but not here apparently. Von Restorff (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have moderators. Just a few people who have been given a few extra buttons so they can clean up stuff that needs cleaning up. We certainly don't have any rights make any decisions, that's up to the community. We do have the ability to enact the outcome of the communities choice. In this case, there is no choice to be enacted yet, but there might still be. If no more new opinions will be put forward, this will probably be closed a no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not every wiki works like that. Von Restorff (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who noticed the fact this article contains WP:SYNTH too

Egads, this article is a mess - It's horribly written, rambling and unsourced. I'm going to delete most of it, and we'll start from scratch. - The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (using the editsummary: "I am ashamed for this article")

Do we seriously need this article? Call it "list", or something. Or at least merge it into rap... or something similar. - Tinlv7

This article sucks. - Skillz187

I'm putting this up for deletion - I don't really think anything is deserving of an article, and it's pretty much all opinion-based - Viewfromthebridge

What's the point of this article? - B-Machine

Do their opinions count? Von Restorff (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started removing some BS and OR and SYNTH and offtopic stuff and there is not much left. Von Restorff (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. If there was an article here, it's gone now. Absolutely an encyclopedic topic for a real live sociologist to take on. But it's best to sweep up the rubble and clear the building site at this point. Carrite (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are 100% correct. Unfortunately I am not a sociologist. Von Restorff (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Carrite said it well. All that remains at this point in time is a loosely connected pastiche of quotations and figures - not an article. Kansan (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself makes this comment "There are no demographic studies with consistent results to support these claims' there fore, making the article not notable WP:N nor are suitable references apparent to assert any claims. As such the article is point of view WP:NPOV. Appreciably more citation would be needed to lend credibility to the article if it were to be included due to the possible racial divisiveness of the subject matter. The Wiki does not avoid difficult subject matter in its articles but it does state that maintenance of a natural point of view well be consistence applied throughout the Wiki. within its policies--User:Warrior777 (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and then merge into Hip Hop, as a section on "Race" or "Race issues". Hip hop is (was?) primarily a black American phenomenon, but it also treats issues like race relations. The specific issue of who buys most of the "rap" or hip hop records needs to be addressed; there are many sources who say white suburban teenagers buy the bulk of it, even if the artists are overwhelmingly black (with Eminem) as the odd man out. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to competent recreation. Much of the text has been removed without opposition on January 17, and what remains (a collection of citations) does not make much sense as an article. Sandstein 16:56, 25 January 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. Tone 19:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Walitza[edit]

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

Zero refs. Zero gnews hits. Zero gbooks hits. Non-notable DJ. Created by a one-edit-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not satisfy notability threshold. Quis separabit? 20:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No detectable coverage under any alias. 86.44.31.8 (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:ARTIST. -- Trevj (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus appears to be that, for better or worse, the current guidelines suggest that this article should be deleted. Der yck C. 21:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mud and Blood 2[edit]

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

Non notable. Seems to fail WP:WEB. Also, most of the sources are primary or blogs/forums. Mynameislatesha (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable enough- hosted on over 100 sites (I'll see if I can get more exact figures) and over 6.5 million plays on Kongregate alone (which is more than GemCraft has, and that article is not up for deletion). The sources are of a similar nature to those for the aforementioned GemCraft and also Crush the Castle, due to it being quite hard to find reviews for mere flash-based, free games. -Branabus 16:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Branabus (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Mynameislatesha (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This source that was listed in the article I would class as borderline reliable, as it was apparently written by a freelance writer (though no mention of whether they write game reviews professionally). However, I could find no other reviews in reliable sources, so this falls short of the multiple sources required by WP:WEB. If anyone manages to dig up more reliable sources, though, I could be persuaded to change my vote. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shall just insert my rowing implement and say that it appears to meet Criteria 3 of WP:WEB (Mochi and Kongregate, I think, do have at least some form of editorial oversight, I think), and that the reviews of the game simply confirm its notability. Additionally, I would note that the fact that it's got more plays than Crush the Castle on Kongregate adds to this. Finally, although this isn't externally sourced, an in-game tip says that 'Mud and blood 2 is hosted on 920 web sites and generated 5.4 million views in 7 months', and considering that it's been out for around 3.5 years now, it should have a lot more. -Branabus 21:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a good number of reviews out for the game, demonstrable if someone does a YouTube search similar to this. However, a few of these reviews are using older game versions released only a small amount of time after the actual release. Also, it ranks near the top in total traffic of the Kongregate gaming forums (link), at over 1000 topics and over 18000 posts. --Vborza (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC) — Vborza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hi Vborza. About the YouTube reviews that you linked to - are you aware of any that were written/filmed by established game journalists? We need to prove this to show that the sources pass our guideline on reliable sources. (Also see the policy on self-published sources.) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, I cannot verify the true identity of the accounts reviewing, although the reviews are not by me. The sources included here with the exception of clearly marked ones (which were accredited to the game creator), are from sites and people non-affiliated with the staff of mudandblood.net. In addition, this account was not made solely for purposes of this page as I originally intended it for other purposes but realized its viability here. I do however propose that we can change this when some more upcoming titles come out (such as notably Mud and Blood 3 and Mud and Blood: Recon) and then merge into a page called Mud and Blood (Game Series) or something along those lines. For that we must wait, but I believe we will get more game attention when there is a new release. Just my 2 cents. --Vborza (talk) 02:02, 13 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) 21:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vborza, thanks for the reply. I'm afraid it's not enough for reviewers just to be uninvolved with the game creators - they must also be published in a reliable source, or otherwise be a reputable game reviewer. Otherwise anyone could write a review of their favourite flash game on their blog, and then claim that because there is a review that it should go in Wikipedia. Again, see our policy on on self-published sources, and also read our notability guidelines. Also, it wouldn't affect the notability of Mud and Blood 2 if the other games you mention are released - notability is not inherited. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 21:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to admin -- There seems to be an obvious WP:COI of two users who commented here, User:Vborza and user:Branabus; in fact I have already stated this fact near their comments (Branabus is the article's creator and Vborza is a single purpose account). Please take note of this. Mynameislatesha (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're trying a bit too hard to push this deletion through, which leads me to suspect a conflict of interest, TBEH. Also, in the case of Vborza, it's at least a 2-purpose account, although, of course, it does meet the criteria for a single purpose. Finally, finished your link- hope you don't mind? -Branabus 10:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you re-read the WP:COI document where it is noted that "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. " ... It seems that you do not understand fully what a COI means. Please take a little of your time to read the guideline. Mynameislatesha (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done. The point stands. -Branabus 13:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no sources presented in the article, from what I can see, which come close to being reliable in WP terms, which are needed to verify information and demonstrate notability. I had a look for some via Google a few days ago and came back empty handed. GemCraft and Crush the Castle have been mentioned, while the presence of article X/Y/Z just confirms just shows that other stuff exists, they can both be demonstrated as being notable. Gemcraft has been reviewed on Pocket Gamer and GameZebo. Crush the Castle has been reviewed on IGN, Gamezebo and Pocket Gamer. The common denominator with those two games and the reviews is mobile gaming. Ever since the mobile gaming revolution kicked off a number of sites and magazines sprang up to cover them and existing game sites also started covering them. Browser games, flash games etc. have always had a very weak presence in the mainstream press, what little coverage there is can be covering several games in not-quite-enough detail for a WP article and very popular games are not given the coverage you'd expect they would. I have the same trouble, I'd love to create an article for The Last Stand (almost 8 million plays on armor games), but there's naff all sourcing available. Someone another 21:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I suspect we need, as a community, to have a discussion about the notability of flash games. They're not like traditional video games as people aren't selling them and there's not much incentive for mainstream reviewers to review them. No one is disputing figures quoted in the article, such as having over 20 million plays. Whatever the criteria we will use in determining notability for flash games, I am sure this article would meet it. --Ifnord (talk) 18:56, 23 January 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. Tone 19:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi Rüf[edit]

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

Very poorly written article about non-notable topic. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 21:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as appears to meet notability criteria, from my cursory look at Google news. Sure, it's poorly written but that's reason to improve it not delete it. I have added an ESPN reference to show notability and removed the blatant advertising. --Ifnord (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep google news shows 199 results. Looks better after Ifnord's contribution to the referencing. Cloudz 679 21:39, 22 January 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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fushigiboshi no Futagohime characters[edit]

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

Very poor quality article on topic of questionable notability. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 21:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Someone familiar with the series can determine which characters should be listed and which ones can be removed. Notable series always have a character page. The manga was notable enough to be made into an anime and a video game. Dream Focus 02:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per DreamFocus' accurate summary of WP:OUTCOMES. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 17 January 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. Tone 19:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tough Games Inc.[edit]

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

notability not yet asserted illogical pie (take a slice) 21:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. -- Alan Liefting (talk) -

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in third party, reliable sources. notability not established, and not likely to be anytime soon, with having released 0 games and only existing for 2 months. Seems like it's mostly for promo purposes too, given all their links... Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete This is promotion for a personal project, see this ("ever wanted a game created by kids themselves?") The website and associated paraphernalia seem to be an enthusiastic front being cobbled together for a project which may or may not ever see the light of day, let alone become notable by WP standards. Said tissue-thin web of interlinked sites, the facebook page etc. seems to be coming apart, several links are now dead. Enthusiasm is great, I hope the project does get off the ground, but this isn't MySpace. Someone another 16:28, 21 January 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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psi (instant messaging client)[edit]

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

I found no notability for this instant messaging client. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this reference is just enough to establish notability. I'll bring something more typical for the purpose of WP:N later, though I'm not sure whether this nomination is not a mere WP:POINT thing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't. I just came across non-notable software so I nominated it for deletion. The reference doesn't even establish notability and even if it did, that is only one reference. SL93 (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry if so. I just couldn't believe you can be serious on that as Psi is probably the most notable XMPP client ever. Unfortunately most articles about Psi might have been lost since the peak of its popularity dates back to 2001-2003. It's hard to find those who didn't use it back then. As for the current refs: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] should be just enough for now. Also note that the choice of client Google provide setup instructions for is a damn good indication of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can't believe that you find Meebo non-notable. It also seems like you're trying to make a point by only nominating IM clients for deletion. SL93 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I now doubt you ever read my comments. I explained why Meebo is less notable then any desktop IM client ever existed — nothing to write about (apart from color theme probably). Psi, on the other side, is evidently notable with pretty unique features back in 2003 (probably something of a kind remains, didn't deal with it for more then 5 years). These are of different leagues. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - BTW, what point are you talking about? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The consensus for Meebo is keep so I don't know what you're talking about. You're the only person wanting deletion of Meebo so why do you continue with comments about it? If I didn't read your comments, how was I able to respond? SL93 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually the way your responses match my comments only proves my suggestions. You nearly never addressed my concerns. May be I'm talking about Meebo because you started talking about it in this AfD? BTW, I don't see why it is illogical to talk about Meebo and being the only person wanting its article's deletion. And why don't you answer the question? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Why should I address your concerns? The article will be kept. I'm not sure what point, but it looks like you are trying to make some point with your AfD nominations being the same exact topic. SL93 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah! Then I'll help you: I came over Comparison of instant messaging clients and found it flooded with a lot of non-notable clients. Thus I initiated a series of AfDs and PRODs. So my point is pretty simple: non-notable software doesn't deserve dedicated articles. And I would like to make another point also that clear: please, when you want to start an off-topic discussion, do so on my talk page or related noticeboard, but don't flood the AfDs. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dmitrij's 2 – Softpedia News appears to be a reliable source – and Google's listing seems adequate for WP:GNG (if barely). 1 is not a reliable source, 4 appears not to be, 5 doesn't address the topic directly, and 6 doesn't mention it at all. It's an important piece of software so I expect there are other good sources. – Pnm (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw 4 considered a reliable source, though it might mean nothing indeed; 5 uses Psi for all examples (numerous screenshots in the book are all those of Psi), 6 is introducing some non-notable client as a fork of Psi, which pretty much shows the significance of Psi at the time. That is, I posted links 5 and 6 specifically to show that at the time Psi was close to the status of synonym of IM client. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems that I gave a wrong link for (6). It was supposed to be [9]. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the sourcing. I will say I am not quite comfortable with arguments that the software is notable based on our judgment of whether the features were innovative or important. We don't make such judgments. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think my link 3 made a judgment for us, actually. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on what others have said. Google listing it as it does [10] means it must be notable in its field, one of the top 8. Dream Focus 21:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one reference, does not mean it is notable. This list mentions "all other messengers, able to use Google Talk's protocol", but not claim which is notable or not. Mentioning Stalin and Trotzki as a great leaders does not mean both are notable. Single reference is not enough. This is dead project. There are no unique features. It does not contribute to instant messaging technology at all. There is no information of usability (in the past), it should be deleted. Surely this article should be send in Gulag for oblivion for ethernity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.130.230.229 (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of seven is the one which isn't enough? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:59, 23 January 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. Tone 19:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Alvarez[edit]

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

This character lasted for one year without significant coverages from third-party sources in many years. I could not find anything about this character, and she doesn't pass WP:GNG. Don't tell me to redirect this to either List of Santa Barbara cast and characters or Constance Marie; I've known WP:ATD. Nikki and Constance are two different people, and List of... is full of problems, such as violating one of principles of WP:NOT. George Ho (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete who? --MrRadioGuy P T C E 06:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --George Ho (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Marshall[edit]

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

This was nominated in WP:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin, but it was the worst nomination due to bundling. Nevertheless, this time, it is separate. I tried searching for this character in third-party sources; nothing significant in Google. Also, the character may be recurring or insignificant. George Ho (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added some sources after doing a quick look around. This character was on television for over a decade on a serial that is broadcast in multiple regions - part of the soap operas ratings boom too - so there is a chance of adding more information if someone goes one step further and finds the iformation. This character is notable because it passes GNG, a series regular too, so not "recurring or insignificant". So this shows that this is yet another one of George Ho's quick fire AFD's with little research put into the subject.Rain the 1 13:38, 21 January 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 discussion seems to lean towards the conclusion that the inclusion guideline is met. And yes, subjects of BLPs generally aren't supposed to edit their own articles, so sorry if that means more work for the OTRS team! Der yck C. 21:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Pierce[edit]

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

The subject of the article has contacted OTRS (ticket #2012011410006747) and claims that the article contains numerous inaccuracies and would like it deleted. I am requesting deletion on their behalf, and take no view on the article itself. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think an audio engineer and a television score composer elects to be in the public eye, and cannot justify keeping an article at this level of notability against the wishes of the subject. 86.44.40.0 (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can someone point me to our policy in this regard? We have many individuals, I expect, who would prefer that their wp article be deleted. In the interim, I've deleted uncited text from the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is some interesting background as to how such requests have been handled in the distant past ... here.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as far as I can tell he easily passes WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC for multiple award wins and noms. About the claimed "numerous inaccuracies" he can edit the article and provide better sources, AfD is not for cleanup. Cavarrone (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets WP:BAND #8. Agree with Cavarrone AfD is not for cleanup. If the article is being vandalised, steps at that project can deal with it. Argolin (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
what specific works has he personally won awards for? There are no independent RS for award wins. applicability of BAND 8 therefore rests only on nominations: weaker still. BAND says "may be notable". none of his nominations have generated significant coverage, so why contend here that "may be" = "is"? you should also reject Cavarrone's contemptible implication that open editing makes it acceptable and practical to blackmail subjects into maintaining their articles for life. 86.44.31.8 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 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. Tone 19:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passive Digestion[edit]

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

Delete. non-notable phrase. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism coined by article author, see WP:NEO. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Spam for a book by the creator of this article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:59, 19 January 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. Tone 19:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StylishandTrendy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; uncited circulation that as yet another women's "online" magazine, does not meet additional niche circulation requirements. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, insufficient sources for WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 20:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet any of our standards for notability; reeks of promotion. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:27, 19 January 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 redirect , if such a thing exists. The article has already been merged and redirected, and no one seems to disagree with this, so this AfD is somewhat pointless at this point. (non-admin closure) —SW— ^chat 16:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lae International Hotel[edit]

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

Non-notable three star hotel. illogical pie (take a slice) 18:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nom said, this appears to be a non-notable three-star hotel, despite the statement in the text of the article in wikipedia's voice that it is "an important conference centre". It exists, but its coverage appears to be generally trivial passing mention. It has wood floors, it has wooden furniture, it has four luxury suites, and it has two restaurants. Sounds run-of-the-mill, non-notable to me. I PRODed it, but the PROD was removed by the article creator.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close as moot has already been merged into Lae, which is probably what should have been done rather than AfD StarM 01:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or in lieu of PROD removal? Obviously, given the PROD, PROD removal (accompanied by an edit summary stating: "Take it to AFD if you think its non notable"), nomination here, and subsequent redirect by the editor who suggested that this AfD be started if editors thought the subject non-notable, this was not a non-contentious merge prospect, as editors had differing views as to whether it should be a stand-alone article.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:50, 17 January 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. Tone 19:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dating Women Who Are Bad Apples[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published book. Contested PROD. Acroterion (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomSadads (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as inadequately sourced and promo-pushing. Quis separabit? 20:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is not demonstrated to meet notability criteria for books. In response to the article creator's userspace question, the reason Paris Hilton has an article on Wikipedia is that she meets general notability guidelines - she has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Der yck C. 21:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Quicksilver Classic[edit]

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

Non-notable tournament on minor professional tour EJBH (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. Cloudz 679 07:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Tewapack (talk) 20:32, 24 January 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. Der yck C. 21:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Chess[edit]

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

There is no indication of why this software would be notable. SyG (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be a chess game created by someone at home, which was subsequently sold (one of the references is a CV...). Not notable in the slightest. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Individual pieces of software that aren't widely covered are simply non-notable.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found nothing to show notability. Non-notable software. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (creator) Both author and product are included on the Chess Programming wiki. Mentioned in article at The Globe and Mail (although admittedly not the actual topic of that piece) and in notes of a PC users' group meeting. Noted in this forum post - yes I know it's not WP:RS. The game received media coverage in related press at the time of its release. It's now almost 20 years old, which explains why there are few online references. This does not mean that further sources (in printed magazines) do not exist. The article was nominated for deletion within a week of its creation: other editors have not had a chance to add further sources yet. I've now tagged it with ((Refimprove)). -- Trevj (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. -- Trevj (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't establish notability, especially since the # of sources is low and they don't give more than passing mention.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, OK. If I had the printed mags available to me here, I would be able to confirm notability by adding the refs. I do not, but if the article is kept other editors will be able to do so. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - We can userfy it for you if necessary (move into your userspace), but it can't be in the article namespace right now.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      At risk of sounding POINTy, I thought that AfDs normally remain in main namespace until the end of the discussion period. Anyway, if consensus is for deletion, I don't think userfication will be necessary in this case - but thanks very much for the suggestion, which is appreciated. Depending on the outcome, I'll put in a request at WP:DELETE when further sources are available. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Different games were released under this generic name it seems. A game created before this one by that name was reviewed in the print magazine CREATIVE COMPUTING VOL. 10, NO. 9 / SEPTEMBER 1984 / PAGE 90, archived at [11] But the link in the article [12] shows the guy in question made his game in in 1992/93. Dream Focus 07:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. The original game under this name should probably be at Cyberchess, with appropriate hatnotes included to disambiguate. -- Trevj (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there'll be a review in Acorn Computing and Acorn User.[13]. -- Trevj (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable software, I'm not finding sufficient coverage in 3rd party sources to help this meet WP:GNG RadioFan (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources given by Trevj meet the criteria for substantial and reliable coverage. There are a great deal of chess playing programs available, and notability usually comes when the product sells well (e.g. Chessmaster), or performs well in computer tournaments (e.g. Fritz and Houdini). I see no evidence whatsoever that this program has raised any significant interest in the chess literature. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons the editors above gave. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (creator) A couple more references have now been included, which I believe help to demonstrate notability. -- Trevj (talk) 08:19, 11 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) 18:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further references have been added. -- Trevj (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This sounds a bit like WP:WHACAMOLE to me. The resources that have now been added to the article establish notability. I agree that magazine reviews and news about the software, such as Acorn User, would stand as even better resources, but can't be cited online due to copyright reasons. I'm prepared to believe such material exists and would accept an issue of such a magazine to be a suitable citation. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query Trevj, you mention it being covered in magazines, did you actually see coverage of this with your own eyes back in the day? In Acorn Computing or Acorn User? Someone another 16:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Unfortunately I can't recall whether whether or not I've actually seen coverage myself in those mags or not. I should still have copies of Acorn Computing at my parents', so hope to research this before the summer. -- Trevj (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. Someone another 18:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unremarkable game, lacking sufficient coverage in independent sources so fails our inclusion criteria for it's own article. Mt king ^(edits) 03:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The refs from Archive (magazine)([14]) and RISC World amount to significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. (I don't have that copy of Archive, but the software is listed with reviews of other products in that issue - so will be a standalone article.) -- Trevj (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there's no reason such articles should be excluded for being "unremarkable" per !votes from RadioFan and Mtking above. The article as it stands meets WP:GNG, although I accept that it's desirable to improve it by adding additional refs. Such refs cannot easily be added by inexperienced editors if the article is deleted, userfied or incubated. (Experienced editors could of course state their source(s) at WP:UNDELETE, but that's not an ideal situation for newcomers.) -- Trevj (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the author of the software being discussed and have no opinion on whether the article should be deleted or kept. However, I can confirm (a) the product was unremarkable from a chess strength point-of-view: there were stronger engines then and there are much stronger engines now. (b) sales were strong but not remarkable for an Acorn product. (c) the product was extensively written about in all the Acorn press at the time: The Fourth Dimension were one of the major games publishers for the Archimedes and this was a big release for them. Two articles in retail magazines I've found are 'Cyber Chess...the mating game' by Raj Sinha, Acorn Computing, October 1992, p63 "Cyber Chess is the best game of chess on the Archimedes" and 'Cyber Chess' by Jonathan Evans, Archimedes World, October 1992, p76 "Cyber Chess is being promoted as 'The definitive chess-playing program' for Acorn... a grand claim indeed but the program goes a long way towards fulfilling it". It was certainly reviewed in Acorn User too though I can't immediately locate the article (twenty years have gone by) (c) I believe the product was the only natively-written Archimedes chess software - all the other Archimedes chess programs I can think of were ports from other platforms (d) the software did include some innovation in various parts including the tuning of the evaluation function with a genetic algorithm. This work was written up in a peer reviewed journal: Tunstall-Pedoe, W. (1991). Genetic Algorithms Optimising Evaluation Functions. ICCA Journal, Vol 14, No. 3, pp. 119-128. I hope this information is useful in getting to a consensus. Tadpole (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for taking the time to share your knowledge here. These references have now been added to the article. -- Trevj (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The annoying thing with retrogame articles is the knowledge that relevant sourcing almost certainly exists for full-price titles and many types of budget games, but finding it is another matter. What's currently in the article is weak sourcing, the Risc World piece is very short and the index of the relevant Archive magazine shows that Cyber Chase was on page 3 with 10 other pieces of software, meaning it cannot be a large or full-size review. However since the author has kindly highlighted three additional magazine sources above then the sourcing must surely demonstrate notability, it's just that we don't have access to them. Someone another 18:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I recently had the same problem as above saving Matt Bielby from deletion, where a lot of reliable sources were 15 - 20 year old magazine articles. I was fortunate to find some of them had been scanned and archived, but if they hadn't, I'd have had a bigger fight as I wouldn't have been able to easily prove the article's content. Without wishing to have a pop at anybody, contributors in the US can sometimes feel a bit trigger happy on the delete votes when people elsewhere will remember potential reliable sources from years ago but not have them instantly to hand. --Ritchie333 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's US-centric disregard for the UK game industry, rather than a site-wide issue with WP not recognizing that many non-core topics are more supported by magazines than 'scholarly sources'. That said, those not familiar with the game industry may not realize that until 2006 the UK was the third largest producer of video games in the world behind the US and Japan, it's still 4th now behind Canada. Before teh internets happened the UK game industry was a self-contained eco system with countless developers, publishers, games and magazines. As the mobile, social and indie gaming scenes continue to grow a lot more UK produced games are going to suddenly start appearing as we return to bedroom programming and small teams which is where the UK's developers flourished.

What really creates the problem, though, is WP's herd of elephants in the room when it comes to marking down the location of sources and assessing them. Sources are our bricks, policies and guidelines are our mortar, but whereas we've got WP:UPTHEASSDEARGODIDONTREMEMBEREATINGTHAT in spades, we don't have site-wide recognized reputable sources lists or any real focus on tracking down where all the sources are. The video game project has a list of sources, but often when it's cited editors say "well that's just their opinion". How the hell are we supposed to retain editors who do the work if we can't even provide them with basic lists of sources. Bah. Someone another 16:57, 25 January 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. Tone 19:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sampsonite "Emcee"[edit]

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

Same person covered earlier at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sampsonite_(rapper); while there are statements of new releases, I see nothing recent conferring additional notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the WP notability bar seems fairly low for music artists, and he might be able to jump it, it doesn't seem like we need to have articles on people who are just starting out. BigJim707 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has reputability from my research, all links and references are as described in the page, I see no need for deletion. PodiumGold (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references are things that connote notability; it's all material generated by the artist or his label, or in one case an off-site copy of a Wikipedia page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable individual, all sources that I can find mentioning him have been user generated and do not establish notability. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. The article pretty much says that this musician has yet to meet with success: "...the sale rate never met the deadline and he was forced to pull the album off the shelves", and "...both of which caught the attention of DJ's at major radio stations, although it was not put in circulation due to management issues". -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 23 January 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. There is a consensus that she does not meet WP:PROF. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen O'Hara[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kristen O'Hara

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

No real assertion of notability per WP:BIO or WP:PROF; has a single fringe theory that foreskins make sex better which resulted in the publication of a single primary source journal article in 1999. Sources include a book published by the page's subject, a note that she gave a talk at a symposia, and two independent articles - one two-paragraph mention in Salon and a second lengthier article in a non-notable, otherwise unused online magazine. Ultimately, we don't have wikipedia pages for people who happen to have written a book. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due as insufficiently notable. I've previously raised concerns at the article's talk page. Jakew (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's coverage there in multiple secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it is funny to label Ms. O'Hara's penetrating insight as a "fringe theory". --Lambiam 13:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, I only see the coverage as incredibly trivial and tangential to her ideas. She has essentially presented a new scholarly theory, suggesting WP:PROF. I can't find any indication that any of the 9 criteria in PROF have been met. There are six citations on the page; one is to the book she has written. Three of the sources simply indicate she has been quoted. The fourth is another link to her article. Only the Disinformation book, from a single non-scholarly (somewhat fringey) publisher, has any significant coverage - and it's about her idea, not "her". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 8 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) 17:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is impressively written and wikipedia lacks articles in this area. Most genital integrists on WP are specialists in other fields. It seems to meet general notibility guidelines and has reliable sources. Pass a Method talk 19:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the theory or the theorist? I don't think O'Hara passes PROF, and if we're talking about the theory - it's a single minor primary study that should at best be used cautiously as a reference. There certainly isn't enough evidence to merit the "theory" passing WP:N and having a separate page. Rarely do we have articles on specific journal papers, and when we do it's because it garners significant attention - see for example the Rind et al. controversy. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Claims the article is "impressively written" are not effective arguments for keeping it. Edison (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not satisfy WP:PROF. Quis separabit? 20:38, 17 January 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. Sorry folks, but I can't see any other outcome to this discussion. Sources were found, but there is disagreement on their value. Several of the arguments made by both "keep" and "delete" commenters are invalid as far as a deletion discussion. Perhaps the discussion of merging this to the main article on cinnamon should continue at the appropriate talk page... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cinnamon Challenge[edit]

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

No doubt the eating of cinnamon for a bet or a sport exists, but there is no such thing as the "Cinnamon Challenge." Drmies (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was deleted before but that wasn't linked because of the capitalization issue. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinnamon challenge. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I edit conflicted with Drmies to put a prod notification on the user's page as he was notifying of this discussion. What I said in my prod rationale was "unreferenced, no real indication of notability". LadyofShalott 02:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, unencylopedic. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is this based upon a search for sources, or just an opinion that because as a popular culture phenomenon, it's too trivial, and thus, "non-notable"? See below for several reliable sources that have been added to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever this is, it certainly isn't sourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is currently sourced at this time. Also, topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, not whether or not sources are present in articles. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be deleted for a lack of references in articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Strong Keep - There is such thing as the "Cinnamon Challenge"; it is entirely existential, and is covered in reliable sources. Here's one (a newsblog article) I added to the article:

Kogod, Sarah (November 17, 2011). "Nick & JaVale's Cinnamon Challenge". NBC Washington, Channel 4 news. Retrieved January 7, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There may be people trying to outdo each other in all kinds of ways. Just now, on Saturday Night Live, "Charles Barkley" and "Shaq" were challenged: who can stand the longest on one leg. I like to challenge people in a game called "who knows more people called Mike Davis." So? For "speedy keep" you have to argue other things, like I'm a banned editor or the nomination was vandalism. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struck speedy placed hastily. Doh. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More sources added to the article, including coverage on ABC National news:

"Bored NBA Players Play 'Feud'". ABC News. November 21, 2011. Retrieved January 7, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

[Interjection by nominator:] I hope visitors to this AfD will click on this link to see what in some circles counts as reliable sources offering significant discussion. I've removed this from the article--to anyone who watches it it should be clear why. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can also be used for verification purposes. ABC News is typically considered a news source of integrity, despite the "popular culture" theme of the piece. Also, importantly, please note that I referred to this source simply as "more sources" within the context of my statement. The statement above appears to be about what I consider "counting" as a reliable source (since I added the link), and is out of context in this case, because I didn't refer to this particular source as such. Additionally, primary and tertiary sources can be used for verification purposes, and passing mentions in a national newscast (even pop-culture news) from news sources with a history of editorial integrity can be used to verify information in articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Dancing With the Stunts: The Cinnamon Challenge (Photos)". Mix Radio 104.1. Retrieved January 7, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

[Interjection by nominator:] This is a couple of photos of a guy spooning some cinnamon. It takes place at a local radiostation, and the caption is this, "For this week’s 'Dancing With the Stunts' in-studio challenge, producer Josh took on the notoriously difficult 'cinnamon challenge.'" This was in the reference section, whence I removed it since it makes a mockery of the very concept of "reference." Drmies (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher, Alex (October 27, 2011). "Big Brother: Housemates set Cinnamon Challenge to win '90s rave". Digital Spy. Retrieved January 7, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy keep"? You've demonstrated that it does exist, but the sources are poor quality trivial coverage, not the significant discussion in third-party sources we need to show notability. LadyofShalott 10:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the wording of the nomination, speedy keep criterion applies. The nominator stated that the term doesn't exist, when it actually does. This doesn't advance an argument for deletion, and because the topic and name actually exist, the opinion stated by the nominator has been nullified. Consider trying a search for reliable sources to add to the article, to improve the article, and hence, the Wikipedia project! Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, perhaps that would have applied if his had been the only opinion when you posted your information, or if other people were advocating deletion based on non-existence. However, other editors have in good faith advocated deletion based upon non-notability, and therefore a speedy keep is not possible, despite the flaw to the original argument. LadyofShalott 14:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial sources demonstrate existence but not notability RadioFan (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Out of curiosity and for clarification, are you basing this upon a search for sources, or just sources currently in the article? Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both. There is coverage, and even in what easily passes as reliable sources, but it's not the kind of significant coverage that WP:GNG requires. Even the Washington Post blog entry is a space filler.--RadioFan (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RadioFan. The Washington Post piece is the only one that even approaches what we would need, and it is not sufficient. (The SI piece has it as a brief entry in a list.) There just is not the kind of in depth discussion in reliable sources we need to meed the WP:GNG. LadyofShalott 18:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's another RS, recently added: Shipman, Dustin (April 29, 2008). "'Dr. Food Science' mixes bananas and Sprite, conducts other questionable food experiments". The Joplin Globe. Retrieved 2009-10-22. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More coverage in major reliable sources I added to the article from The Washington Post; an entire newsblog article about the Cinnamon Challenge. I also added coverage from a newsblog in Sports Illustrated. I can't help but wonder if some of the !votes to delete are based upon opinion that as a cultural phenomenon, the topic itself is too trivial and thus the article should be deleted, despite the fact that it's been covered in many reliable sources. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, which address the topic in detail, and in major news sources to boot. Furthermore, newsblogs that are under editorial control by their publishers are absolutely valid as reliable sources. More reliable sources added:

Huget, Jennifer LaRue (April 5, 2010). "Swallowing cinnamon by the spoonful". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 8, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Waxman, Matthew (August 25, 2005). "Milking the situation: To support Florida batboy, I try other food challenges". Sports Illustrated. Retrieved January 8, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article has been renamed to a more specific title: Cinnamon Challenge (competition). Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? There's no need for disambiguation. If it persists at all, it should be at Cinnamon challenge (note case), as this is an unofficial thing that some people do, not an actual event (which, I think, is what Drmies meant by "there is no such thing as the 'Cinnamon Challenge'" in his opening comment - he'll correct me if I've interpreted incorrectly, I'm sure). LadyofShalott 18:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed. We cant (easily) go back to the original name and the one you suggest is far better. This isn't anything that warrants such title capitalization. --RadioFan (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed--this isn't the Sugar Bowl or even the Skechers Shape-Ups How I Met Your Mother Trojan Minis Bowl. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - I very much dislike disagreeing with my good friend Drmies, but looking at the citations from reliable sources that are in the article now, this seems notable enough and as worthy of coverage as Goldfish swallowing and Flagpole sitting. People do dumb things, and if enough of them do the same dumb thing at around the same time, the resulting fad is encyclopedic as part of popular culture. I wouldn't be unhappy to see it converted into a section of Cinnamon with a redirect, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well BMK, I am depressed, as Taggart said to Lyle. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, were you swayed by this or by this? ;) Drmies (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, actually, I was swayed before I got to those refs, by WaPo and SI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: after looking through the references, I can't help but wonder if we've entered an alternate reality. I mean, this was added as a reference. As if it offered significant discussion in a reliable source. It is, in fact, a rather poor attempt at "fun" by a blogger writing for SI. If the person who added this to the article is serious, that this is something to build an encyclopedia on, then they should immediately write articles on The Twinkies Challenge ("ingest three twinkies in 60 seconds") and The Wendy's Challenge ("put the entire contents of a Wendy's kids meal into a blender (small hamburger, fries and Sprite), and ingest it in five minutes"). I assume it's Northamerica who added this "reference"? If by this time tomorrow (roughly, after the Wing Eating Challenge I'll be engaging in for the Bama game) there are no such articles, then I know you were in fact not serious. And how could you be? (Yes, this is a challenge: Put your money where your mouth is.) Drmies (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are other reliable sourcesw for those "challenges" then they should be covered as well. The encyclopedia should not be limited to those things which reasonable people do not find to be absurd; there are many unreasonable people out there doing absurd things, and our distaste for those activities should not be a factor in determining whether they are worthy of coverage or not. Personally, I find the July 4th hot dog-eating contest to be among the stupider things done by Homo sapiens c.2000, but my disdain for it doesn't mean that I don't recognize it as an event worthy of encyclopedic notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree on stupid, but that article is about a well-documented and noteworthy event, which deserves its capitals. FWIW, I prefer Hebrew National. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another newsblog reliable source reference added, that addresses the topic in detail, from The Joplin Globe. Topic is passing WP:GNG:

Shipman, Dustin (April 29, 2008). "'Dr. Food Science' mixes bananas and Sprite, conducts other questionable food experiments". The Joplin Globe. Retrieved 2009-10-22.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've made significant improvements to the article, including a section about safety concerns regarding the the Cinnamon challenge. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete improvements aside, this is still a unremarkable topic that does not meet notability guidelines. It's just a silly prank. Despite the presence of references, we should Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and delete this article. It's doesn't improve Wikipedia, it takes away.--198.85.228.129 (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a rather subjective interpretation of topic notability. If all articles were to be gauged under these types of arguments, then any article could hypothetically be removed from Wikipedia based upon personal opinion of the topic, rather than whether or not a topic's covered in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not Capybara. Or Coffee. Or Hurricane Andrew. Or Sugar Bowl. Etc. In your view, I think, any trivial mention constitutes "coverage" and just about anything counts as a reliable source, including brochures run off with a mimeograph in five-fold and deposited in the local library. Sure, there are matters of interpretation here, but to propose that only the "other side" is guilty of "rather subjective interpretations" is disingenuous. After all, you considered a series of photos of a radio jock eating some cinnamon "coverage." Drmies (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Washington Post coverage is significant and specifically about this. [15] It gets mentioned ample places elsewhere as well. All combined, I'd say it was notable. Dream Focus 22:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple Washington Post sources. CallawayRox (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am still not convinced by the quality of the sources. They just are not good. LadyofShalott 14:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If this is encyclopedic... then what is not? The threshold of Wiki-acceptance needs to be set higher than this. History2007 (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What would that threshold be? Could you be more specific? Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well rescued by Northamerica1000. The Joplin Globe and Washington Post references satisfy the general notability guideline. The other references are weaker, but their inclusion surely doesn't hurt. Melchoir (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some of the sources are used to verify information. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:38, 16 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) 17:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources show that it can be considered notable. Plus the warnings about potential dangers have got to be a good thing. BigJim707 (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there are still concerns with the depth of coverage here and usefullness of the article doesn't really establish notability here.--RadioFan (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stunt fails WP:EVENT. Edison (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:EVENT is an entire notability guideline page for events. Which of the sections or points of the page does this topic fail? All of them, some of them? Which ones? Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. The fad's got references. (When's the Apocalypse?) Now sing after me: "A spoonful of references helps the article stick around, in a most disgruntled way". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A very commonly known and popular challenge, and a likely search term because of its popularity. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and unique passtime, I saw it featured on 1,000 way to die. I think we also have an article on idiots that die from water drinking/retention contests.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge I don't find the coverage significant for own article. Mt king ^(edits) 03:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It should be merged to either the "Cinnamon" article or an article about dare games. LukePhiladelphia (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many of the "delete" votes here are because "it is a stunt" or "it is a prank". Where in the deletion guidelines is this mentioned? It is not. As per the reliable sources, it is not a hoax, and thus passes inclusion criteria. Please read WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and WP:IDL. A412 (Talk * C) 00:28, 24 January 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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Zadro[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography of a living person. Hardly meets WP:ATHLETE. bender235 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No references except on martial arts related web sites.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources are available to meet WP:GNG. They include:
Zadro on top of the world, Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia) - March 14, 2006, Length: 296 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) Article is about Zadro and is in one of the country's leading newspapers.

Zadro claims precious martial arts goals, Penrith Star (Australia) - November 22, 2011, Length: 178 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) Article is about subject.

Local legend is a martial arts champion, South-Western Rural Advertiser (Bringelly, Australia) - March 4, 2009, Length: 236 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) Article is about subject.

Mentor brings mind to bodies, Liverpool Champion (Australia) - November 8, 2011, Length: 350 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) Article is about subject.

Show is a big hit, Liverpool Leader (Sydney, Australia) - October 1, 2008, Length: 234 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) Article features him heavily.

Dad put surprise foot forward, Liverpool Leader (Sydney, Australia) - August 8, 2007, Length: 283 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) Article is mostly about subject as Zadro is dad.

Liverpool club wins karate world cup, Liverpool Champion (Australia) - October 25, 2011, Length: 163 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) Article features Zadro as running the club.

City hosts ISKA worlds, Liverpool Champion (Australia) - October 18, 2011, Length: 135 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) Article mentions in passing.

Instructor receives award recognition, Macarthur Chronicle (Sydney, Australia) - April 5, 2011, Length: 183 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) Article mentions in passing.

Martials arts schools, Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia) - July 24, 2010, Length: 855 words (Estimated printed pages: 3) Article mentions in passing.

Karate kids kick up a storm, Liverpool Leader (Sydney, Australia) - November 11, 2009, Length: 145 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) Mentioned as coach.

Tyro packs a punch, Liverpool Leader (Sydney, Australia) - December 3, 2008, Length: 133 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) Mentioned as coach.

Stadium is approved, South-Western Rural Advertiser (Bringelly, Australia) - November 12, 2008, Length: 217 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) His facility mentioned and Zadro quoted in article.

Karate kid, 6, has five titles, Penrith Press (Sydney, Australia) - November 7, 2008, Length: 303 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) Mentioned as coach.

Canberra Times article which quotes him.

Found 30 plus sources in Newsbank, which the above come from. As hit is not complete, convinced more sources probably exist and he likely passes WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LauraHale, the article just needs someone to use the above sources to cite and add new content to being the article up to scratch. Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 17 January 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peet Massé[edit]

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

I've made a good faith effort to find WP:RS, adding a sole news hit (in French) from a local community news site (which as you'll see is bylined as merely a reprint of a news release from the local gallery). I cannot find the claimed news hit in Voir. This artist cannot yet be proven to be notable by our standards, either WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't tell if this is what's going on here, but it is still worth noting that there's now a significant trend of art gallery staff creating unreferenced and/or unreferenceable Wikipedia articles about artists their gallery has booked a show with, which raises obvious WP:COI issues. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, surely does not meet WP:GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 23:16, 22 January 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Davenport–Hingis rivalry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. There are also no reliable sources, which describe this as a rivalry. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 09:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Similar tennis rivalry articles have been deleted recently , e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agassi–Chang rivalry (2nd nomination). The problem is that without independent media coverage about 'the rivalry' itself, these articles are nothing but head-to-head results lists, and we have no prose to go with it. It then fails WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.

According to WP:NSPORTS, rivalries are not inherently notable. We need several sources about the rivalry to justify having a standalone article about it. That's also what we included in the notability guidelines on the wikiproject tennis recently Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Notability.

If somebody can find sources we can keep this article, otherwise it is a delete. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 6 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) 17:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge. not notable enough on its own Pass a Method talk 21:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced, and as nom indicated, functions only as a list of results. No content worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Cloudz 679 21:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see anything here worth the merging. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without the requisite "significant coverage" to indicate this is generally perceived as an actual rivalry, there is no point merging anything. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:14, 23 January 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) 16:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

El rojo y blanko[edit]

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

A7 speedy deleted two times already (with a different capitalization, see user take page of creator) I believe it's time to take to Xfd to make a db-repost possible, if created again. I've tried to find any WP:RS for this artist, under both his names, without success. There may be Spanish-language Ghits I'm not aware of, but they should have shown up in my results, given the shared alphabet. I'll happily withdraw this if he turns out to be notable, just because I love that album cover image. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject not demonstrated to meet any of the criterion of WP:MUSICBIO. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:19, 23 January 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. postdlf (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Quirke[edit]

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

Individual does not meet criteria for encyclopedic notablity. Stubbleboy 16:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSPORTS. Truthsort (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Have compared the SoonerSports.com profile (cited) to the WP:NTRACK criteria and do not believe the subject meets WP:NSPORTS. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:26, 23 January 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Diebert[edit]

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

This chess player and chess coach is not notable enough, nor for his achievements in playing chess, neither for his achievements in coaching other chess players. SyG (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also not notable as a chess author, the other possible reason for an article. Quale (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur with notability concerns.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy is nowhere near notable enough. If the criteria for playing caliber is at least GM, then this guy is several leagues too low. Not only has he never obtained the IM title, he has never even had an FM title (2300+ FIDE), or even been a national senior master! (2400+ USCF) His coaching is also not any more extensive or successful than countless other chess teachers across the country. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No obvious notability. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TSS Manx Maid (1962)[edit]

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

I cannot find any valid secondary sources to qualify for this article's existance. Stubbleboy 16:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - very first Ghit is a magazine's website on the ship; gBooks turns up hits like this, this, this, this, this, this...I could go on, as there are quite a few others. Clear failure of WP:BEFORE, notability and availability of reliable sources are very clearly established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per evidence found by The Bushranger.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator clearly didn't try very hard on this one. This should probably be SNOWed Parsecboy (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only is the reasoning extremely weak and now easily disproved by Bushranger, it seems to depend excessively upon internet searches. As I stated at the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Ramsey, there are many many print sources out there for these ships, viz: Isle of Man Shipping: The Twilight Years, Ian H. Collard; Coastal Shipping of the Isle of Man 1946 - Present Day, by Stan Basnett, Steam Packet 175: The Official Anniversary Book of the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, by Miles Cowsill and John Hendy; Ferries of the Isle of Man 1945 - Present Day, by Stan Basnett, So Strong and So Fair: Story of the Side-Loading Car Ferries of the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company and Their People. by Richard Danielson; Ships of the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, by Ken Hassell and Steven Dearden and Ferries of the Isle of Man: Past and Present, by Stan Basnett, etc, etc. No valid secondary sources? Decisively disproved! Benea (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Haus^Talk 23:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator may not have appreciated why IoM ferries are inherently likely to pass for notability. Similar considerations are likely to apply to those serving other island communities. But the article did make a very clear assertion of notability in this particular case. As with some other AfDs, it may be that the mistake was made of searching on the article title. --AJHingston (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' as above. Outsidedog (talk) 03:54, 17 January 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 that this fails the GNG as a non-notable neologism. WilliamH (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse rage[edit]

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

There do not seem to be any reliable sources supporting the existence of a medical condition called "Mouse Rage", so this article appears to fail WP:GNG. The majority of the article seems to be original research on what people do while getting repeatedly killed in player-versus-player video game combat. Thus, my call is for this article to ragequit Wikipedia. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:GNG. Few hits are trivial mentions describing computer rage. Article is mostly WP:OR. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Computer rage. illogical pie (take a slice) 18:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what? It's all OR, I already copied the one usable reference. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a possible search term, though, so a redirect wouldn't hurt. 86.146.221.44 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism per WP:NEO. This term seems to have been coined by a single research team. Wikipedia isn't here to help them popularise it. I don't see the need for a redirect. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the article creator has a copy of the article on his userpage, unedited in 2½ years. That will presumably show up on search engines if this page is deleted... ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Computer rage per above discussion. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 23 January 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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B. D. Rampala[edit]

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

per WP:NN. The first source is a dead link, and the other sources do not establish any further notability. Stubbleboy 15:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, see many, many gbooks hits. Haus^Talk 01:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First native Chief Mechanical Engineer of a country's national railway system? That's enough for notability for a start. Then there are his improvements to the Sri Lankan railways, and his recognition by British engineers (who at that time still had a strong "colonial" attitude). --Redrose64 (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The man was general manager of a national railway system. How on earth can he not be notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are already articles for some of the colonial general managers of Sri Lanka Railways. Rampala was the first to be native, and most prominent one. He also received significant recognition from British engineers. His notability is certain. -- Tropicalsundae (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Clearly notable. As he graduated in 1934, internet sources on him are likely to be scanty. If still alive, he must be in his late 90s. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:08, 21 January 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 Pennsylvania College of Dental Surgery and University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine, the page itself surviving as a disambiguation page. The original stub's content can be retrieved from the page history. Der yck C. 17:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Dental College[edit]

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

The only source for this article is an 1881 New York Times blurb that mentions the college's graduating class numbers. I can't find any other info about it, or even in what city the college was located. Angryapathy (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Sources seem very few in number and the college appears to have been defunct for some time. Besides the NYT note, all I could find was one curious book mention that says Doc Holliday attended the college. It raises the point of what sourcing is required for an institution that hasn't been around for a hundred years. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions. Isn't our leaning, with colleges, to keep them if they are verifiable? Perhaps one could argue that where there is a paucity of RS coverage that redirect or merge would be better, but still .. is not delete perhaps outside the scope of our usual approach? As to the fact that the school is defunct, I'm not sure that that hurts any argument for notability -- we don't seem to count that against the subject when the subject is a (dead) person, or a no-longer-populated town.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with you if there was just more information in the sources. I would totally be OK if the one single source had some background information. I guess it comes down to this line of thinking (for me): How is it helpful for an encyclopedia to have an article stating that a dental college existed, but with no information about its whereabouts or why it went defunct? Angryapathy (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hear your point, and understand it. But -- if our leaning is to keep such colleges if they are verifiable, I'm happy to stick with the consensus. On the other hand, if the leaning were to only keep it if we had something more than verifiability, on the basis of your point, I woiuld be happy to stick with that consensus. I think it turns on what the general consensus is on this point, for me at least -- as I find both of them reasonable. And -- though it is not my point -- I could imagine another editors saying: "Well, over time people could add info, as it becomes available, presuming it becomes available ..." My bottom line is that if there is indeed a consensus to keep articles on colleges if they are verifiable -- without more -- then for me that would close the issue, absent an overturning of the consensus. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We initially presume that such articles are likely to be kept, because they usually are. But it's a default or a rule of thumb, not an absolute rule. If a thorough, good-faith search indicates that there aren't really enough sources to write a decent article, then we delete them. (In this particular instance, I believe that a merge is the right answer.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pennsylvania College of Dental Surgery. The only source provided refers to the college by the longer name, and we already have an article about that college. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support Metropolitan's recommendation to redirect, if we are sure that they are the same institution. It seems likely, since they are given roughly the same founding date (1856 or 1857). --MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ... all appropriate RS-supported material from this article, as well as Metro's suggested target article, to University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine -- into which the school was merged in fact.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't support merging either of those articles into University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine, because Pennsylvania College of Dental Surgery existed independently from the University of Pennsylvania dental school for over 50 years before the merger. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Met. I had in mind rationale # 3 for merging, under Wikipedia:Merging, which states
    "There are several good reasons to merge a page ... Text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic."
    Pennsylvania College of Dental Surgery's article is 6 years old, and 2 sentences long. And, coincidentally, relies for its ref on a url of the target I suggest -- the University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine. Into which it merged over a century ago. IMHO, the shoe seems to fit. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/<topic>|list of <topic>-related deletion discussions]].

Comment I've notified WP:DENTISTRY, with the hope that we can have confirmation (or otherwise) that the two places are one and the same. -- Trevj (talk) 11:26, 16 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) 15:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm very leery of deleting post-primary educational institutions, including those of a historic rather than a contemporary nature. That said, there needs to be some sort of verifiability demonstrated, in my view — in the sense that there should be a location identified and some sort of establishment and disestablishment dates. This is a good example of where a RESCUE SQUAD flag would come in handy, for what it's worth. Carrite (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pennsylvania College of Dental Surgery per Metro90. That looks to me like a hit, failing any additional information about a "Pennsylvania Dental College" operating at the same time in competition. Carrite (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Check Google Books to see what you can find out about this page. There may be past literature that talks extensively about the subject. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, on Google Books there are pages of hits for "Pennsylvania Dental College" WhisperToMe (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The college seems to be mentioned in a directory here [16], but I can't find how to access the book referenced there. Will change to keep if this book can be verified. A412 (Talk * C) 23:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pennsylvania College of Dental Surgery, which was the same institution, and lasted for over 50 years. This is verified by sources discussing Doc Holliday who use one or the other variation of the school's name. Its also clear that there were only two dental schools in Philadelphia prior to UPenn's founding of its school in 1878, which also confirms that Pennsylvania Dental College and Pennsylvania College of Dental Surgery are one and the same. See [17];[18] (listing the two different schools that existed in 1872). This institution did not merge into UPenn's dental school until 1909. (Note: the Philadelphia Dental College was the competitor school--it later merged into Temple)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I have expanded the Pennsylvania College of Dental Surgery article somewhat and located many good sources about it, I would suggest this AfD can be closed as a merge (or redirect, as this article the AfD is on has no substantial content).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:27, 25 January 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, not helped by scant participation. There has not been clear consensus in the three weeks this AFD has been open. WilliamH (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Grudzien[edit]

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

Not seeing how this individual is notable; was originally PRODded, but was contested 3 years after deletion by an IP. Not finding anything approaching significant coverage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC 184.33.223.182 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ our oldest NN tagged article, no claims to notability. Rich Farmbrough, 14:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Belay that - keep what can be sourced, and reduce with a view to eventual expansion or merger. Covered in "Incredibly Strange Music, Volume 15", mentioned in Spin October 2001 p.129, and elsewhere, possibly subject of a television documentary. Rich Farmbrough, 15:39, 12 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) 15:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Not debating his existence but his notability, he seems to be in the periphery of celebrities but not one himself. --Ifnord (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable coverage is foundable in Incredibly Strange Music, Volume 15 where his LP "The Unicorn" is reviewed in a not-trivial manner, and also in Songs in the key of Z: the curious universe of outsider music and in a couple of volumes of "Spin". Cavarrone (talk) 12:13, 26 January 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Books[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

non notable company - already speedy deleted once at afd. Article repeatedly re-created by company founder. Has one reference to a telegraph article which is more about the uk governments finance guarantee scheme and his company being turned down for a loan despite this. noq (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Books is accounting software. The Telegraph article notes that the number of businesses using the accounting software is 3,000. This reference makes Clear Books worthy of being noted as an accounting software because there is a published small business customer base. Consequently Clear Books should be listed in Comparison of accounting software. This comparison page requires that the accounting software has a wiki page.--TimFouracre (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)— TimFouracre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Did the Telegraph research your company to come up with this number or just publish a number you told them? noq (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to contact the Telegraph to determine its research and journalism practices. However, bearing in mind the Telegraph is one of the few quality broadsheet newspapers in the UK, I think it is safe to assume they have got their facts correct. Therefore can we move onto the point that if Clear Books is accounting software and if it has been qualified as accounting software then it should be listed in the comparison of accounting software?--TimFouracre (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)— TimFouracre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another software company offering software as a service products advertising on Wikipedia. An incidental mention in an unrelated story indicating that this package has 3,000 customers does not magically turn this business into something that should be remembered in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. There's one source, true, but there hasn't been any continual reliable coverage of this company. There's only one article out there, showing a lack of deep coverage of this company. It's just not a notable company. It doesn't matter how many people are supposedly using the software because usage rates doesn't really guarantee notability. If a product or company is that widely used, it's assumed that they'd have enough reliable coverage to pass notability guidelines. There just isn't enough reliable coverage to back up the claims in the single source, nor the claims of the company's president. Since the company's president keeps coming on to re-add the article after it was deleted, I recommend salting the article to ensure that it will not get re-added until it meets the guidelines for WP:CORP.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Comment - There's a review but I'm not sure that's a reliable source. --Ritchie333 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Introduction to one of the main competitors here and online accountants here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.86.81.71 (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Independent reviews by Chartered Accountants and bookkeepers e.g. here and here here. There are more.— 86.2.39.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - Two recognised industry accounting software analysts have blogged here and here both painting the picture of the growth in the company in user numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.39.67 (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — 86.2.39.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - Integration with Companies House is listed on the government's data.gove website here
Comment - Integration for filing VAT online is listed on HMRC's website here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.39.67 (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — 86.2.39.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. But are they considered notable and reliable enough per Wikipedia standards? One doesn't seem to have been used as a source on Wikipedia at all and the other is only sporadically used. They might work as trivial sources but they don't seem to be reliable enough to really count as bonafide reliable sources. I'm just worried that neither site is notable or reliable enough to count as a reliable source to show notability, especially since one is a blog site. We generally can only use blog entries if they're written by someone exceedingly notable. As far as the other two links go, they merely show that the company exists and cannot prove notability. Nobody is doubting that the company exists, just that it isn't notable enough to warrant an entry. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment Being listed on HMRC and data.gov.uk are strong endorsements for notability. The two bloggers who have blogged on Clear Books are also recognised industry bloggers. Try googling them here or here— 86.2.39.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 08:04, 7 January 2012‎ (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Listed on CrunchBase and passing reference in an article on a competitor in TechCrunch— 86.2.39.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 08:05, 7 January 2012‎ (UTC).[reply]
Comment - The accounting software itself has been accredited by Institute of Certified Bookkeepers. For the review click here. The original articles has been updated to reflect some of these new found references.--TimFouracre (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)— TimFouracre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - More press coverage in PC Advisor here--TimFouracre (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)— TimFouracre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - The accounting software was also reviewed in .net magazine in the UK, however, the article doesn't appear to be online yet.--TimFouracre (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)— TimFouracre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not very inclined to believe your claims of the bloggers' notability since you work for the company and it's in your best interest to play up the importance and notability of these bloggers and any press release you give us. As far as the other links go, the only one that is somewhat usable is [19] and that's as a trivial source. The other two sources don't really show notability in the slightest. One is an industry listing and the other is a brief mention in an article. A reliable source that shows notability is an article that is in-depth about the subject matter, is by a trusted and reliable source, and is more than just a brief quote or mention. Accreditation does not bestow notability because there are a lot of places that get accredited in their various fields. It'd not easy to get, but it's not such a huge task that getting accredited would be considered noteworthy. It's accreditation, not the Nobel Prize. I hate to be frank, but you're pulling up all of these things and it just isn't showing enough notability. The company appears to be on the cusp of passing notability guidelines but it just isn't there yet and I really feel that your close connection with the company is making you see these sources as having more weight than they actually do. It's why it's discouraged for people with a conflict of interest to create and add to articles about things they are closely related to. It's just hard to see things in a neutral light.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment. Thanks for the feedback tokyogirl79. The original motivation was to create an entry in the Comparison of accounting software wikipedia page. Let me reassess the Clear Books article based on whether Clear Books should be listed in the comparison of accounting software.

To answer that question I guess we need to ask whether Clear Books is accounting software? Yes. So the next question is - is it notable? I propose it is.

Before covering notability in more detail I would add that the industry analyst who you previously noted has been used as a reference elsewhere on wikipedia has written several articles about Clear Books which can be viewed here.

So, is Clear Books notable accounting software? Applying the definition of "notable" - I believe Clear Books does go that bit further than you first thought, and steps beyond the cusp.

"Significant coverage": SaaS analysts, HMRC, data.gov.uk, Telegraph article, PC Advisor article, Institute of Certified Bookkeepers
"Reliable" Independents analysts, government websites, recognised media publications and an independent bookkeeping body
"Sources" The sources are secondary
"Independent of the subject" All the references provided have not been written by anyone at Clear Books
"Presumed" Clear Books is accounting software and therefore should be eligible to be listed as accounting software

Fame, importance, or popularity may enhance the acceptability for notability. 3,000 businesses using Clear Books and 4,000 followers on twitter should help support the case.--TimFouracre (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TokyoGirl has already explained in detail that your "Significant coverage" is not significant. Frankly this seems mostly designed to promote your software on wikipedia which is not what it is for. Your conflict of interest is stopping you from seeing the problems - the reason why creating articles about where you have a conflict of interest is discouraged. Your desire to list your software on Wikipedia does not mean it should be listed. noq (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, let's look at significant coverage in isolation. The wikipedia definition is:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]

Granted the following, although "reliable" sources, are not significant:

HMRC
data.gov.uk

However, I would suggest the following sources are "significant coverage" based on the above definition:

The Telegraph article
The Institute of Certified Bookkeepers review
The accounting software industry analyst articles
The PC Advisor article

--TimFouracre (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I appreciate that delete decisions are not based on the number of votes, but rather on the merits of evidence. I would really welcome the feedback to my above comment from the contributors who have been constructive and active on this page to date.--TimFouracre (talk) 20:58, 13 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) 15:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The original article, Clear Books, has been revised to include additional references as discussed above which support the argument that Clear Books is notable accounting software.--TimFouracre (talk) 19:07, 16 January 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. Hoax Ronhjones ^(Talk) 15:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zander village[edit]

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

Possibly a hoax. No evidence this public housing project even exists. The only mentions I get on Google about this point to Wikipedia articles. The author has made a number of problematic edits, with additional problematic edits being made by an IP that may be the author. No sources. Not blatant enough for speedy, but without sources and with no indications this place actually exists, Delete. Safiel (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the off chance this place actually does exist, I would still affirm my delete stance on the ground of failure to satisfy WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Bogus. The only HCLA in the Venice area is Mar Vista Gardens- see this PDF. The number of buildings doesn't match, among other things. tedder (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete': Hoax. SL93 (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sure looks like a hoax to me as well. If references exist, I'm sure they'd have come forward by now. -- WikHead (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Note: i'm following the contributions of the author (Sqadgangsterkilla) also as anon ip (98.195.163.162). It is a long list of sect blanking, tag removals, counter-rollbacks in write-only and an article (East Side Kelly Park Compton Crips) at 50% copied and pasted from Crips, and 50% copyvio of rapdict.org. If now it is also the evidence of an hoax regarding this article, I'll notice the user here as vandal-only. --Dэя-Бøяg 13:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Take a look to "Zavet Village", author is the same... And this is my report at WP:AIV regarding Sqadgangsterkilla and 98.195.163.162. Hoax article by a vandal-only account. Personally, now I've no more doubts. --Dэя-Бøяg 14:31, 22 January 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Davenport–V. Williams rivalry[edit]

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

It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. There are also no reliable sources, which describe this as a rivalry. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 09:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Similar tennis rivalry articles have been deleted recently , e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agassi–Chang rivalry (2nd nomination). The problem is that without independent media coverage about 'the rivalry' itself, these articles are nothing but head-to-head results lists, and we have no prose to go with it. It then fails WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.

According to WP:NSPORTS, rivalries are not inherently notable. We need several sources about the rivalry to justify having a standalone article about it. That's also what we included in the notability guidelines on the wikiproject tennis recently Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Notability.

If somebody can find sources we can keep this article, otherwise it is a delete. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 6 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) 14:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete doesn't meet gng Pass a Method talk 21:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced, and as nom indicated, functions only as a list of results. No content worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Cloudz 679 21:26, 22 January 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 that this is unsourced fancruft. WilliamH (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of films remade or dubbed from the Telugu language[edit]

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

Unsourced list, and unlikely to be of any use. There have been more than a 1000 Hollywood films dubbed into many Indian languages, and none of them have any mention in a separate article. There is a category called "List of Tamil language films dubbed into Telugu", and the same can apply here in a similarly named category, not a list page. X.One ^SOS 13:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 14:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic list cruft and not that useful. Not really worth listing x films remade/dubbed from y language. Lugnuts (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm willing to be enlightened for perhaps not understanding the cultural significance of Indian-language films being dubbed in one another, but until someone can explain that to us, the list stands as WP:CRUFT. Per nominator, a category already exists; so unless there is something special about films dubbed from Telegu, this article is redundant. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 04:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per my reasons. X.One ^SOS 04:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Oh Wow! The list is good like a Gossip column. Plus without references its Libel too. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:31, 21 January 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. Ged UK 15:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Kerry Senior Hurling Championship[edit]

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

This championship lacks requisite substantial RS coverage. Article creator has been blocked for over 2 years for repeatedly creating inappropriate articles. Epeefleche (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources support the existence of this article. Cloudz 679 07:19, 23 January 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. Ged UK 15:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Novice Hurling Championship[edit]

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

This championship lacks requisite substantial RS coverage. Tagged for notability for over 2 years. Article creator has been blocked for over 2 years for repeatedly creating inappropriate articles. Epeefleche (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources support the existence of this article. Cloudz 679 07:25, 23 January 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. postdlf (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Law Underground[edit]

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

I have not found substantial RS coverage of this legal information web-based project. Nor does the article present any -- zero refs. Tagged for notability for 2 years. Tagged for zero refs for over 4 years. Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Regardless of the articles merits it is a stub WP:STUB and lacks sources/references WP: PSTS . Though the article may have potential WP:POTENTIAL it would need extensive work to comply with Wiki standards for article content.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The fact that the article is a stub is not a grounds for deletion. Neither, since it is not a BLP, is the fact that the article fails to cite any sources. The question is whether any sources are available. And the answer to that question, in a case like this, is determined by looking for them with Google. James500 (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - All true, but I have not found substantial RS coverage. The fact that it has no sources would allow an editor to challenge the existing text that is unsourced, and delete it, but would not be grounds for deletion of the article per se.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was not disputing that. James500 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Understood. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it was never notable per WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 23 January 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Psypher-A Family Divided[edit]

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

declined speedy. Compilation album, all original research, no RS references, google searches come up empty. Various members of the compilation are notable (or have wiki pages) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this thing is a mess of OR, and links in article do not establish the notability of this album. Has this album charted? That is my litmus test. 75.185.45.77 (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing towards notability in the article is that people rated it in itune: 57 rated Part One, 28 Part Two. And that's pretty much it, in the article or to be found on the web, where searches mostly turn up torrent sites and their mirrors. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:38, 16 January 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Dog Publishing[edit]

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

Zero refs. I can't find substantial RS coverage. Tagged for notability four years ago this month, but has just continued to reside on the Project without attention or deletion. Created by a 1-edit-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it hasn't been improved any in its four years of notability tagging, so can it already! 75.185.45.77 (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 6-year-old publisher of a three bi-weekly local papers, with aggregate circulation in 2009 of 11k, according to their website. Web searches find directory listings and not much else. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Stebbins[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion instead of a speedy deletion, for it to be clearer of whether it should be deleted or not. Wagner ^u t c 18:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A somewhat famed Eurobeat producer, with an article that could be expanded. Wagner ^u t c 18:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You cannot nominate an article for deletion and then !vote keep. Your nom is a de facto delete !vote automatically. You can't have both. 75.185.45.77 (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure s/he can do what s/he likes. S/he removed a speedy delete tag, but felt it warranted a fuller discussion, in which s/he seeks to keep. Hence the de facto delete is vacated. Makes sense to me. 86.44.40.0 (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article contains no reliable third party sources, and has no real claim of notability. Google searches for his name, as well as the various aliases brought up in the article, turns up no real reliable sources. Fails Wikipedia:Notability, and quite frankly, I can't see why the Speedy Delete tag was removed.Rorshacma (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no credible indication that individual meets notability criteria. RashersTierney (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Devil's Rain. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article for this song isn't warranted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight of the Dead[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

(Technically, a first nomination for this subject: the previous deleted page with this title was not connected.)
"Twilight of the Dead" appears to be a non-notable single with no evidence provided of notability in the article itself. Likewise, there is no suggestion of notability in the article on the band that released it (Misfits (band)) nor in Misfits discography. Emeraude (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is the lead single from a notable band's first new album in 8 years, and first album of original material in 12 years. There's every reason to expect that there's enough source coverage to improve the article. The nominator's rationale doesn't indicate that they made a good-faith effort to find sources. I wrote the majority of the album article, and the album received plenty of coverage, so I'm reasonably confident I could do the same for the single article. The article and its subject are only a few months old, and given the obvious notability of both the artist and the album the single article shouldn't be too difficult to improve. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No question that the album is notable, and the band. But Wikipedia does not automatically confer articles on every single unless there is a special reason pertaining to the single itself (similar to the 'notability is not inherited' argument for people). As you say, the single is only a few months old, so claims of notability at this stage are somewhat premature. Emeraude (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a supporter of "notability is not inherited", in general, and I didn't mean to imply that the single should be assumed notable just because the band & album are. I simply mean that I presume it's notable, given the obvious notability of the parent topics, and that source coverage should presumably be available from which to expand it. Of course if I do a search and come up empty, then obviously my presumption is incorrect, but I'll give it a shot. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, what you or I "presume" is not good enough. There are very few musicians whose every single deserves a place in a separate article. One would expect that it reached a very high chart position/sales or in some way contributed to a wider event. And this needs reliable documentary evidence. WP:SONG is a useful starting point, and states:

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

On that basis, I don't think it passes. Emeraude (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of WP:NSONGS, but the bar is significantly lower than high sales or chart positions.NSONGS states that if a song has done these things, then it is probably notable (basically that a song that's achieved such is presumed to be notable). All that is required per WP:N, however, is coverage in reliable secondary sources. If a few such sources are found discussing the song/single, then it passes WP:N, even if it never charted or made wide impact. I've dealt with such situations several times in the past.

P.S. I've taken the liberty of notifying User:Joltman of this AfD, since he was the article's creator and has been its only major contributor. Hopefully he'll chime in an opinion. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that- my oversight in not having done so personally. Emeraude (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete or redirect to album Probably delete, as the title has been used for other non notable articles as well, and there is no reason for this particular article to get the redirect. Single has not charted. The listed reference is talking about the album, not the single (and frankly I think that the ref in general is pretty weak. Its mostly PR and track listing). Gaijin42 (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to album Sources are not there for a standalone article. Rangoondispenser (talk) 02:28, 23 January 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. Wifione ^Message 15:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hazrat Mian Rehmat Sain[edit]

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

No references to show notability Darkness Shines (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several references for this notable Sufi saint of the Indian subcontinent in the Punjabi and Urdu languages. This is evidenced by searching the name in the native script: حضرت میاں رحمت سائیں I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anupam, I have verified that many results are returned in Urdu... could you add some references to the article (or place them here) by choosing the best ones returned by Google, with brief explanation in English of what they are? Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second Chiswick's suggestion. That would help support a keep determination.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know what Anupam and Chiswick saw, but I don't see any significant results in a Google search on the Urdu version. --Lambiam 14:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nor have I. I did find this, which falls short. Zero on gnews, gbooks, or gscholar. I've added the search above. But that's why I posed my above question to Anupam.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Happy to change my result should anyone surface substantial RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I understand the difficulty of adding native language references in tandem with English explanations (English is a secondary language in our country) but I think a couple of weeks of being in Afd is enough to tell us that no sufficient ref's for this article exists.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:50, 17 January 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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG; the few reliable sources only discuss it as one of many micronations. NYyankees51 (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is more than adequate coverage in the international press to warrant the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 16. Snotbot t • c » 12:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nom's assertion is incorrect; two of the reliable sources discuss the island in detail. AV3000 (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which two? I'm not sure that specialist media like the LGBT press counts towards GNG, nor that Gay-News.com is notable even for LGBT press.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the fact that practically all of the micronations mentioned in some of the sources are notable, there are also sources like this, among others. And the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom is definitely one of the most, if not the most, notable of the micronations in the world, though Sealandia probably could beat it in notability. Silver seren^C 02:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the moment it fails GNG, because it is not verified by multiple, independent sources (it only has one - an SMH article from 2005 which is not online, but I'll presume it's legitimate and that coverage is more than trivial). If editors are unable to provide another WP:RSS to demonstrate notability, then it's a clear delete. Even if multiple sources can be found, Even though verified by multiple sources, this article has whiffs of WP:REDFLAG about it, and should at the very least be given a good dose of incredulity (they're claiming a territory the size of New South Wales for crying out loud). --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC) (Evidently I am going blind - I should read more than the last heading when scanning for ref's next time. Apologies--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Most micronations claim extremely large amounts of area. But if no one is living in the area besides them, the nearby governments usually don't care. Silver seren^C 03:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has received good deal of coverage from independent and reliable secondary sources for usage as references. Would not be difficult to improve article quality to WP:GA status, with ease, in the future, with collaboration from editors within the community. — Cirt (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GA class, are you kidding? There's nothing to write about. Here is Cato Island (3rd, 4th and 5th images), the supposed capital of the "nation". There's an unmanned weather station there and nothing else, not even trees. This ref even verifies that the weather station is disused and not owned by the GLKCSI. Wikipedia's Cato Reef strangely doesn't mention that the capital of a nation larger in area than most European countries is based there. In fact, the only inhabited island is Willis_Island_(Coral_Sea) (the picture shows a weather station and nothing else). Nobody lives in this supposed micronation. Wikipedia is not for stuff you WP:MADEUP one day, even if it does get passing mentions in newspaper articles about things that other people have similarly made up. I agree with NYyankees51 that the refs are either unreliable or include only trivial mentions.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, you seem to misunderstand. Nobody here is claiming that this micronation is "real" or has a presence in the Coral Sea Territory. What's being argued is that there is enough coverage of the topic to warrant the inclusion of an article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  - I understand that micronations don't necessarily even have to have claimed real-world territory to fit the broad definition. The problem is that the sources tend to mention the GLK in a single sentence in an article about micronations in general. Those that go into deeper detail are generally self-published or unreliable. That said, I did find a most promising source in this journal article by a sociologist specialising in micronations, which goes into considerable detail. It even includes pictures from the "founding". It's pretty impenetrable sociologist jargon for the most part, but has information enough. I guess I'll have to relent on my assertion that it fails GNG - one major article in a UTS published journal is probably enough to get it there, although I still argue that it violates WP:MADEUP. At the very least it needs to be seriously brought back to the real world per User:Lankiveil's comment below.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Upon review of sources including those at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and elsewhere, yes, it would be quite possible without too much effort to improve this page to WP:GA quality status. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which ones, exactly? I'm seeing very little that might be acceptable for GNG, let alone enough content for GA--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of media coverage means this meets WP:N quite handily. The article could be tweaked a bit to focus merely on the founding and press coverage of this 'entity', rather than implying that it's an actual real country... but that's not a reason not to keep the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: There are lots of significant coverage in notable media outlets. Passes WP:GNG. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with a leave for speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Set on You[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Limited promo-only release. No charts, did not appear on an album, no significant coverage anywhere Paul75 (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete The subject matter is notable - but if it doesn't have any sources to cover this specific album it could be included in a list. —Ed!^(talk) 00:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MAD --Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:50, 9 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) 00:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:30, 16 January 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 Dragonlance Legends. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Lady's War[edit]

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion in a mass group nomination here, but the discussion was muddled with so many varying articles. The closing administrator suggested that the articles should be nominated individually, which is what I am doing now. A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for elements of fiction. Neelix (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge and/or redirect to Dragonlance#Fictional history or maybe Dragonlance Legends. BOZ (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Boz, or perhaps into Ansalon. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete per above. —Ed!^(talk) 00:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you reviewed WP:MAD? I'd encourage a bit more elaboration on what you think should happen here in light of that... Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dragonlance Legends, which is where this entire story comes from. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:54, 16 January 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. DreamFocus and Tokyogirl's comments make weight. Although I'm personally not in the know of Suvudu and Broken Frontier, I see the sources not being re-questioned by the commentators here. Rangoondispenser perhaps makes a comment I'll be personally more keen to support, which is that there should have been more sources available than just two reliable ones for a webcomic existing for such a long time. Taking into account all the comments, I believe there're good arguments both ways. Closing this as no consensus with no prejudice to an early reopening in case more reliable sources aren't added. Thanks Wifione ^Message 15:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable webcomic. Tagged for notability since December 2009. Simply not enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:WEB. This page was previously AfD'ed in 2009 which was closed no consensus on the basis that being published on Keenspot might satisfy WP:WEB Criteria ¶3.

Dominic Deegan is now being "published" via ZeStuff, which appears to simply be a web hosting company. While notability is not revocable (AFAIK) I believe the fact that DD is no longer with Keenspot and other notability has not been shown weakens the claim that this comic is notable because of WEB¶3.

If this webcomic is notable, where are the sources? Looking through the history of this page shows few to no independent, reliable, sources being included. Checks of GNews and several pages of Google results show nothing in the way of reliable sources. The article does not satisfy WP:V and it is my contention that is does not satisfy WP:WEB. OSborn^arf_contribs. 20:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Initially I was going to say delete and be done with it, but I am finding a few sources that might say otherwise so I'll hold off until then. This webcomic isn't one of my favorites, but it does look like it's gotten some buzz, such as these two articles: [20], [21], [22] (not sure if the third one counts or not), [23].Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment: I do have to ask a question, though. One of the things that originally kept the comic was that it was being published online at Keenspot and it was being published in book format. Now that the webcomic is hosted (presumably) by Deegan's creator on ZeStuff, if the books that were put out by Keenspot are out of print and the current printings are self-published, would that still qualify it for WP:WEB since it's being published in book format? Does self-publishing qualify under the book format?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Reply if it qualified before it would still qualify now, but I'm not convinced that Keenspot previously qualified it for notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 18:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Going through some of the links that have been added to the article: Comicpedia & TVTropes - Wikis, shouldn't really be linked, ComicVine - appears to he a personal blog. ComicTalk - might be an RS but says "ComixTalk is not responsible for comments, blog and forum posts." at the bottom which makes me question if this link is a reliable source? OSborn^arf_contribs. 18:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suvudu [24] and Broken Frontier [25] are both reliable sources, and both give significant coverage. Dream Focus 20:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment clicking on the find sources link gave: a 2006 Hartford Courant article, 2008 Boston Globe article (snippet: best known for his Web comic "Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire."), and a 2010 Press Herald article (snippet: known for “Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire”), and a single mention by [26]. No comment on notability, I'm just listing these for readers to check. -84user (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Those all look to be minor, off-hand references to me, not coverage about the webcomic itself. OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:15, 1 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, L Faraone 00:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I managed to find some good sources for this and I think that they help this webcomic just barely and I mean barely squeaks by GNG by having 3 different reliable and secondary sources write articles about it. (One of them is semi-dubious.) There's also the Keenspot thing and that they published some of this webcomic in book format, although I agree with Osborn in that I'm not sure exactly how notable all that really is. Keenspot has published a lot of webcomics, some of which I'm sure have faded into obscurity with rarely a mention about them. In any case, this seems to barely meet WP:GNG and WP:WEB.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. Only sources are either minor off-hand references, unreliable, and/or not independent. Being published on a website like Keenspot does not equal notability. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I won't deny that there isn't much out there, Broken Frontier and Suvudu have both written in-depth articles about the webcomic and are independent of the comic itself. Some of the other sources on the article can be debated, but it was the links from BF and Suvudu that make me think that this just manages to get by the notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep. This is one of the best-known webcomics; the equiviliant of NCIS to cop shows or Mother Goose and Grimm to print comics. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The notability you describe has got to be verifiable however and so far the sources that have been uncovered during this AFD are underwhelming.--RadioFan (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. We should have no trouble finding significant coverage in multiple (more than two) reliable secondary sources for a ten year old webcomic if it were notable. As WP:GNG says, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." As others have said above, the best and only sources here are Broken Frontier and Suvudu. Neither of these provide depth, nor quality. (Example: Broken Frontier [27] is a brief post on a comics site, the site says "Come write for BF!" and "Post your own news directly to the top of our Headlines section.") Rangoondispenser (talk) 02:13, 23 January 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) 12:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bulleen Plaza[edit]

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

Local shopping centre with no assertion of notability. Till I Go Home (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails precedents of notability for shopping centers, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete clearly fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to satisfy our notability requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A search through "Newsbank, Australian Newspaper" for "Bulleen Plaza" has 262 results. They include:
A celebration of diversity, Leader - Doncaster Templestowe (Melbourne, Australia) - June 23, 2010, Length: 83 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

Age caution - after seven- - car pile-up, Leader - Doncaster Templestowe (Melbourne, Australia) - April 7, 2010, Length: 279 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)

No move for extra - trader parking, Leader - Doncaster Templestowe (Melbourne, Australia) - August 26, 2009, Length: 137 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

Police probe - road death, Leader - Heidelberger (Melbourne, Australia) - August 12, 2009, Length: 117 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

No ticket to ride, Leader - Doncaster Templestowe (Melbourne, Australia) - July 1, 2009, Length: 210 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

Trouble ahead for retailers, Leader - Doncaster Templestowe (Melbourne, Australia) - January 21, 2009, Length: 273 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

Bonus prize for Plaza shopping, Leader - Doncaster Templestowe (Melbourne, Australia) - November 12, 2008, Length: 78 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

--LauraHale (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Have you read these articles? If so, which ones contain substantial coverage of the shopping center? Also, which of these sources don't fall into the following category -- the 'local' clause of WP:CORPDEPTH -- "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability".--Epeefleche (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've read a few of them. They talk about things that took place at the mall like events, car accidents, police incidents, etc. Some of the other articles talk about merchants in the mall. In my opinion, the scope of coverage by these articles means it should pass WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't believe that we consider a mall notable because an event took place at it -- that is run-of-the-mill mall life. Or that a car accident took place at it -- it might be more notable if the mall never had a car accident. Or a police incident; same. I think that sort of coverage, which is also not quite about the mall, would among other things fall into the trivial, passing mention category. IMHO. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisted in light of new sources presented near the expiry of this thread to allow for further discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 12:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't use the Monash U. database; but the articles cited by LauraHale don't appear to show show any in-depth coverage. Under the "No inherited notability" section of WP:CORP, they wouldn't provide justification for keeping the article. My own Google search failed to turn up any coverage substantial enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Ammodramus (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Rangoondispenser (talk) 02:17, 23 January 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. Kubigula (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R Jai Quehaeni[edit]

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

Non notable dancer .Is the student of a Famous dancer and notablity is not Inherited.Fails WP:BIO , and WP:GNG.Insufficient reliable sources to establish encyclopedic fit of an individual's biography.This is a WP:BLP and could find nothing except that there is a dance festival in which she was one of the participants and and there is web vote on dancers in which her name figures these do not make her notable. .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor coverage in the reference in the article (I was able to only uncover a [http://www.thehindu.com/arts/dance/article987910.ece passing mention as an addition. Insufficient coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete :I am also from Chennai seen her perform ,A Student of கலை நடிப்பு சிதம்பரம் அகாடமி under Visweswaran and is an upcoming dancer but still is only one of her students.நன்றி ரகு — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.229.213 (talk) 06:18, 23 January 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) 12:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Alpha Snail[edit]

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

This 21-year-old music producer/radio host may one day be notable per wp standards, but is not yet. Lacks sufficient substantial coverage in RSs, though he clearly does exist. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, I'm not finding anything on this artist in Google web, news or book searches RadioFan (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 23 January 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 Tanga, Tanzania. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanga International School[edit]

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

Primary school. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, to delete and/or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG or current school guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) per nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment It is not clear where this article should be redirected. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tanga, Tanzania. As always, that article needs an Education section mentioning this school to avoid WP:SURPRISE. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:28, 16 January 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. Ged UK 15:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awareness, Inc.[edit]

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

This company fails on notability, both WP:GNG (significant coverage by multiple WP:RS) and on WP:CORPDEPTH in particular. It enjoys some coverage, though very little in depth, let alone by multiple sources. Looking into coverage, I can't find any claim to notability, or anything more at all to say about the company. I mostly found WP:LOTSOFSOURCES that don't establish notability. Note the coverage of this subject by cmswire appears to be PR-based as well (see here for how they treat press releases; search cmswire articles on this subject for an indication of how heavily they are based on PR, and an indication on WP:RS). JFHJr (㊟) 00:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:47, 16 January 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. Discussion of a merger to some new article or whatever can and should continue on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign-born footballers who played for Australia[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I honestly don't see the point of this article; a 'parent' article (which I created!) was deleted by AfD in August 2010. These kind of articles are a slippery slope and could load to all kind of trivial lists. Giant Snowman 17:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a different concept from dual nationality (the previous discussion), it is to do with players representing a national team who were born outside that country (in this case, the Australia national soccer team). This is quite a notable (and sometimes controversial) subject, eg1 English cricket, eg2 English football, eg3 Scottish football, eg4 USA soccer. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have thought there was a category for this, and thought that such would be sufficient, but I see that a) there doesn't appear to be one and b) the subject, as Jmorrison says, may be worth some discussion more than a mere list of names. Keep and add discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - OK, I can kinda see what you're saying, so why not expand it for all nations? A cross between the old, deleted list and this one, and make a list of all international players who were born in X but played for Y? GiantSnowman 12:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the idea in theory, but in practice it seems like it might be unwieldy - an article on foreign-born players for Australia alone encompasses a number of sections and dozens upon dozens of names. Perhaps if "country of origin" is discarded as a sorting mechanism and we just have "foreign-born players for Australia," "for England," etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it would - the 'List of association football players with dual nationality' article (which included all the non-internationals) was a manageable size if I recall correctly. Giant Snowman 20:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - similar articles exist such as List of England international footballers born outside of England and List of Wales international footballers born outside of Wales. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a few Scottish ones I believe as well. You're of course familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but those article are properly set out and have some kind of guideline/aim - this Australian one remains indiscriminate. Personally I'd be happy to see all of the article merged into one article, as I have suggested before. Giant Snowman 17:41, 2 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, Drmies (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - One artical would be easier to maintain and would group the information together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaya Silva (talk • contribs) 13:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it with what? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means create a new article which lists all nationalities. Giant Snowman 09:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If kept or merged, I would urge that -- per WP:LISTPEOPLE -- all entries that do not have a wp article, and that do not have independent RS refs supporting their notability and their fitting the criteria of this list, be deleted.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The topic of footballers representing countries other than their own might merit some sort of article, but surely it makes no sense to duplicate the debate on multiple different countries? DaveApter (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, merge it with which article? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, create a new article which lists all nationalities in one place. Giant Snowman 13:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No clear criteria for inclusion. Not referenced from a source (does such an article exist?). Primary research. External links do not furnish further information on visitors. Four existing references do not support such an article. Provided lists of players do little further than enabling primary research. At least List of England international footballers born outside of England and List of Wales international footballers born outside of Wales have clear inclusion criteria. If they don't merit their own articles, they can be sent to AfD as well... Cloudz 679 21:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article already has inclusion criteria: footballers who have played for the Australian national team, who were born outside Australia, but if need be text can be added in the intro clarifying matters. Eldumpo (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems reasonable to have a list showing foreign-born Australians as ethnicity and birth are often discussed, given the association of the game in Australia with immigrants e.g. see [28]. Whilst there is no reason to suggest any of the entries are incorrectly listed, I would be happy for all unsourced entries to be removed from the list. Given the relative length of the list I can't see the merit in trying to merge with other countries. Also, this kind of list already exists for other countries. Eldumpo (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is decided to be kept I think it should be renamed in the 'List of...' format e.g. List of Australia international footballers born outside of Australia. Eldumpo (talk) 09:18, 25 January 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. Ged UK 15:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chadarangam[edit]

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

The game described is the same as Chess, and this page only provides a glossary (which Wiktionary might by more suitable for). The content under "Significance of these pieces" could possibly added to the Chaturanga page, but the content here does not merit an article of its own. SundaraRaman (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SundaraRaman, should there be a link to this AfD on the article page? (Can't find one.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SundaraRaman, will you also notify the page creator (User:Bsskchaitanya) of the AfD? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise the article creator of the existence of the AfD! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is the same as chess except that stalemate is a win and there is no mention of castling, en passant, or promotion (chess). The article needs a good reference too. It is not in the book The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants by D. B. Pritchard, and I would expect it to be there if it was valid. So I'm not sure if it should be deleted, but I am leaning toward Delete. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Besides the ECV book above, I checked two books on the history of chess and four chess encyclopedias, and "Chadarangam" isn't in any of them. It may be there under a different name. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I couldn't find it in Murray's History of Chess, either (nor Bell's Board and Table Games, nor Falkener's Games Ancient and Oriental, nor Gollon's Chess Variations Ancient, Regional and Modern). All that seems like justification to toss the article, but to me it just makes the info—if can be adequately sourced—more special! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are different books than the ones I checked, so there was no overlap, so at least 11 books that were likely to have it, don't have it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well organized and detailed; the author is a Veteran IV Editor, and an engineer. A "Telugu/Andhra" Chaturanga variant would indeed be a cut of esoteric stock, and am not surprised at all it didn't make Pritchard's ECV, but its absence there does not mean it is invalid. The article has a ref, I agree the ref should be improved, but again this is a rare bird so is it possible that a better ref does not even exist?! IMO the article seems an esoteric piece of chess history, and so it would be a shame to throw it in the WP wastebin. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a suggestion in the article that the king can make a one-time knight move. The article contains bits & pieces of historical Telugu context, so it is more than just containing terms. There are exact redundancies to chess in the article too, so perhaps those parts could be simplified using simple reference to chess, leaving differences to chess as the article's content. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editor Ihardlythinkso is much more knowledgeable about chess variants than I am, so his opinion should be highly respected. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to be included in the article Indian chess. Stubbleboy 03:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:39, 16 January 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. Clear agreement that it does not satisfy the GNG. WilliamH (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theforumsite[edit]

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

Declined CSD, carted out here for public flogging/redemption. A large webforum doesn't meet WP:GNG by virtue of being large alone. No secondary coverage or WP:RS and well, its only claim to fame is being big which whilst a nice thing doesn't really make it notable. tutterMouse (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are literally no secondary sources that would show notability. It's very briefly mentioned in a book called The Social Media Bible as an example, but it doesn't appear to be something that would show that it's notable enough to have its own wiki entry. [29] (It doesn't help that the entry isn't encyclopedically written.) The current sources on the page are not considered to be reliable sources as they're either primary sources from the website itself or alexa rankings, which are more trivial sources than anything. Also, considering that their 1% claim is coming from a search that's around 1,460,000,000 pages, it's not really all that impressive when you consider that most of the links come from the site, spam websites that will copy whatever you type in, and other things that generally don't count towards notability. (Besides, Ghits don't count towards notability.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete Notability neither claimed nor verifiable. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:28, 21 January 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. Ged UK 14:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Longest concert by a solo artist[edit]

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

Article about a record first held by a non-notable person (who appears to have created the article: COI), and currently held by another non-notable person. Nothing encyclopedic. Wikipedia should not become a copy of the Guinness Book of Records. Has been prodded, seconded, and de-prodded. PamD 09:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual records like this aren't really that notable and equate to a good-news story at best. As per the nom, we shouldn't become a copy of the GBoR. Lugnuts (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Klein zach 03:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – There appears to be some precedent for this style of article, see Category:World records. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:07, 17 January 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. Wifione ^Message 06:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mubashar Ahmed Khan[edit]

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

This subject is not the subject of in-depth coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party sources. His position of deputy prison administrator does not help to establish notability under existing guidelines. Speedy deletion was contested. Redirecting was also attempted, but reverted. Since the content and subject are not encyclopedic, and the subject is not mentioned elsewhere, the article should be deleted. Below is the text of the original nomination, improperly posted. JFHJr (㊟) 07:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not cite any sources to prove its notability per WP:Notability and appears to be merely a directory entry. There are hundreds thousands prison administrators throughout the world yet Wikipedia does not keep separate articles on each of them.--FourDaysLife (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur, not notable. Babakathy (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 16 January 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. Despite initial concern, consensus emerged that there is available non-trivial coverage. WilliamH (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flemming Rule[edit]

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

Another hopelessly malformed/WP:QUOTEFARMed stub, on another minor aspect of the (now-defunct) Aid to Families with Dependent Children (the creator already has another AFDC article under AfD -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man out of the house (welfare rule)). No indication that this 'rule' merits a separate article. Sources cited are typically of low quality, and do not offer much in the way of "significant coverage" of the topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but ensure material transferred to Aid to Families with Dependent Children - broader topic comes up under criticism. Babakathy (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest taking a close look at the reliability of the sources before transferring material. Only one source looks particularly reliable. And for that one source the "material" is simply a verbatim quotation of the article abstract. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More sources have been added to the article, see below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not suffeciently notable for its own page.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is supposed to depend on available sources rather than the ones currently in the article - so I'm rather wondering whether anyone so far has looked at the GBooks results. On just the first page, [30], [31], [32], [33] and [34] all look like usable reliable sources. PWilkinson (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bar is generally set rather higher where the topic is a subtopic of an existing article, and thus where (if a moderate amount of additional sourcing is found) a subsection of that article would be more appropriate than a stub. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would say there is a good chance this article could be improved to where it makes sense to keep it. The Flemming rule is a notable concept,[35][36][37][38] not just a minor thing to mention within the discussion of AFDC. The article needs improvement however, perhaps a passing admin will consider relisting this discussion to allow improvement to occur in the next 7 days.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a "term of art" in the government welfare jargon. Others have specified many reliable sources here. A good start, but please add some of them to the article as inline citations.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've cleaned up/rewritten the article, removing copyvio problems in which prose was verbatim copy/pasted from sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The following sources have been added to the article:

Jackson, Sondra Jackson; Brissett-Chapman, Sheryl (1999). "Serving African American children: child welfare perspectives". New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Retrieved January 23, 2012. ISBN 0765804344
Babb, Linda Anne (1999). Ethics in American Adoption. Westport, Conn.: Bergin & Garvey. pp. 51-52. Retrieved January 23, 2012. Flemming Rule. ISBN 089789538X
Ward, Deborah E (2005). "The White welfare state : the racialization of U.S. welfare policy". Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Retrieved January 23, 2012. ISBN 0472114557

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An historical term and concept that has received significant coverage in reliable, tertiary book sources and journals. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:52, 23 January 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 (perhaps well-reflected in the words "potentially notable") that the subject is not notable and is crystal balling. WilliamH (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Master in Entrepreneurship and Innovation (MEI), Luxembourg Business Academy (LBA)[edit]

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

Although the articloe is well-writted, no claim is made to notability - the article describes one among many degrees offered by the University of Luxembourg. I do not see how indiviual Master degree programmes can be notable. I note that there is only one such in Category:Master's degrees. The article does not suggest this programme is especially notable (and a quick websearch did not flag anything famous about it). Babakathy (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The topic is at least potentially notable, given the scarcity of formal education programs for entrepreneurship. As it stands it's a pretty weak article, but it was only created a month ago. Why don't we give it a few months to see if it can be developed into something worthwhile? DaveApter (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I cannot find any substantial coverage on the web to demonstrate notability per overall guidelines. Not sure that is likely to change. Babakathy (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - surely this is just an WP:ADVERT? Fmph (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest that the article name is toooooooo long Fmph (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and by extension, WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 22:38, 23 January 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) -- Lear's Fool 14:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows To Go[edit]

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

I don't think this individual feature deserves its own article. So either have this deleted (it's mentioned in other Windows 8 articles already) or merged. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, the subject's notability is clearly established, by multiple, reliable, high-quality sources, even with entire articles dedicated to it (Ars Technica ZDNet Computerworld Softpedia and many others). Regarding being just a "feature", this feature has received very high acclaim from the media, and also extensive coverage. I also think "being mentioned in other articles" does not in any way conflict with the existence of an article, in fact, being mentioned in other articles only shows this is a relevant topic. --SF007 (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but we didn't write an article on Windows 8's picture passwords either (even though that clearly was notable).Jasper Deng (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe, there might be one later. WP:NOTFINISH. mabdul 11:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but there are countless articles on individual Windows features. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh and I miss: please also delete then privacy mode, access key, Ribbon (computing) and other articles (likely all of ((GUI widgets)). mabdul 15:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep feature supported by reliable references. Sufficiently different to warrant a short article. The picture passwords also deserve an article so the absence of articles proves nothing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, Keep per my comment above. mabdul 11:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: though I would prefer this being merged to Live USB, it will definitely have its article, as it has already enough specific coverage. Thus I wouldn't break the natural order of events for WP:SNOW reasons. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pizza1016 (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TheGeekHead (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kate McGill[edit]

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

A Singer/Songwriter. A "YouTube star" who just self-released her first album. Unable to find any reliable sources that contain significant coverage about her. Fails WP:MUSICBIO Bgwhite (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plymouth Herald and BBC Radio Devon coverage supplemented by the story by the ANI wire agency, which was picked up by all sorts of outlets, including the national tabloid the Daily Star.[p.10] She's also mentioned in the Guardian story "YouTube's hidden stadium-fillers".[39] 86.44.31.213 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Plymouth Herald is the only valid reference that is mentioned. But, it must be taken with a grain of salt as that is her hometown paper. The BBC Radio Devon references was removed from the article as it was a direct copy of her Wikipedia article... The BBC ref even said the source was Wikipedia. The Daily Star has been deemed not a reliable reference. The Guardian reference to her is exactly 1/2 of one sentence and the article is not about her. Sources must be reliable and contain significant coverage in order to pass WP:GNG Bgwhite (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to her coverage on Radio Devon, such as [40]. The Star is one example of an outlet that covered the wire story, an example with massive circulation. Saying The Star is unreliable doesn't cut it in this case. The Guardian mention is not meant to stand alone, but goes towards notability. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I KNOW KATE AND SHE IS WELL FAMOUS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rw121 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 14 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) 05:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep About 25 articles mentioned her, some specifically written about her, including an Asian neespaper, the Sun and the Daily Mirror. for eg "Brit star has 22m YouTube song hits" The Sun, 23 September 2011, 151 words, By DAN SALES and "Kate weaves her web of wonder" The Daily Mirror, 23 September 2011, 224 words, GAVIN MARTIN, Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the above, she is apparently "well famous". Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:45, 16 January 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. To Sardr8: Unfortunately, I could not see any sources listed out by you. Please list the references you have found on my talk page; if they seem reliable, I'll restore this BLP. Right now deleting, pending confirmation from Sardr8 Wifione ^Message 06:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abid Tamimi[edit]

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

No references, has been tagged since 2009 Darkness Shines (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:12, 9 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) 05:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are several results shown for this Urdu, Punjabi and Saraiki language poet when his name is searched in the native language Urdu. YouTube also has some clips of this poet. I'm siding for a weak keep since there is some evidence to verify this person's notability as a poet. Sardr8 (talk) 08:59, 17 January 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daily-Update Publishers[edit]

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

It fails WP:N ,WP:ORG the article is clearly promotional and created by users with a conflict of interest. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Entries in a bunch of directories does not suffice. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 13 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) 05:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 20 January 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 that this is original research. WilliamH (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation and neocolonialism[edit]

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

Appears to be OR. Reads like a college essay, arguing a thesis not made by any of the sources. LK (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: concur with nominator.Babakathy (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom. Interesting thesis though. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, original research. But the thesis is interesting. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - interesting, but OR. If neeeded to preserve a search term, redirect to Neocolonialism. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 23 January 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. Nomination withdrawn Drmies (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Run[edit]

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

Does not strike me as a notable game. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support to KEEPING - Do realize the world does not revolve around you. Also, I see people playing it at school, a lot. --J (t) 04:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the personal insults out of it. Also, please address the argument using evidence. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

->[41] <- Proof from iTunes. Do you need a SHA-512 hash with that?!--J (t) 04:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Clerk, it's not a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<nowiki>*</nowiki> SIGH * never mind, I'll find a source. --J (t) 05:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<--You could point at this one, for instance. Nomination withdrawn: there's some reliable hits in Google News. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 16 January 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. Fails WP:COMPOSER and general notability guideline. WilliamH (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khadija Zeynalova[edit]

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

Non-notable music grad student. Lacks third party coverage; also apparently an autobiography. Undeleted after PROD deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Composer. Article and web searches produce non-substantial coverage by non-WP:RS sources of non-notable performances by non-notable ensembles in non-notable venues. Fails WP:COMPOSER and WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:COMPOSER.Babakathy (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 16 January 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MerchantTribe[edit]

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

A contested prod. This is basically a non-notable piece of software. Guerillero | My Talk 07:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the discussion page and would like feedback from Guerillero — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmcconnell1618 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Looking through the Google results, I don't believe they exist. Msnicki (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, BVSoftware (and BV Commerce) are undergoing branding changes to MerchantTribe. If you are currently only searching for MerchantTribe you may not find all of the links. Click on any of the BVSoftware.com and BVCommerce.com links and you'll see that they 301 to MerchantTribe.com. --Mmcconnell1618 (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I failed to find anything viable about the software, though I'm not sure about the origins and kinds of coverage that would make a software of a kind notable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another e-commerce solution that is ASP.NET MVC based with a MS SQL database advertising on Wikipedia. No, we don't have to give it two weeks to be translated into English. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:16, 16 January 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 Outlandish. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waqas Ali Qadri[edit]

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

While this singer exists, I can't find sufficient substantial rs coverage of him to meet our notability requirements. Epeefleche (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - 24 Google News hits. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are such gnews hits; what we need is substantial, non-passing, non-trivial, independent RS coverage of the singer (qua singer; not just "x is a singer in band x"). A band may be notable, without its members being individually notable. Zero gbooks hits. Zero gscholar hits.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both the singer and the band Outlandish are major in Denmark. The search Waqas Ali Qadri site:dr.dk on Google will give you 20 hits, just on the National Danish Television website. --VicVal (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it just be redirected to Outlandish tho? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody contributes any more material, it might just as well. Didn't wanted to comment on the article itself, merely on the notion on notability. --VicVal (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As to the notability here, I was simply using the term in regard to whether it warranted a stand-alone article. If the consensus is to redirect to the band, I have no objection to that.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outlandish. Most or all of the subject's notability is dependent on the group. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be reasonable, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Outlandish - even though Outlandish is a band and not an organization, I still believe that the principle of no inherited notability applies. --Heb (talk) 14:41, 17 January 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. Wifione ^Message 06:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R3hab[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG sources provided only have passing mention of artist. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 04:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Benefit of the doubt on this one. There are a lot of ghits. A lot of them are not in English and a lot of them may not be entirely RS, but seems to be notable in his field. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:56, 29
I added the MTV link, which seems to me like it should be a good source (and the page does feature the artist prominently). If this isn't enough, I'd like to learn why (as a noobpedian). Foomandoonian (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011 (UTC)

Delete I can't find any third party sources that could be used to keep this one. —Ed!^(talk) 00:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 20:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:45, 16 January 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. userfied.... Wifione ^Message 06:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaiyyanism[edit]

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

Not a notable current organization, nor a notable ancient religious branch. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added some links and a bibliography. The fact that someone has bothered to set up a website critiquing Aaiyyanism is interesting. I suspect most of the links will be in Hindi etc, not in English. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The definition of what is a notable organisation or religious branch is subjective - there does seem to be lots of links if you google Aaiyyanism (32,300 results). I was brought up an Aaiyyanist Hindu (though I have left now) and know many people who were Aaiyyanists. It is not as widely known as the Hari Krishna movement partly because they are fairly [secretive]. Prominent members and ex-members include [Swami VenPuravi Aadhavan] and the Artist [D. Udaiyan]. Yogaraman (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In reply to Chiswick Chap, Aaiyyanism is a Dravidian Hindu religion - so any critisism would probably be in Tamil/Telegu or one of the Southern Languages of India - though saying that English is one of the official languages of India. Yogaraman (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can find any reliable sources in any language, please list them here or add them to the article. I had a look in English and had difficulty finding anything usable, but I'm glad to hear you think you can locate some in Tamil, Kannada or whatever. There is no language preference here, and it's not a matter of official languages but actually finding usable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not notable. There are no reliable sources. If this religion is 3000 years old - there would be proof, and lots of it. This article might not be a hoax, but it is indeed non-notable OR - and should thus be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party, reliable references. Most google search results are wikipedia mirrors or Aaiyyan World Foundation-related links. Notability and reliability of Aaiyyan World Foundation as well as Siddharthain, D (who wrote the critique) are questionable. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In reply to my response and others, Aaiyyanism is actually a Dravidian Hindu sect not a seperate religion in itself - so apologies for that confusion. I'll try to add some references now from the books I have at home, but having a quick glance they seem to be written by Aaiyyanists or published by the Aaiyyan World Foundation Press. Maybe a merger with hindu sects or hindu denominations could be considered. Yogaraman (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, i've addded some references. I'm an ex-Aaiyyanist so have got rid of most of the books but still had a few in the attic. There isn't much web information i could find. The only independent book was one written by an ex cult member. Maybe a merger with Hindu Demoninations may be an option. I know we only have a limited time to debate this but i could try to contact some Aaiyyanist relatives and get them to update the wiki or give me some more refs? Yogaraman (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are No third-party, reliable references. I suggest that Yogaraman work on this on a userfied page until he can find reliable sources. Until then, the page should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (speak) 20:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes I agree with Ism schisms last comment. It is reasonable for this page to be deleted for the time being or even merged with Hindu demoninations until I find reliable 3rd party sources. In the meantime I will work on this on a userfied page. Hope that is ok to end the discussion? Yogaraman (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yogaraman wrote: "In the meantime I will work on this on a userfied page" - Of course I need to be an administrator to do this as I don't have the priveledges to move the page. Maybe Ism schisms can help me and then delete the original entry. Yogaraman (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are there any variations in spelling or translation? What is the Hindi (or other Indic script) to search for? Osiris (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osiris (temp) (talk • contribs) [reply]

No, it is a religious group that is not notable. Aside from there personal website, there are no reliable third party reliable sources. As such, and as the creator of the article has agreed to - the article should be deleted and userfied. Please see the discussion above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy as per Ism schism. It is time this was brought to a close. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:23, 21 January 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. Wifione ^Message 06:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 NECC ITF International Women's Tournament[edit]

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

This is a small $25000 ITF tournament, so doesn't meet the tournament notability guidelines used by Wikiproject Tennis, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines.

I am also nominating the following related pages because [content forks of the main article]:

2011 NECC ITF International Women's Tournament – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 12:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a contested ProD. Just one of the 40+ such articles I prodded recently. Clearly fails NTENNIS guidelines. I am willing to change my mind if anybody can bring independent reliable 3rd party sources that show this event qualifies via WP:GNG. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 23:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Similar $25k tournaments in AfD have meanwhile resulted in nearly anonymous deletes : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 AEGON GB Pro-Series Foxhills, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Zubr Cup, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Trofeul Popeci, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Enka Cup, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Internazionali Femminili di Tennis MakeSense64 (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this discussion is closed as no consensus, than I will speedy renominate the articles per WP:NPASR. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 09:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully it will be softdeleted. With all these other AfD discussions for $25k tournaments having been clear concensus deletes, it would be really weird to keep just this one. It may also help the closing admin to know that recent discussion on WP:TENNIS confirmed the concensus to not have these $25k tournament articles, see; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Woman ITF 25k tournaments. MakeSense64 (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per wikiproject tennis guidelines cited by MakeSense64. Cloudz 679 07:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above deletes.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Consensus pointing to LauraHale's comments that this satisfies the general notability guideline. WilliamH (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway on the Mall[edit]

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

I found no notability for this mall. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It passes GNG based on the following list of sources:
Interstate fund managers swoop on CBD icons, Courier Mail, The (Brisbane, Australia) - May 27, 2011, Length: 389 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)

CBD's empty retail spaces filling fast, Courier Mail, The (Brisbane, Australia) - January 6, 2012, Length: 349 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)

Shopgirl with Reshni Ratnam, Brisbane City News (Australia) - August 4, 2011, Length: 347 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)

WHERE IS Y?, Courier Mail, The (Brisbane, Australia) - December 17, 2011, Length: 154 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

Year of uncertainty looms over property, Courier Mail, The (Brisbane, Australia) - December 16, 2011, Length: 794 words (Estimated printed pages: 3)

Tired Corner shapes up as an inner-city hotspot, Courier Mail, The (Brisbane, Australia) - November 18, 2011, Length: 481 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)

Show of STRENGTH, Brisbane News (Australia) - October 19, 2011, Length: 115 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

Big interest in Nerang Mall, Courier Mail, The (Brisbane, Australia) - October 14, 2011, Length: 161 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

STYLE COUNSEL, QWeekend Magazine (Brisbane, Australia) - August 27, 2011,Length: 279 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

A search through "Newsbank, Australian Newspaper" for "Broadway on the Mall" in quotes pulls up over 800 unique results, with extensive coverage in a number of articles. I can provide a more comprehensive list if required.--LauraHale (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all local news. All malls have local news coverage. What makes this notable? SL93 (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

urm, that is the best you're going to get! What do you want? A sources from overseas? If so, you're not going to get them. Maybe the same should happen to the other mall articles? Bidgee (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said overseas. How about outside of Brisbane? SL93 (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get snappy with other editors. And FYI, local news is not grounds for notability. Taken directly from WP:ORG: attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane is the third biggest city in Australia. One of the newspapers cited there are the biggest newspaper in the city, and it can be picked up in cities around the country. (I can find it in several shops in Canberra.) Easily appears to pass WP:GNG based on the criteria listed on WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Brisbane is the third most populous city in Australia. "Largest" is ambiguous and subject to debate. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has the third most populous city in Australia. If it makes you feel better to have it worded more clearly, then awesome. The largest newspaper in the third most populous city in the country is pretty much a national newspaper in the context that most major newsagents around the country will carry it. It should not be considered purely local. The coverage is still substantial and pretty overwhelming. We're not talking 5 or 10. We're talking over 880 mentions, some of which talk about the mall extensively because of the Queensland flooding that forced it to briefly closed and a host of other reasons.--LauraHale (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Events (such as floods) which take place at malls do not make the malls notable. That is considered a trivial mention, and the GNG requires more than a trivial mention (see WP:SIGCOV). Till I Go Home (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be nominating everything in Category:Shopping_malls_in_Iowa, Category:Shopping_malls_in_Guam and Category:Shopping_malls_in_Idaho for deletion soon right? They almost ALL rely on local sources. And you are correct. One flood does not make them notable. Significant coverage of them in multiple sources that covers them extensively does. The sources do cover the mall for several different events and talk about the mall on their own. The coverage is extensive with over 800 different sources. --LauraHale (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as I live in Australia I mostly nominate Australian shopping centres for deletion. Just because there are over 800 different sources does not mean that it is significant coverage. While not a guideline itself, WP:NPLACE states that "larger malls are generally considered notable. Very small malls, strip malls and individual shops are generally deleted". Till I Go Home (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per articles by LauraHale, this easily passes GNG. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 05:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LauraHale which shows that it meets WP:GNG. The article needs work but it doesn't need to be deleted. Bidgee (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Dan arndt (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non notable shopping mall. The editors above are simply linking to the GNG and saying that the mall meets this guideline, although that isn't true. The GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, in which the sources above are merely local coverage, and local coverage does not establish notability. I found nothing of significance in multiple, reliable sources. [42]. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times sources to denote notability for anything in Chicago? What about the New York Times? Would the NYT be an acceptable source for helping to establish notability in New York? --LauraHale (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to all of those is no. SL93 (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Other sources that mention it outside Brisbane include The Age, The Age, Sydney Morning Herald also on Canberra Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney Morning Herald. Featured in the article "ISPT buys Brisbane's Broadway" in the journal Australasian Business Intelligence. Again, article about it in "Players take leading role on Broadway" in the journal Australasian Business Intelligence. Mentioned in The Australian, a national newspaper, Mentioned again in The Australian. --LauraHale (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your arguments are the most convincing for a delete result. You have essentially recounted everything that I said regarding trivial mentions, by using the word 'mentioned'. These articles are doing just that, mentioning, with no in-depth coverage of the mall. Again, these links you have provided are trivial, (i.e. they report on floods which took place there, fashion retail etc.) and they have nothing to do with the actual mall itself (eg. when it was built, refurbishments, anniversaries etc.) Till I Go Home (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While it is true that the article does need extensive work done on it, Broadway on the Mall (which is situated between Adelaide Street and Queen Street Mall), is an important shopping centre in Brisbane. Figaro (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being "an important shopping centre in Brisbane" is not a reason for keeping an article. Significant coverage in reliable sources, however, is a valid reason for keeping an article, in which case Broadway does not have. Till I Go Home (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 800 different secondary sources are enough for me to support a claim of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by LauraHale. Some of the arguments to delete being made here are laughably feeble. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep — There are enough reliable sources to establish notability. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:55, 23 January 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 Japanese castle. A definite measure of agreement to redirect now that the content has been merged. WilliamH (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chikujou[edit]

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

Unsourced non notable martial arts related dictionary definition, which does not justify a self-standing article, as per WP:NOTDIC Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete:I concur, no evidence of this as a notable activity/practice after web search. Suggest fails WP:GNG. Babakathy (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tentative keep~~ changed !vote; see below I'd urge caution on this. A science of fortification definitely existed in feudal Japan, and there's scope for an article on it. The term "chikujo-jutsu" or "chikujo-soshiki" were used (cf. Draeger and Smith) to refer to it, although I'm struggling to find extensive exposition of the topic in English under that title. It may also be worth searching for sources in Japanese, per WP:NONENG; sadly my command of the language is insufficient to do so. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The book by Draeger and Smith has a dictionary type reference to a word spelled as "chikujo-jutsu (technique of fortification)" thats it, no other information, it may be a real term but does that make it notable or noteworthy? How can you make a stand alone article on a term and its definition, this term maybe could be included in an article about martial arts terms but it does not stand the test as article material by itself. Here is a link to the book by Draeger Comprehensive Asian fighting arts‎, Donn F. Draeger, Robert W. Smith - 1980

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking we might be able to write a decent article on Japanese castle fortification, but on reflection, there really doesn't seem to be much more than passing mentions knocking about that use this particular term. A better option might be a ~~Merge with redirect~~ to Japanese castle. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done the merge, such as it was (one sentence and two refs), so Delete and redirect to Japanese castle. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yunshui, good compromise, I think that a few of these type of martial arts terms could find a place in already existing articles. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Japanese castle The content has already been moved, so a redirect seems reasonable. Papaursa (talk) 01:55, 23 January 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nagamonojutsu[edit]

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

Unsourced non notable martial arts related dictionary definition, which does not justify a self-standing article, as per WP:NOTDIC Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Unreferenced definition. All the hits I'm finding seem to be WP mirrors/knock-offs. Notability not established.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:I concur, no evidence of this as a notable activity/practice after web search. Suggest fails WP:GNG. Babakathy (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete No sources, plus the term itself appears to be nonsensical; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagamono. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:20, 16 January 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heihou[edit]

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

Unsourced non notable martial arts related dictionary definition, which does not justify a self-standing article, as per WP:NOTDIC Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eight months as an unreferenced definition is long enough. This seems to be just the Japanese word for "strategy". Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:I concur, no evidence of this as a notable activity/practice after web search. Better than some of these but still fails WP:GNG. Babakathy (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC):Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Heihou[reply]

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

~~Weak keep~~ changed !vote, see below Searching Googlebooks under "heiho" (the more common romanisation) gives quite a few results; I've even encountered this term myself a number of times. There's an article to be written here; I'll have a crack at it. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out it's also a term for Japanese military auxiliaries, which is going to need a whole separate article. Hey ho... Yunshui 雲‍水 11:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I've changed my mind on this one as well. Let's just delete and redirect to Military strategy. As a term, "heiho" is really only interesting for the "heiho is heiho" pun and for being Miyamoto Musashi's preferred term for "strategy" in the Go rin no sho. It doesn't merit an article, per WP:NOTDIC. The Japanese auxiliaries can be dealt with under Military history of Japan, if needs be. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It just appears to be a dictionary term. I can't see any content worth redirecting. Papaursa (talk) 01:57, 23 January 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angou[edit]

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

Unsourced non notable martial arts related dictionary definition, which does not justify a self-standing article, as per WP:NOTDIC Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:I concur, no evidence of this as a notable activity/practice after web search. Suggest fails WP:GNG. Babakathy (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC):Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Angou[reply]

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

Delete Concur with nominator; I can't find a single source using this term (or the more likely spelling "ango"). Yunshui 雲‍水 10:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article with no indication of notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:58, 23 January 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. Wifione ^Message 05:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jouhou Kaishuu[edit]

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

Unsourced non notable martial arts related dictionary definition, which does not justify a self-standing article, as per WP:NOTDIC Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jouhou Kaishuu

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

Delete No reliable sources found under this or any alternate spelling (aside from a listing in an Italian martial arts dictionary, totaly inadequate for WP:GNG). Yunshui 雲‍水 10:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Espionage. I, too, had no luck finding sources that mention "jouhou kaishuu" as one of the bugei juhappan, either in English or in Japanese (with the exception of the aforementioned Italian martial arts dictionary). However, as the article says, this is phrase means "intelligence-gathering", and it is still in use in Japan today. I think it is just about possible that people may search for the term, so I would prefer a redirect to outright deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources in English that support notability for this phrase--much of what I found was wiki mirrors. The article itself is unsourced. As written the article appears to be a dictionary term and, possibly, original research. I don't know if the term is notable or common in Japanese. Papaursa (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary definition. --DAJF (talk) 23:25, 23 January 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kakushi Buki Jutsu[edit]

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

Unsourced non notable martial arts related dictionary definition, which does not justify a self-standing article, as per WP:NOTDIC Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:I concur, definition rather than activity/practice after web search. Suggest fails WP:NOTDIC. Babakathy (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC):Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Kakushi Buki Jutsu[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Kakushi Buki Jutsu

Delete With the exception of a self-published book containing a passing mention, and an advert in the classifieds of an old edition of Black Belt Magazine, I've found no sources whatsoever - certainly nothing which would enable this to meet WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article that fails to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Fastily as "‎(A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Yabusame)". Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kyuba[edit]

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

Unsourced non notable martial arts related dictionary definition, which does not justify a self-standing article, as per WP:NOTDIC Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy delete per WP:A10 - we already have an article on Yabusame. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per CSD G7 Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Lee Graham[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail WP:GNG. A Google search brings up nothing of note on the subject. Article is an autobiography. PROD was declined by an IP that is likely the author. Safiel (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are 16 references on the page. 7 to the subjects website. 9 do not mention the subject. Notability not established. Given that someone has spent some time putting this together I'm guessing that the reliable sources aren't out there. Happy to be proved wrong, as always. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commment by article creator I went and fixed, and your group deleted, if you allow me to add, as it say, I will complete as needed. Andy Lee Graham (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Self-sourced and pretty clearly promotional in intent. None of the best 4 links in the footnotes (National Geographic, NY Times, Forbes, Guardian) seem to have hits for the word "Graham." Not seeing anything in a cursory Google search. Carrite (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by article creator I put up more references, and fixed, and they delete them.

Read the sites I am listed on, and try to understand what it means to nomadically travel for 13 year. I put: | ALTERNATIVE NAMES = Andy the HoboTraveler.com

IYou are searching for Andy Graham, and if you look at the page, it as for a second name. I have always called myself Andy the HoboTraveler.com in my last 6000 post. I have refused interviews, and only in the last year have my photo on the net. While the promoters "Travel Blogger" who have not went to Iraq, Haiti, or 90 countries, but twitter are consider notable.

I am the longesst running travelogue blogger on the planet 2003 until now, 6000 plus post, and 2000 photo. I am the longest running perpetual traveler on the planet, starting in 2003, and to put on the links coming to the pages seem silly until there is a page.

NatGeo TV will interview me shortly, and if you look at the list my Blog is listed on, they all have editors. NatGeo, Forbes.com, About.com Frommers Budget Travel.

It appears that writing about travel is important, but real extreme travel is not. I have done both, I have done the extreme travel and also written about it, my mistake is not wanting "Travel Writers" writing about me, because they fudge the fact and want to romantisize the truth. I am in the Dominican Republic right now, before I go to Nigeria and travel by land to South Africa. The travel blogger, such as Gary Arnt are in the USA, while I am a real traveler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Arndt

Note, the list of pages where I am listed as "Top Travel Blogger," alone should make you aware who I am in the world of travel blogger, I am the top, number one. Using a google.com search is not a the way to research, when I give you the references.

I was at the Wikipedia.org convention in Frankfurt, when invited by the Harvard group of Bloggers.

I see you have a problem with me submitting, whether real or not real does not appear to be the fact finding mission, please allow me to expand.

And, if nothing else, then please delete "Twitter" experts from your list of Travel Bloggers, or include real traveler like me who are not self promoters, we only want to be associate with factual sites like Wikepedia.org. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Arndt

By the way, you guys need to include Gregory Hubbs from Transitions abroad, you deleted him, you did the same, he is by far even more prominent than me. Thanks for leaving Johnny Jet, another friend of mine who is an old timer like me. Andy Lee Graham (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Many more references added about extreme "Adventure Travel" and "Travel Writer", I can add another 100-200 if you want. I have not allowed people to interview me, therefore they normally just write about me as the source, the known expert, sage, etc, more or less the travelers consider me the old time expert, not something new to write about. I do not self-promote by doing interviews, but I have been traveling for 14 year, this means that google.com has put a lot of the first stuff in supplemental and not easy to find. Andy Lee Graham (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are now 42 sources. If you take out the subjects own website, sources that don't mention the subject, and user-generated content we are left with 1. That is a brief interview with a Swedish newspaper from March 2010. That however, is clearly a primary source, so still no evidence of notability. Article's creator seems to have copied the article directly onto his user page, which seems a bit odd to say the least. Also very obvious COI issues. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claims to notability under 'Awards and Accolades' are not reflected by the sources used. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant attempt to abuse Wikipedia by using it to publish a self-promotional vanity page on a subject which does not come anywhere near to satisfying any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Update. Another eleven sources, and still none of them are any use at all in establishing notability. And as JBW points out, it's a promotional article with no place on WP. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Lee Graham is the same as Andy the HoboTraveler.com as is HoboTraveler.com or the link http://www.hobotraveler.com/blogger.html (All are the same person, Andy Lee Graham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Lee Graham (talk • contribs) 17:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read a similar person who Wiki already sees as notable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Arndt

Please read Tim Leffel who wrote the Book Travel Writing 2.0 which is one of the references. http://travelwriting2.com/who-has-the-biggest-circulation-now/

Please remove anything that is not fact, or that is not used correctly. Andy Lee Graham (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Andy Graham is the original digital nomad. He set forth directly the lifestyle in 2000 that Matt Kepnes, Gary Arnt, and even myself, Wade Shepard of vagabondjoureny.com, copied and further innovated. He was one of the first to use travel blogging as a method of serious travel writing and to chronicle the day to day events of the world we live in. If other travel bloggers seem more "notability" than him its because Andy never tried to woo fame, opting instead to let his work do the talking for him. If ANY travel blogger/ writer deserves a page on WP it's him -- he's the guy we copied and emulated, he blazed the path so to speak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.133.157.76 (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Perhaps it might be best to post an article about Hobotraveler.com since this is much better known? I believe Andy has only 'revealed' his identity beyond the moniker 'Andy Hobotraveler.com' in the last year or two? I remember when I was planning my gap year, I found the tips and country information on Hobotraveler.com invaluable, and far more useful for practical information than anything on Lonelyplanet.com or even the actual guide book. I think there is a genuine need for an article about the website hobotraveler.com, and many of the 'accolades and awards' refer to this website. Such an article could mention that it was founded and is run/ about Andy Graham, but the key thing that is useful for an encyclopaedia is the actual work. Would this be a workable solution?

It is certainly the case that, among perpetual travelers and also among more casual tourists, 'hobotraveler.com' is a well known brand, and I have been surprised there wasn't already a page about the site on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is, for me, the repository of the world's knowledge, a kind of digital Alexandria, and so it should have information about things like this. I'm happy to lend a hand drafting something about hobotraveler.com if someone can start a page-in-progress? (EDIT: sorry, my session timed out and the previous comment did not show as signed).--Ashbeck001 (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC) — Ashbeck001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I believe in the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom, and helping my fellow man to learn of new worlds. What is happening here is pursuite of rules, this is the path the savvy traveler avoids. Andy Lee Graham (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged for CSD G7 per the author's blanking of the page three times and per the author's comment on his talk page. Safiel (talk) 23:20, 16 January 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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Torimono Dougu[edit]

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

Unsourced non notable martial arts related dictionary definition, which does not justify a self-standing article, as per WP:NOTDIC Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ see below Eight months is plenty of time for someone to come up with some sources, or viable content, or anything more than a definition. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Torimono Dougu

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

Keep with total rewrite There is no martial art with this name. However, "Torimono dogu" ("arresting tools") are covered in several books (Cunningham's Taiho-jutsu, most notably), and so there is scope for an article here. I'll try and do a bit of rewriting today and see if it can be made to stand up. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moved to the correct name as used by the reference (Torimono sandōgu), added image and text based on the reference, this is now a complete article that can be added to with additional information. Torimono sandōgu

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of improvements by Sam. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:24, 16 January 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. Some concern regarding conflict of interests and copyright, but agreement that there are versions which are not problematic, and that cleanup is the answer rather than deletion. WilliamH (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia University (Jordan)[edit]

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

A large amount of the text is copyvio from the university's web site: [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] I didn't search for the last few sections and it might be possible to save a few sections, but most parts of the article have to go away. Stefan2 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources not independent so notability not established. Plus conflict of interest "here at Philadelphia Faculty of Nursing, we are privileged to work...". plus blatant WP:COPYVIO which could be a G12 speedy. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just checked the history. This revision seems to be the last one without any copyvio at all. After that, the library section was added, but it might be the only copyvio until User:Philadelphia jordan started editing the article in December 2011. It might be possible to just delete a few recent revisions. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We would still have "it considered one of the best universities in Jordan" unsourced in lead. But really this should be a notable institution. If you strip out all the unsuitable material and leave a stub, that would be a step in the right direction. Hopefully someone will pay attention to what's happening here and do the whole thing properly.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The university exists and is presumptively notable, but all of the copyright-violating content has to go. I have already removed two sections' worth of material taken directly from the university web site. Wikipedia needs to take a third-party, neutral point of view toward the subject, not copy material from the subject's web site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but cleanup per Metropolitan90.Babakathy (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at [[52]] User:Philadelphia jordan claims to also own the official web site, suggesting that permission to grant the cc license and that material is not a copyvio. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's true, there's no copyvio, but there's still the conflict of interest problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, much needs to be deleted, but I cannot believe that people do not consider that a university with over 5,000 students is a viable topic for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't doubt that the university is notable, but I found an article with a lot of copyright violations and thought that I had to report it somewhere. Maybe it would have been better to report it somewhere else, though I'm not sure where. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You do know that stubs are perfectly acceptable? Just cut it down to a couple of sentences and it's a perfectly acceptable stub article. I've seen too many nominations of articles recently that just don't seem to acknowledge this glaringly obvious possibility. If it's a clearly notable subject then it doesn't need to be completely deleted just because it contains a load of rubbish or a copyvio. No need to even take it to AfD. Just cut it yourself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We can have an article on this topic, but what we have now is worse than having nothing. Given the substantial copyvios and the obvious COI shown above, the prose text is not safe to keep. Combine that with the fact that the rest of the article needs to be chopped (it's mostly lists of departments) and you're left with nothing that belongs here. When an article's current contents are trash and there's absolutely nothing that will be useful to a future rewriter, there is no benefit to keeping it, and when some of that trash is downright harmful, we benefit substantially by getting rid of it. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that the subject is notable but want to delete the article in order to clean it up? Saying "there's absolutely nothing that will be useful" seems extreme and, indeed, not quite correct. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As shown above there are versions of this article in its history that don't violate copyright, so, if the recent clean up hasn't already fixed the issue, we can simply revert to one of those versions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 22 January 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 Scrabble variants. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anagrab[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any significant coverage of this game in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scrabble variants, where it appears to be already listed. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scrabble variants, per J. Clemens. Good find of a target. Carrite (talk) 02:06, 16 January 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.