< 29 January	31 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Test (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Links into two articles, and one article merged. Not enough to populate. JJ98 (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep, seems a perfectly good disambiguation page. 3 different uses of the same term. Josh Parris
Delete Hatnote on top of Johnny Test page has been changed to reflect both the character and video game uses in addition by me, making a DAB page irrelevant. Nate • (chatter) 05:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and unnecessary. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as all three linked articles are related to the same television series, a disambiguation page is unnecessary per WP:CONCEPTDAB. R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:19, 31 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. Snow keep. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Democratic caucuses, 2012[edit]

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

Although the Republican Caucuses were notable, the Democratic Caucuses were not. Hence, an article is not justified. Victor Victoria (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I guess I'm not following the deletion argument here. Even assuming that the caucus served no function whatsoever (which the article seems to contradict), "notable" doesn't mean the same thing as "consequential"; Obama may have been a shoe-in but there was still a caucus and there is still coverage and it seems to me that omitting articles like this one just leaves us with gappy, incomplete coverage of the 2012 election. Would we decide not to cover any primary contest that has an overwhelming result? --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012. We can cover the caucus without giving it an article of its own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The caucus happened. People showed up. Just like we have articles for the Democratic primary process (and the Republican primary process) we have one for Iowa, since there is one for the Republicans. It provides equal weight, and there was notable coverage in mass media with the Obama web conference. If you want to create one for the 2004 Iowa Republican caucus feel free to do so. Calwatch (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything is sourced here and there's no harm in keeping this; people are going to be curious about what the other side polled despite Obama going unopposed, and the elections and caucuses do have a purpose in keeping their side occupied, even if there's nothing much to do now. Nate • (chatter) 06:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep not as newsworthy or exciting as the GOP's but perfectly notable. As for merging this is not too short an article, but merged with even a dozen others never mind 49 it would be too long.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep has references. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Caucuces for US president are always a notable fact.User:Lucifero4
Keep Meets WP:GNG and is reliably sourced. Merits stand-alone article.--JayJasper (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Recretion is possible if more turns up in independent reliable sources Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Operation White Gun[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:EVENT criteria. There is no depth of coverage: the only source of substance is an article in the LA Times. All other citations in the article are pages with brief mentions that link to the LAT as their source. A Google search showed me only one other (brief) mention of the subject from May. No duration of coverage and no diversity of sources. Editors with some knowledge of the topic may agree that, beyond subtext, there is no evidence that the subject is anything except a routine event. Aspects of WP:RECENT also apply. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 22:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the Google search I refer to concerns a Google news search for original information, not a general search which reveals sites using the LAT article as a source. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 22:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

article creator : merge I would support a mergeto the gunwalking scandal article, as was done with the fast and furious, while allowing for recreation if future coverage increases. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information I've seen that says this operation involved gunwalking, which makes it different from the operations in that article. It was more of a typical sting where an unknown number of guns (1? 50?) may have been lost. I'm not sure it belongs there at all, but certainly no more than a couple of sentences saying that it was looked at in the course of a congressional investigation. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 16:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable; A news search produces only a single Wikipedia-compliant reliable source, and that source asserts more speculation than fact at this time. If a significant story should develop around this subject, then it could be mentioned in an existing, related article. If it should then become notable enough to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, an article can be created for it. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Xenophrenic. We don't need an article for each newspaper story. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Sheena Smyth[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not meet the general notability guidelines. The article seems to have been created either to give some sort of inherited notability to Catalyst Arts or to inherit notability from it. Thee NI Arts Council site does not refer to the subject matter of the article. Research appears to show the "award" is the award of some form of grant. Grants are ten a penny, as the large spreadhseet showing them (downloadable from http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/award/recent/funding.htm as http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/award/recent/awards_previous_years.xls under shows - look how many were awarded). The history of the article appears also to show sock puppetry with Anirtak00 being a semi-palindrome of Katrina. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made this page Katrina Sheena Smyth I agree that it should be deleted. When I made the page I thought of it as a publicising/online biography - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anirtak00 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in view of the editor's comments above, might we move directly to speedy deletion by originator's request, please? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nominator says, the awards seem to be scholarships or payments of some sort. Smyth only graduated recently, so I wish her success, but maybe the article is WP:TOOSOON. Sionk (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per article creator's own admission above, it fails WP:NOTPROMOTION. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tenstrings Music Institute[edit]

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

article fails to establish notability - article fails WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:RS Amsaim (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Zero gnews hits, zero gbooks hits, and its website url returns this: "www.tenstringsmusicinstitute.org is currently UNAVAILABLE".--Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 22:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Their official site is at http://www.tenstrings.org/index.php and does resolve. However, there is no significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Waqar Younis[edit]

The result was Withdrawn. Mt king ^(edits) 21:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a mixture of Original research and a list of statistics that is a content fork of Waqar Younis. Mt king ^(edits) 22:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list that meets with all the criteria of WP:LIST. There is no content fork - this is an appropriate split to remove information too detailed for the main article, but still useful and encyclopedic, into a sub-article. Waqar Younis is one of the best bowlers in the history of cricket and the times he has taken 5 wickets in a innings is clearly notable. There is no OR problem at all - the list is easily generated on websites such as Cricinfo and would be published in any number of publications including Wisden Cricketers' Almanack and no doubt (although I haven't checked) his autobiography. Far from being indiscriminate, 5 wickets in an innings is a well-recognised achievement in cricket and generally seen as the bowlers equivalent of scoring a century. The achievement is recognised in its own right - see the table at List of Test cricket records#Individual records (bowling). At the risk of invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF, this is no different than the featured list List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I really don't have anything to add to what Mattinbgn says. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mattinbgn (talk) is right, there is no difference between this and featued articles like List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Ian Botham, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Anil Kumble, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Shane Warne and List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Wasim Akram.--Zia Khan (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable list with clear inclusion criteria, on a notable topic about a notable individual. Only one step away from becoming a featured list, as per this article. Lugnuts (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per the above. Obviously a list that is indistinguishable in this manner from several featured lists in content and scope is not OR, indiscriminate statistics, or an impermissible content fork, as those terms are understood by consensus. Hopefully the nominator will at least learn something new about cricket from this experience; I know I have. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 31 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. Fram (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Kimpton[edit]

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

Article is mostly unsourced, is potentially libellous in places, does not fully establish notability of the subject (some unreferenced statements could establish this if referenced), appears to have been mostly edited by one editor whom I suspect to be the subject from his username and in-depth knowledge of the subject and (self-)promotional language. Halsteadk (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked in this area of the U.K. music business for many years and I find the content of this article to be largely accurate from first hand experience and I can add further evidence to support it. http://www.savoy.abel.co.uk/HTML/blue.html for instance and http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_9?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=lee+benfell&sprefix=lee+benfe%2Cstripbooks%2C413 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.107.13 (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Here is another reference to George Kimpton from Wikipedia itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Waterman_Entertainment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.107.13 (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies. As the mention of George Kimpton was added into the Pete Waterman Entertainment article by the same editor who has almost single-handedly edited the George Kimpton article, I don't see that this adds anything to your argument for notability. diff This is aside from the fact that Wikipedia cannot source itself (even if it had been written by someone different). Accurate or not, a link to a quote that someone called George Kimpton worked for Pinnacle Records, and a single book on Amazon don't really answer the questions of notability, or that the article seems to have been written self-promotionally and needs a lot of things backed up with verifiable references. Your first-hand experience is not relevant as we have no way of knowing you are who you claim. WP:VERIFY Halsteadk (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think the article should stay. It is definitely true that Kimpton wrote the book and his time at rough trade is well recorded by respected journalist, Neil taylor in the book rough trade. his directorships of both rough trade and dressed to kill (dtk) are evidenced at all company search sites (http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/900896680 ).He Googles very strongly particularly under the name georgie kimpton where many links show video evidence of his time as pinnacle boss with the likes of Jason donovan, frank zappa and captain sensible of the damned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.63.132 (talk) 21:23, 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?} 10:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just used the George Kimpton article and was linked to this discussion page. Firstly I would like to commend Wiki for this forensic policy. I note that most of the points I intended to offer in support of GK's page have broadly been made in this discussion. Evidence of his directorship of Rough Trade has already been made here and if that doesnt make someone noteworthy... Wiki's greatest worth is its depth and scope. Clearly we dont want bogus information but when something or someone is clearly varifiable, the inclusion is of benefit to all. The NME site has a great clip of GK with 80's popstar, Hazell Dean. Thumbs up! http://www.nme.com/nme-video/youtube/id/DSGmJ2lQQoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.63.132 (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't come here pretending to be a different person to the previous contributor to this discussion - you are editing from exactly the same IP address, 90.212.63.132. Halsteadk (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems very fishy! I would have thought if the author of the article was the also subject, they would know of any in-depth coverage about themselves. The only thing I can find online is the book about Rough trade, where George Kimpton-Lowe is mentioned disparagingly on several occasions. Granted the events took place a long time ago, but you would think there would be at least a few ripples on the Google-osphere if Kimpton was truly noticed. The article has no reliable sources. Sionk (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mr Kimpton sounds like an interesting chap, and he could be notable if all his, sorry, the article's claims could be supported by RS. But they aren't. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:32, 31 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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Immanuel Nagel[edit]

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

I can't find sufficient substantial RS coverage of this DJ/writer/philosopher/music producer/label-owner. Epeefleche (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is mostly known under his old pseudonym "George le Nagelaux". Nagelaux has released enough records on vinyl... --Ataraxis1492 (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just search for "George le Nagelaux" on Google and you'll find enough sources (535.000 results). He is most popular among the German speaking countries, but his records are sold worldwide. Or check Nagel's entry in the database of the German National Library. The article exists since 2009 and Nagel is mostly relevant because of his musical works. I will adopt the article a bit...--Ataraxis1492 (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help me -- unless I am doing the search incorrectly (quite possible) -- using that name I still can't find substantial RS coverage on gnews, or on gbooks. Am I missing some, and if so can you point me to two or three substantial RS coverage articles about him? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, he is important for his work in the music industry. The information about his writing is additional (delete if you want). What exactly are you looking for? He fulfills the criteria for musicians with his releases, cooperations with other renowned artists and gigs. - So, I've reworked the article to make it more definite. --Ataraxis1492 (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What I am looking for is indicia that he meets wp's notability criteria. One way that he can do this is by substantial (non-trivial, non-passing) coverage in RSs. That would meet GNG. As to his releases, they do not suffice because he does not have two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (he has instead published them on the label he created, which does not appear to be one of the more important ones).

Cooperation with renowned artists is generally not in and of itself, without more, considered indicia of notability I believe. Gigs, similarly, are not -- unless they are RS-covered tours or the like that meet our notability criteria.

I recognize that he is 25; even if he fails to meet our notability criteria now, he may in the future. Inasmuch as you started the article, if it is not kept you might consider requesting to have it userfied, so that if/when he develops further indicia of notability you could re-create the article ... but to have it withstand future AfDs, I would suggest that the next time you create it you support the text with refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria you quote is not obligatory, it is just a hint for relevancy. Every single case has to be checked individually and there is other criteria noted as well besides of this. I think that his cooperations with internationally known artists are highly notable. Together with his numerous gigs (even if mainly in the German speaking area) and his activity as host of several events etc. there is enough to consider him relevant. And of course I'de prefer userfying before deleting...--Ataraxis1492 (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to our notability guidelines for people generally, and for musicians, both of which there is no evidence of him meeting. I have no objection to the article being userfied as it is deleted from mainspace.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 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 to establish notability. His importance is asserted in this discussion, but I can find no sources that verify that importance, and none have been offered in this AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 15:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claims of notability, no in-depth coverage provided. Fails WP:GNG. Certainly doesn't pass the criteria of WP:NMUSIC currently. Sionk (talk) 22:10, 30 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geokrety[edit]

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

Internet service with no reliable sources to establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What should be "reliable sources" to establish notability for such a service then? --Filips-z-polsko (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources would establish notability. WP:RS outlines what a reliable source is, and WP:NOTE is our notability guideline - I suggeset you read both of them. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me to those pages. Here I can mention some (I belive) reliable sources, mentioning geokrety service (unfortunatelly all are in Polish, but I hope somebody can confirm it)

The geokrety.org was a subject of a radio broadcast about geocaching in polish radio [Tok.FM - [tok.fm] - unfortunatelly the mp3 from that broadcast is no longer avaliable. Here is a [broadcast announcement].
Geokrety.org was mentioned as a one of the services for tracking items in geocaching in the one of the biggest polish newspapers - Rzeczpospolita. The e-version of the article is [avaliable]
Geokrety was mentioned in the local newspaper in Trójmiasto [internet version] (please note the article title).
One of the main polish web portal published an article about geocaching, including traveling items - geokrety onet.pl
"Komputer Świat" - a computer magazine, published a short information about geokrety: [[1]] --Filips-z-polsko (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if all the sources are Polish, may I request that Filips-z-polsko creates an article for this service on the Polish Wikpiedia, which could then be linked to this one, regardless of the outcome here. Cloudz 679 20:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudz679: The polish article is in preparation --Filips-z-polsko (talk) 09:55, 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) 02:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article about geocaching mentioning geokrety as traveling items: [e-version of Dziennik Polski] --Filips-z-polsko (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:03, 30 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. Kubigula (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EXoSkeletal Model (Linguistics)[edit]

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

This model doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Despite being created at least 6 years ago, I find very little on it on the internet in general, only 3 Google scholar hits (two of which have nothing to do with this) and only 2 Google Books hits, both for a different "exoskeletal model" having nothing to do with linguistics. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~I agree that Borer's work doesn't seem to have caught on all that much~~; I did, however, find independent sources that discuss the model.[2][3] — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 21:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need to take back my statement above. After some more searching, it appears that Borer's model has received quite a bit of coverage. The thing that threw me off was that most mentions of it call it "Borer (2005)" rather than the "exoskeletal model". A Google Books search for "Borer 2005" turns up many results. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that the paper itself does get hits (I missed that), but this specific model doesn't seem to. Do we know the references are actually to this model? Also, quite a few of the hits are to a completely different Borer 2005, specifically this 2005 article by KT Borer. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point - the impression that I got from my source search was that Borer's 2005 books were specifically about this model, and that she developed it over the previous decade or so. For example, Borer named her 2003-2005 books "Structuring Sense: An Exo-Skeletal Trilogy". Because of this, I was regarding the coverage of Borer 2005 as coverage of the model in question. (And yes, I was excluding the references to the paper by the other Borer - I just couldn't work out a way to exclude them from the search.)

After a bit more looking around I found a source which I think backs up my impression, and also seems to be part of a literature review, so hopefully satisfying Cnilep's concern about most of the sources being primary.[4] I have also found a couple more explicit mentions of the model being the exoskeletal model.[5][6] Having said this, I admit that given the coverage of the model, it is strange that more sources don't use the term "exo-skeletal". Most seem to label it "constructionist", "radical constructionist" or "neo-constructionist" - maybe moving the article to something like Constructionist model would be best? I'm not sure if this label would also include other models not covered in the present article, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / weak keep. Per that last link provided by Mr. Stradivarius, the theory is treated by a significant number of "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (GNG). All the sources I skimmed seem like primary rather than secondary sources (developing linguistic theory rather than reporting on Borer's work), but it's hard to know just where to draw that line for academic theories. They do "rely on primary sources [here, Borer 2005] for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them" (WP:PSTS). Cnilep (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a lack of inline sources here. But there are sources after all. Stedrick (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mangalore Airport (India). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Airlines Flight 557[edit]

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

Non notable incident not worthy of a standalone article. Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Should probably be noted in airline and or airport articles. William 21:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 21:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -William 21:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 21:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mangalore Airport (India). Meets WP:AIRCRASH; aircraft was written off and is therefore worthy of mention in the airline, aircraft type, and/or aircraft articles. However it fails WP:PERSISTENCE and is unworthy of a stand-alone article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - agree with The Bushranger, not notable enough for its own article. The main substance of the article is already in the airport article (I've added the photo there too). Sionk (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This incident has cropped up several times in the media when the airport runway extension work was in progress, and later when air india express crashed with fatalities. A search for the flight number will not reveal much, but a search for mangalore airport and avro will reveal enough results meeting WP:PERSISTENCE.--PremKudva^Talk 05:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, because it is notable in the context of Mangalore Airport, but not notable enough in its own right. Sionk (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have updated the details from this article over to its occurrence on the airport article.--PremKudva^Talk 05:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete as per Bushranger. (Since the info is already merged at this time of writing, and it is also mentioned at Indian Airlines, it is actually just a redirect.) -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Given the continual recreations, restoring salting is also appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto monnar[edit]

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

A Jazz musician. Refs given in article are all self-published. No reliable sources to be found. Has only self released one album. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he has certainly appeared on the highly lol Sábado Gigante [7] 86.44.24.82 (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have moved the page to be correctly capitalized. It is now located at Alberto Monnar. Ham tech person 17:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've searched widely, including Spanish language sources. Apart from the video wherein he apparently was a "winner" in one Gong Show-like segment of one television show (see here for a description), there is no coverage of him which is not self published. He is not signed to any record company, all cds are self-published. Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. This is the third attempt at creating the article. Note, I have renoved the entire section on "Early Childhood", as blatant copyvio from his own blog. The section is still available in the history. Voceditenore (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is this failing MUSICBIO, it is not the third attempt to create the page, but the 8th under this title and the incorrectly capitalized one above. Delete under MUSICBIO and G4. Ham tech person 18:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This looks a good candidate for salting once it's deleted. It has already been salted once [8], but the protection expired last September. Voceditenore (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. The nominator appears to have withdrawn their nomination. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freight quality partnerships[edit]

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

Jargon - non notable - the sources given are all not independent of source - they all operate "FQPs" or are "FQPs" - As far as I can tell this are QUANGO type organisations that have not gained coverage outside their scope of work Mddkpp (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this - forgot to check books https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Freight+quality+partnerships%22 - how to delete this?Mddkpp (talk) 21:17, 30 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 30. Snotbot t • c » 21:30, 30 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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Amoo[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, couldn't find any non-independent coverage or even passing mentions in any reliable sources. Walkon who didn't record any stats? Delete Secret ^account 21:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to be notable under any applicable criteria. cmadler (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While he could qualify under WP:GNG if there was substantial non-trivial coverage of his college football career, my searches don't show any such coverage. Can't find even one article with non-trivial coverage of Amoo (after searching Google news archive and NewsLibrary.com). College football linemen typically don't get a lot of non-trivial coverage. If someone can locate non-trivial coverage of Amoo, I'm willing to reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to have yet achieve our notability standards. Could do so in the future.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this player; does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 21:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage about him to meet notability in general. Specifically for North American football, he is signed to an Arena Football League team, but for the upcoming season. If he sticks and plays a game, then we could ressuract this article, but until then it's too soon for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ishigaki Airport. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Air Lines Flight 611[edit]

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

Non notable incident not worthy of a standalone article. Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Should probably be noted in airline and or airport articles. William 21:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 21:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -William 21:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 21:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or merge, as per nominator. Has received little attention since 1982 incident, no persistence here. Not news applies, particularly 30 years after the fact. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ishigaki Airport - notable in the context of the airport's history, but fails WP:PERSISTENCE for an article of its own. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 30 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, forgot to check newsbank for sources. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Alexander (American Football)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH, having never played in an NFL game, and WP:GNG. I cannot find significant coverage of this player. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to be notable under any applicable criteria. cmadler (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If there's substantial non-trivial coverage of his college football career as a running back for Alabama, he may pass WP:GNG. I don't have time to evaluate it now, but there does appear to be some coverage of his college career. Here are some examples: (1) Keeping Faith: Curtis Alexander ready to run for Bama, (2) Tide's Alexander hoping, praying for an injury-free season in 1996, (3) Alexander Plays Well In Pressure Situation‎, (4) Tide's other Alexander's turn to star: Curtis Alexander shakes off injuries to lead Bama, (5) Alexander Commits To Alabama, (6) European Vacation (about his playing career in Europe), (7) Alabama Backs Lead Gray To Classic Win: Riddle, Scissum, Alexander Score in Victory, (8) Broncos Back Can't Gain Any Ground: Alexander Awaiting Chance to Impress in Preseason Game, (9) Alexander gets his chance: Rookie from Alabama didn't play against Rams, (10) Top running back picks Alabama, (11) Back gains 396 yards. Cbl62 (talk) 22:21, 31 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Onverse, LLC[edit]

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

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable software company. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The article is so vague as to what they make or do that I suspect that's it: they haven't made or done anything. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Joy[edit]

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

Non-notable pornographic actress. Fails WP:PORNBIO because blue screw reviews is not a well-known award and only has well known nomination in one year. Fails WP:GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale. Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the problems mentioned above, all biographical content is cited to promotional sources (sometimes not even supported the cited claim.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omnidrive[edit]

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

The subject article appears to be a non-notable defunct software organization. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. IT firms arise like summer showers, and vanish just as quickly; the Circle of Life goes on. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. Never had any lasting notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The company wasn't / isn't notable per WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Colon el Tom 10:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OCR Systems, Inc.[edit]

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

Article appears to be on a non-notable defunct software company. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being bought out by Adobe is not a lasting achievement that turns a business into an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I started referencing the article, feeling that there was probably a software-archaeological benefit in articles such as this. However the refs are scanty and I'm now thinking that its level of coverage in the Adobe Systems article is probably all that is needed. AllyD (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 copyvio of http://www.reverbnation.com/page_object/page_object_bio/446538 JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soley mourning[edit]

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

Notable band? Bihco (talk) 19:58, 30 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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal Nursery School[edit]

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

Nursery school. Zero refs. Review of gbooks and gnews fails to turn up substantial, non-passing, multiple, independent RS coverage. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Was nominated for speedy, but was declined as not eligible for speedy. Epeefleche (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete for lack of notability Maxdlink (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being a sadly forgotten nursery school - it isn't even memorable enough to be included in the long list of schools currently in the Lucknow article! I can't find anything of note online. Sionk (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 02:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NoteScribe[edit]

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

Non-notable software application. Borderline spam. ukexpat (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable advertising, as per nom. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage - only source not directly connected to product is a podcast. Created by an SPA as possible promotional article. Dialectric (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no indication of notability per Wikipedia's GNG standards; article placed here as COI/spam. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EReviewBook[edit]

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

Non-notable software app. Borderline spam by CEO of the producer. ukexpat (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a pretty long search for any sort of reliable secondary source and was unable to find any. There just aren't any reliable sources to show that this particular educational app is notable. To address the editor's concern on the article's talk page that there was a double standard at play here, most of the pages had multiple independent reliable sources to show notability. Even if they didn't, the argument that other things exist on Wikipedia is not an argument that will keep the article. All that a unproperly sourced wiki entry means is that someone hasn't gotten around to listing or speedying the article yet. To prove that the article passes notability guidelines you will have to show multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Links to the company website and Amazon.com cannot be used to show notability, nor can links to sites where the content is user generated. (So no link to CNET unless the product is reviewed by one of the site's staff members.) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete I was also unable to find any secondary sources. Danger ^{High voltage!} 02:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no indication of notability per Wikipedia's GNG standards; article placed here as COI/spam. DreamGuy (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vectrex games[edit]

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

No sourcing, no content. Completely unreferenced for over two years. The majority of the entries here are either unlinked or redlinked and there is practically no additional content. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 30 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) 18:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article currently has one reference as of this post. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the nom notes only cleanup issues. Obviously which games were released on the Vectrex platform is verifiable, and standard practice for notable game platforms is to make the list comprehensive (see, e.g., List of Atari 2600 games), so it will include many that merit articles and many that don't. Even if you're of the opinion that such a list should only include notable entries, the solution to that is to remove the non-notable ones, not to delete the whole list. The Atari list I linked to also indicates how any such game list can be annotated: with columns for the game's designer, genre, year of release, and additional notes. So the complaint that there is "no content" (to the extent that is even relevant for a list) is in error because it at best only describes the list's current state, rather than it's potential. postdlf (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to expand the list, then please do so. However as it is now, there's nothing there, and nothing to preserve. List of Playstation 4 games will be an excellent article too, once someone has written it. In the meantime though, we have to deal with things how they are now, not how we'd like them to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We deal with how things are now by fixing them when the problems are fixable. WP:PRESERVE, WP:BEFORE, WP:NOEFFORT, etc., etc. Regardless, the reference currently in the list can source far more than the one item it's been cited for; it has a whole chapter on Vectrex.[9] Did you even look anywhere before nominating this? postdlf (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per improvements to the article, improved sourcing, by user:Postdlf. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I understand the nominator's feelings, as this list was looking pretty rough as of nomination, and honestly, I believe the whole "homebrew" section should probably be deleted outright, as none of that are official games, but the sources are there, and if we're okay with all of the List of Nintendo 3DS games-type articles (and we are, there's a "list of"- type article for most systems out there, and I've been in AFD's for them before, and they end up being a "Keep"), then this should be kept as well. Sergecross73 msg me 21:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There was actually an appendix in the Weiss book cited in the list about homebrew games, which listed some made for the Vectrex and said there are plenty of online sources about them. So I wouldn't delete that section wholesale, I think it merits some more research. postdlf (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks to Postdlf for adding the source. The original era games of 30 years ago were never really the problem though - Minestorm and Tank Battle were very well known in their time. The trouble still, and this is still unsourced, is that most of this article is a list of games from long after the Vectrex was a museum- and eBay-piece. Do any of these games exist, and exist for the Vectrex? Were there really so many coders working to write or port games for what was by 2000 a no-longer interesting vector display, once there was enough raw processor available to do it all with shaded 3D, let alone bitmaps? If this article is kept (as now seems likely) it should still be reduced to about a third of its current size. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Valid list of games for a major video game console. Just because something is unsourced doesn't mean it's "unsourceable", as the improvements have demonstrated. --MuZemike 00:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Parameter based Clustering[edit]

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

Contested prod. Algorithm, the scientific paper on in was published less than a month ago, and there is no assertion that this paper has generated any reaction yet from people uninvolved in the research. The only reference is the original paper. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Once it becomes notable through peer review we might have an article on this, but until then it's just somebody's idea. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - the only reference to this online that I could find was the paper itself. Notability simply hasn't been established. Colon el Tom 10:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Black, You're White & These Are Clearly Parodies[edit]

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

No evidence of notability: the article claims the album charted at number 6 on the Billboard chart, but the Billboard link at [10] clearly states that the album has never charted, not can I find any other evidence for notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rucka Rucka Ali. The Anome (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least Merge to Rucka Rucka Ali. The Billboard website is sadly completely unreliable for determining whether albums have charted - many charted albums now state 'didn't chart' since they revamped their website. The summary of Billboard charts at Allmusic confirms the chart position - see this.--Michig (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. --Muhandes (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I found the chart on Billboard too, so this is final proof: here. It was 8 on that week, but you can see it lists 6 as a peak. --Muhandes (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Basis for nomination seems to have been addressed.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per charting.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Fludd[edit]

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

After I proposed this BLP article's deletion, the creator removed the prod tag and added the following reference [11]. This source is not an independent, secondary source that analyses the subject. It is clear that Derrick Fludd is a non-notable artist. Speciate (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fludd is an American artist in China, I'm still looking for better references...Modernist (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think carefully. Is it possible he is simply not notable? Speciate (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do think he's notable - but it's very tough finding good sources, which is frustrating...Modernist (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This link indicates that he has exhibited at LUX, plus some galleries in Germany and New York. More importantly, he exhibited at the 2005 Florence Biennale. No sources yet, but those exhibitions go towards notability if not verifiability. (Note: the link provided is not a useful source, it's just provided for information). It's possible that he may be notable as a composer, given his film work. freshacconci talktalk 02:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that an artist is notable from the galleries he has had an opening at doesn't make him notable. What we would need is a review of his art in a journal, you know, after the reviewer has seen the art at the gallery. Suppose some film was shown at Sundance Film Festival but did not elicit any commentary from anybody. Could there be an article on it? I say no. Speciate (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the source added is not independent so doesn't help with notability. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable artist and non-notable author. With a surname like that it shouldn't be hard to find anything about him (rather than by him) in the Google-osphere. Unfortunately I can't find anything of note. Sionk (talk) 23:02, 30 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 Sanlam. after deletion Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Central Provident Fund (South Africa)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Central Provident Fund (South Africa)

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

No independent coverage and no evidence of notability of this specific fund. The article was a somewhat pointy creation in an effort to bolster the argument of those opposed to moving Central Provident Fund (Singapore) back to Central Provident Fund; see Talk:Central Provident Fund#Requested move. The article was previously redirected to Sanlam which was reverted. Unless there is more to be said about this specific fund, I think redirecting it to the managing company is the correct action. older ≠ wiser 16:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —older ≠ wiser 16:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. older ≠ wiser 17:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established by the article, I couldn't find any significant independent coverage anywhere. - htonl (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sanlam, as I tried to do in response to a speedy deletion tag, unless and until significant coverage is found in independent reliable sources. Please see the article talk page for the arguments given against redirection, which I do not consider valid. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:POINT, WP:NOTE, and WP:ADVERT. The article was created to make a point during a move discussion and such an article, without independent coverage, is at best an unencyclopedic entry and at worst an advert. — AjaxSmack 03:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect – I agree it's not independently notable (I created it to be pointy, as pointed out above). Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it notable at all? No evidence has been supplied by any discussant for any encyclopedic notability whatsoever. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia does not have redirects for any other individual private funds simply because they exist. — AjaxSmack 21:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone say it's notable? No. So it shouldn't have its own article; that's what notability says. Dicklyon (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By qualifying "notable" above, you did. — AjaxSmack 22:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per WP:ADVERT, WP:PROMOTION. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (state) 16:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enfuse youth[edit]

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

References are either primary sources or simply external links, and the article is written as an advertisement. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11. So tagged. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:20, 30 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Small Business FinanceWorks[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletioh. Advertisement for a non-notable product, a suite of online business solutions apparently for consumer banks or credit unions. References are to press releases, internal sites, and analyst reports; and to minor trade awards for "Most Innovative" and "Best in Class for Microbusinesses", which may get past A7 but do not give this product lasting significance to get it into an encyclopedia. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Advertisement --Hu12 (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Agree that references do not establish notability but just prove existence. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Digimon (creature)#Digivolution. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digivolution[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A long article, but a long article on a non-notable concept. Made up entirely of in-universe distinctions, lists and trivia. This concept has no real-world notability. No reliable sources are cited. J Milburn (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Long, rambling, incredibly detailed list of creature evolutions that are far from unique to Digimon: most similar shows have the same thing, and calling them digivolutions instead of evolutions like in Pokemon doesn't really make them something different. Plus it's entirely 'sourced' to episodes of the show. This is the kind of thing for which fan wikis exist, and Wikipedia is not one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Digimon (creature)#Digivolution. Another possibility would be to redirect to the main Digimon page.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. Neelix (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question? what is your view of the redirection suggestions?--70.24.208.34 (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Project-based solutions[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. Unreferenced original research and a gibberish description of a non-notable neologism (The term was introduced by the research and analyst firm Forrester in 2007.):

Project based solutions (PBS) is an enterprise wide computer software business solution to manage and coordinate all resources, information and functions of an organisation from a shared data source; where data can be attributed to and managed through individual projects.

The article text belabors the obvious in the manner typical of the genre:

To be considered a PBS system, a software package must be able to link and manage details via a unique project reference and be managed within a project plan, including:
- Resources (people, equipment, facilities, materials and cash)
- Product information
- Customer details
- Supplier details
- Time.

and is full of passages that no reasonable person can be expected to get any sense out of:

The PBS modules are similar to those modules in a Enterprise resource planning solution. The fundamental difference is the planning and execution engine in PBS; designed to manage demands from customers in the form of orders, contracts or schedules; where the final deliverable may not be completely specified (either from a functional, design or date required perspective) at the contract/order acceptance stage. Project reference is integrated fully within each module to provide the ability to manage all the changes that occur through time in the transition from the accepted contract/order to what is finally required for delivery by the supplier to the customer.

There's no subject here for an article to be about. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete #1 zero indication of wp:notability #2 Zero references #3 The article is an incoherent bunch of vague nothings put together, i.e. gibberish. Might even be a hoax. North8000 (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a hoax. See [12], and [13]. This is a concept coined by Forrester. However, there really doesn't seem to have been much coverage of this concept in reliable sources. I'm sure the consultants are sighing because if this had caught on, it looks like the sort of thing that would allow them to engage in sweet consulting gigs wherein they provide guidance and best practices to inject synergy and modern frameworks into legacy solutions through the evolutionary introduction of project based solutions software (or some such bafflegab). -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Couldn't say it better, Whpq! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Hiker (Kitson). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Hiker (Fall River, Massachusetts)[edit]

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

Although the statue itself appears to be notable (and covered at The Hiker (Kitson), it does not appear to me that this particular installation is individually notable; there are at least 10 installations of this statue in Massachusetts alone. Despite the infobox and categorization, it is not on the National Register of Historic Places; the nomination was rejected in 1983. cmadler (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —cmadler (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I discovered (sort of like Columbus "discovered" America. It was there long before it was "discovered") this article, and that prompted me to write the The Hiker (Kitson) article, which I feel makes this one more or less redundant. If the picture is not already at the other article it should be. I will check. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

KEEP IT This Hiker monument is unique because it is dedicated to the sons of Fall River, Massachusetts who fought in the war. It also contains a unique base once part of the Old Post Office that was demolished (along with three other statues throughout the city). There is no benefit to deleting this article which provides valuable information on this actual memorial. If anything, it should be expanded, not deleted. If anything, the other statues should have their own articles also.--Marcbela (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is to stay, please do me a favor and remove the reference to one in Ypsilanti, Michigan. That monument to the sons of Ypsilanti who fought and died in various theaters around the world c. 1900 (war memorials are always dedicated to locals) is a different Hiker and is an example of why I feel the information about these is better kept in one article. Details about the bases, or anything else, can be included there. Carptrash (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is better to keep all the information in the main article. It's unlikely (though not inconceivable) that any single installation is notable beyond the notability of the work in general. cmadler (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WHICH IS MY POINT - The main articles do not contain any information on the specific monuments. Who they were dedicated by or to. While the statues may be identical, each monument is a memorial in itself, and is part of the overall story of the statues. Each one deserves its own article. Instead of wasting time trying to destroy a valuable piece of information, perhaps you should all work on contributing to those articles.--Marcbela (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouting will not help and this ("Instead of wasting time trying to destroy a valuable piece of information,") is the sort of remark that you do not need to make to experienced wikipedia editors. Your argument actually looses points by my reckoning. The main article can contain as much information as we choose to put in it. You have not, I believe, chosen the correct the Fall River article by removing the reference to Ypsilanti, suggesting to me that you either do not care about the accuracy of "your" article or are not reading my postings here. Carptrash (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK - I actually like the expanded main article. Can we at least create a table for the listing of locations? It could include columns for City, Date, Location, Coordinates, Photo, and notes with any special features for each monument.--Marcbela (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A table is a good idea; I was trying to figure out how best to list coordinates for each installation, and I think that's a good one. cmadler (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, I started a table at the bottom of the article - didn't change anything else for now. The pictures need to be added, such as they are, but I am pretty burned out for tonight. Carptrash (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fascinating how these statues proliferated. The table idea sounds ok by me if we don't lose the content, e.g., the rejected nomination that the Fall River one be deemed historic is interesting.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT. There is clear consensus that a standalone article is not warranted. Although there is support for either delete and redirect, no reasons provided for deletion would preclude a redirect. Rlendog (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Simpson Davis Middle School[edit]

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

This school is the only article that is about a Middle School in the Dublin City School District (Franklin County, Ohio). The section headers include "History," which is one sentence long; "Things to know" which does not cite anything; and "Extracurricular Activities," which is one sentence and is a POV statement. Fails WP:NOTABLE -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 15:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district, Dublin City School District (Franklin County, Ohio)#Middle schools. This school lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Convention with schools such as this one is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable, given the lack of substantial multiple coverage in RSs in gnews and gbooks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a1, context is unclear (in fact, incomprehensible). NawlinWiki (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum of knowledge preservation and transferring[edit]

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

Not a notable subject. Should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Pile of self-promoting, unsourced original thought, and nonsensical to boot. No amount of copyediting is going to fix this. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note I added a speedy delete. This seems like a hoax/gibberish. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:36, 30 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USP Networks[edit]

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

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)).

WP:NN 10 person company, failing WP:CORP. While the article is peppered with self-published references and it appears to have had a mildly notable product, VP Planner, reliable sources with in-depth coverage of this company do not exist. The one NYT reference says that they were sued too ~~(in a non-notable lawsuit)~~.

Note that this article was created by a sock of Wpoel (talk · contribs) whose name bears a striking similarity to the CEO of this 10-person shop. Toddst1 (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

discussion about VP Planner and Original Research collapse to re-focus on AFD discussion
VP Planner covered in publisher's article (which shares text and I suspect origins with this article). Having said that, I should note that size of a company doesn't inherently bar it from inclusion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yes, the content in the publisher's article was lifted from this article per this edit summary. Neither company appears to pass WP:CORP. Toddst1 (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] VP Planner is probably a bit of a Red Herring! The commercial internet was actually lead out of academic purdah in the UK (and Europe) by a creative Cambridge Company company called Unipalm Pipex whose original leased service customer - Demon Internet - addressed the "end user" market with a famous £10/month proposition when mainstream telcos like British telecom denied the existence of the public internet. You had to be there, and there is a terrific story to be told if we can gather all those who were involved back in the day. Many Wiki contributors and readers were barely out of nappies when all this was going on. If you look at the entries for Unipalm and Demon you will see WP is asking for more information. USP was very much involved at the sharp end of what was going on as the provider of Unipalm's monthly "blog" (a term yet to be coined) in the form of a hardcopy printed information newsletter. Several of USP's online pioneering moments aren't covered in depth at all, so whoever wrote this might have been involved only tangentially in the core of the business. So let's use the opportunity to tell the complete story of the formative years of the UK internet. The Unipalm entry doesn't even mention that the Pipex company ended up in the MFS/Worldcom camp. The story of the evolution of the internet is very much one that involves the companies who where there at the time, and this is an opportunity to try and fill in gaps in several entries. It may take a little while to go around all those with something useful to contribute, I have only just been made aware of this effort and been pressed into getting embroiled, but this could amount to historically significant perspective. So stick with it and well may all learn. Incidentally, the Demon Internet. Geraldgorilla (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] The important thing is to get an account of these events down in History. I'm not a sock puppet for Wpoel, but worked occasionally for the company at the time. Whilst it may be an idea to move the information elsewhere once it is in place, I see no harm in getting it together here under the USP Networks banner for the time being. The reason was that USP sold a large number of copies of the paperback software in the UK due in part to the tie-in with Alan Sugar and the Amstrad, which was the best attempt made at producing a commodity PC. USP and NewStar delivered the very cheap software to go with it, sourced from Paperback and NewStar. I'd have thought that it was a genuine milestone because a huge number of people in the UK experienced their first computer (the Amstrad models) as a cheap commodity device with cheap software, and refused to move on to more expensive softwware. It changed the game as far as software prices went. I'd have said that USP played a major role in that. AndrewRMClarke (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] It sounds to me like you're seeking to round up a lot of the first-person stories of the folks who were there, which is simultaneously a great thing and inappropriate to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has guidelines against original research; if I may oversimplify, it exists not to tell the untold story, but to keep track of the story which has been told. I heartily encourage the data-gathering and the story sharing, but the outlet for it should be somewhere else; if it's in a significant and reliable source, Wikipedia is likely to then reflect what has been told elsewhere. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] That's an understandable POV Nat, but as this tale unfolds it should encourage the (many) others who were around at the time to contribute their knowledge, references and observations. As has been said, a lot of this background pre-dates Google, and there is now a generation emerging who seem to dismiss anything that Google cannot tell them in a billionth of a second. The early days of the internet has been followed by a diaspora - and this needs to be rounded up, frankly, before we're all dead. We also need to dispel the impression the the internet was invented by and exclusively developed for the benefit of and the greater glorification of the United States. Especially at a time when the US is acting as a global enforcer global jurisdictions in pursuit of US interests. Also the note that has appeared at the top observing that there are new and previously unmotivated participants converging on this article is perfectly correct - and you might even rejoice if the USP article succeeds in sucking more (long in tooth) talent to the cause. Several of us have been surprised in recent times that some quite famous characters from the UK technology scene over the years have been bounced, including the first ever Professor of Public Understanding of Science & Technology. The overriding point is that everything listed should be demonstrably accurate and "true" (not always exactly the same thing), so if you ever catch me describing Bill Gates as "the inventor of the internet" - as has been reported many times in the less well-informed media - you can assume my login has been hacked.Geraldgorilla (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Which is all a very good argument for why you folks should collaborate on building a history, but a poor one for using Wikipedia as the tool to do so. Just as my rock band may be a wonderful thing, and the supermarket may be a popular place to be, it doesn't mean that my band should go perform at the supermarket; they're there to sell asparagus, not to provide the public with dynamic Acid Flashback riffs. You want to do original research and have primary sources tell their tales? There are a plentitude of other web tools out there. The folks behind Wikipedia will even provide you with the same software used to run this site so that you can make your own wiki, which is a good way to go. Now, if you want to argue for keeping this article on Wikipedia, you should review WP:AFDFORMAT, which explains that arguments should be built in terms of Wikipedia policy, and suggests some relevant policies to consider. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

discussion about VP Planner and Original Research collapse to re-focus on AFD discussion

VP Planner covered in publisher's article (which shares text and I suspect origins with this article). Having said that, I should note that size of a company doesn't inherently bar it from inclusion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the content in the publisher's article was lifted from this article per this edit summary. Neither company appears to pass WP:CORP. Toddst1 (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VP Planner is probably a bit of a Red Herring! The commercial internet was actually lead out of academic purdah in the UK (and Europe) by a creative Cambridge Company company called Unipalm Pipex whose original leased service customer - Demon Internet - addressed the "end user" market with a famous £10/month proposition when mainstream telcos like British telecom denied the existence of the public internet. You had to be there, and there is a terrific story to be told if we can gather all those who were involved back in the day. Many Wiki contributors and readers were barely out of nappies when all this was going on. If you look at the entries for Unipalm and Demon you will see WP is asking for more information. USP was very much involved at the sharp end of what was going on as the provider of Unipalm's monthly "blog" (a term yet to be coined) in the form of a hardcopy printed information newsletter. Several of USP's online pioneering moments aren't covered in depth at all, so whoever wrote this might have been involved only tangentially in the core of the business. So let's use the opportunity to tell the complete story of the formative years of the UK internet. The Unipalm entry doesn't even mention that the Pipex company ended up in the MFS/Worldcom camp. The story of the evolution of the internet is very much one that involves the companies who where there at the time, and this is an opportunity to try and fill in gaps in several entries. It may take a little while to go around all those with something useful to contribute, I have only just been made aware of this effort and been pressed into getting embroiled, but this could amount to historically significant perspective. So stick with it and well may all learn. Incidentally, the Demon Internet. Geraldgorilla (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is to get an account of these events down in History. I'm not a sock puppet for Wpoel, but worked occasionally for the company at the time. Whilst it may be an idea to move the information elsewhere once it is in place, I see no harm in getting it together here under the USP Networks banner for the time being. The reason was that USP sold a large number of copies of the paperback software in the UK due in part to the tie-in with Alan Sugar and the Amstrad, which was the best attempt made at producing a commodity PC. USP and NewStar delivered the very cheap software to go with it, sourced from Paperback and NewStar. I'd have thought that it was a genuine milestone because a huge number of people in the UK experienced their first computer (the Amstrad models) as a cheap commodity device with cheap software, and refused to move on to more expensive softwware. It changed the game as far as software prices went. I'd have said that USP played a major role in that. AndrewRMClarke (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like you're seeking to round up a lot of the first-person stories of the folks who were there, which is simultaneously a great thing and inappropriate to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has guidelines against original research; if I may oversimplify, it exists not to tell the untold story, but to keep track of the story which has been told. I heartily encourage the data-gathering and the story sharing, but the outlet for it should be somewhere else; if it's in a significant and reliable source, Wikipedia is likely to then reflect what has been told elsewhere. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an understandable POV Nat, but as this tale unfolds it should encourage the (many) others who were around at the time to contribute their knowledge, references and observations. As has been said, a lot of this background pre-dates Google, and there is now a generation emerging who seem to dismiss anything that Google cannot tell them in a billionth of a second. The early days of the internet has been followed by a diaspora - and this needs to be rounded up, frankly, before we're all dead. We also need to dispel the impression the the internet was invented by and exclusively developed for the benefit of and the greater glorification of the United States. Especially at a time when the US is acting as a global enforcer global jurisdictions in pursuit of US interests. Also the note that has appeared at the top observing that there are new and previously unmotivated participants converging on this article is perfectly correct - and you might even rejoice if the USP article succeeds in sucking more (long in tooth) talent to the cause. Several of us have been surprised in recent times that some quite famous characters from the UK technology scene over the years have been bounced, including the first ever Professor of Public Understanding of Science & Technology. The overriding point is that everything listed should be demonstrably accurate and "true" (not always exactly the same thing), so if you ever catch me describing Bill Gates as "the inventor of the internet" - as has been reported many times in the less well-informed media - you can assume my login has been hacked.Geraldgorilla (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is all a very good argument for why you folks should collaborate on building a history, but a poor one for using Wikipedia as the tool to do so. Just as my rock band may be a wonderful thing, and the supermarket may be a popular place to be, it doesn't mean that my band should go perform at the supermarket; they're there to sell asparagus, not to provide the public with dynamic Acid Flashback riffs. You want to do original research and have primary sources tell their tales? There are a plentitude of other web tools out there. The folks behind Wikipedia will even provide you with the same software used to run this site so that you can make your own wiki, which is a good way to go. Now, if you want to argue for keeping this article on Wikipedia, you should review WP:AFDFORMAT, which explains that arguments should be built in terms of Wikipedia policy, and suggests some relevant policies to consider. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP the few RS refs listed do not mention the company or its products, not even in passing, and certainly not in depth. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see why this company is notable. I notice that some of its employees have also been creating articles for its customers ([14][15]) which is rather worrying. Number 5 7 18:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coastliner 700[edit]

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

A single bus route, one of a number listed at List of bus routes in West Sussex, cannot possibly be notable in its own right. There is no reason that I can see for this article to exist. Bob Re-born (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the references perhaps. It passes WP:BUSROUTE. Rcsprinter (whisper) 15:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "A single bus route, one of a number listed at List of bus routes in West Sussex, cannot possibly be notable in its own right."? That isn't written in any policy or guideline anywhere, and is pretty much the definition of WP:JNN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are over 600 articles about individual bus routes on Wikipedia, several of which have survived deletion debates (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 394 (2nd nomination)), and one, The Witch Way, has GA status. So the general principle behind the nomination is demostrably wrong. As for the specific case, the sources already in the article include [16] and [17], which are arguably enough to meet the requirements at WP:GNG by themselves, but if anyone's in any doubt, here are some more: [18], [19] and a substantial write-up in Buses Magazine a few years back that I can't link to because it only exists offline. How exactly can this not possibly be notable? Alzarian16 (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per my comment above, Alzarian16's comment and the fact that if I got a DYK out of it, it can't be that not notable, or it wouldn't have got through. Nobody AfDd it then, so why should they AfD it now? Rcsprinter (constabulary) 15:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say this nomination was badly worded Bob, but that said I understand why the article raised concerns. Unlike the nominator, I agree with Alzarian that single bus routes can be notable and Alzarian's work on The Witch Way proves that. That said the question should be "Is this single bus route notable?" and of that, I'm not convinced. Consider the sources:

[20] discusses Stagecoach South's fleet being upgraded but only mention in an incidental way that the buses will be used on the 700 route. as a source it would be ideal for sourcing that upgrade but not for asserting notability of the route.
[21] Likewise discusses the Costal Expressway intiative, but only mentions in an incidental way that the expressway will be follow the 700 route. It also mentions that the initiative may be rolled out to the rest of the 700 route. Again it's ideal for sourcing that initiative but it doesn't assert that the 700 route is an anyway notable.
[22] As with the others we have an article about district versus county politics when it comes to public transport planning with an incidental mention that the 700 route was caught in the middle. Again it doesn't assert the 700 as notable.
[23] is the only article that asserts the 700 as a notable route - but it's an opinion piece rather than a fact based article.

In order to be convinced to keep - I'd like to see some evidence that Buses Magazine or some other publication actually thinks this route is notable rather than just mentioning it as an incidental fact in an article about something else. Then there have to be concerns with the article it's self - It asserts Opinion from the Argus as fact, for instance "I think you would be hard pushed to find a bus that gets quite so close to the shoreline in the whole of the UK. " becomes "It is the only bus route in the UK that stays so close to the shoreline throughout the whole route" the whole Route is sourced to an article that doesn't even mention the 700 or buses in general, the Infobox is unsourced (I even don't see any sources that assert it's length, journey time, Peak vehicle requirement,etc without using synthesis of timetables) and the better part of a paragraph (nearly everything about livery) is sourced to an unreliable blog. I would also need to be convinced by those voting keep that sources exist to allow the article to move away from it's original reseach as well. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As no editors have provided evidence of notability, and inspired by this comment by RCSprinter, I'll formally change this comment to a Delete. The sources as they exist do not support this article as notable in it's own right - I might have said redirect to Stagecoach in the South Downs but it's a worse article than this one. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources found by Rcsprinter. The Steve 08:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not enough reliable secondary source material to establish notability or to make a worthwhile article. If more becomes available in future the article can easily be recreated.--Charles (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Alzarian16, the subject has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources and meets the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electronics circuit mini project on front door bell[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a guidebook or manual, or publisher of original research.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't even an article. North8000 (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTHOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a how to manual. It's times like this that I wish that we had a special speedy category for the blatant WP:NOT articles.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, it is a "howto" article, failing WP:NOT. Second, it fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:NOT and WP:N. Osarius Talk 15:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stonehill International School[edit]

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

This article is about a school, but no reliable sources have been cited, and too little information has been provided to prove the credibility of the article. Hence, this article has been considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahils1512 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 30 January 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a verifiable K-12 school. And per editor consensus, we don't delete high schools. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per longstanding consensus to preserve pieces on high schools while subjecting elementary schools to extremely stringent notability testing. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above keeps. School is for students from age three through high school. Article certainly needs cleanup to address its failure to meet wp:V and its promotional statements and possible copyvio issues. But AfD is not for cleanup.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High schools are currently deemed notable per longstanding consensus.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per WP:NHS. — Pewfly (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Kanaani[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL GauchoDude (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 23:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donald P. Scott[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Case of WP:SINGLEEVENT. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article was created in 2007 and it seemed notable then. The article might be retitled to Death of Donald P. Scott in keeping with the conventions we use in 2012. The significance of the case is explained in the article: a large settlement paid to Scott's family without an admission of guilt, and the unprecedented public disagreement of officials in Los Angeles handling the case. patsw (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a danger of applying the WP:SINGLEEVENT criteria to every article on a victim of a crime or a police shooting resulting in a financial settlement. This is why we have subject notability guidelines like WP:CRIME. Such people are not likely to have biographies qualifying for WP:BIO but we have articles on them nonetheless. patsw (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, the nomination is incorrect in form: The article clearly passes WP:GNG. patsw (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have concerns that the notability of the subject is not established in independent, reliable sources. As it, it appears to be built primarily upon information from http://www.fear.org/ . Are there any books are commentary in major news outlets? Location (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ in its current state, or briefly merge to an appropriate overview article. As Location says, references currently are mostly to "fear.org", an advocacy website that is not a reliable source. There is also no indication (as would be reflected in persistent third-party coverage) of lasting importance. The article fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:SINGLEEVENT. Sandstein 08:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak keep per Location's new sources below, but move as suggested there or to Death of Donald P. Scott. Sandstein 18:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and title as Shooting of Donald Scott per WP:EVENT. I think I answered my own question above. I found articles in the LA Times[24][25] and NYTimes[26] which demonstrate WP:GEOSCOPE, as well as mentions in many books [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34](+ more). Location (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I may share the same name, this article clearly has significant notability. With that said, I would not oppose a merge if a good host candidate could be found. 68.238.247.56 (talk) 23:06, 30 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 Both Userfied by User:Fatty2k10. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thurmaston Bus[edit]

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

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

Non notable (ex)Bus Company, no real sources to see at all beyond incidental mentions and single mention in "Leicester Mercury". With no real sources, the article also constitutes an Original Research. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not really convinced either way with notability here, but if this is kept it would probably be best off merged with the equally poor article on the closely-related Coachmaster company. While there might just be enough to justify one article, there certainly isn't enough for two. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also nominated Coachmaster for discussion here because the arguments for keeping/deleting are similar - and either a deletion of both or merge of both seem more likely that keeping of both, Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that Thurmaston Bus has been userfied to User:Fatty2k10/Thurmaston Bus by User:Fatty2k10. That does nothing to alter the circumstances for the Coachmaster article, however. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate was closed as Userfy two days ago, but the close did not account for the second nominated article - and, indeed, the second nominated article remained tagged. I asked the editor to revert his/her close, to no response - so I've reverted the close and re-opened the debate. Could the relisting/reviewing admin add a day or two to account for that closed day? Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My response was to close the Thurmaston Bus debate and keep another one open on the same page for the Coachmaster. The nominator, User:Stuart.Jamieson did not revert it and what I did was correct. Rcsprinter (rap) 16:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite busy last night (as I am today) so did not ask you to re-open nor did I revert - I had time to edit the rationale for Coachmaster but not enough time to read up on the appropriate policy regarding linked AfD's that have been partially closed early. As such I was not approving or disapproving of the way you reopened, I still haven't read up on it so still defer judgement. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's moot - The second article was userfied as well. So now it's closed for real, all nominated articles, etc. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. I have redirected the article, the target page already contains a brief mention of this subject, more can be merged in from the page history if it is properly verified. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glossopdale Bus Company[edit]

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

Non notable (ex)Bus Company, Article created by a SPA, no real sources to see at all. With no sources, the article also constitutes an Original Research. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Sorry, but I'm not sure you've assumed good faith here. I think this was written by a newcomer to Wikipedia who has knowledge on this subject, probably from actual sources rather than first hand knowledge as such, but is unfamiliar with the correct procedure to cite reliable sources. I can see a Company Check reference and a page about the company, though the latter would be a primary source. Certainly a bus company running on regular and recognised routes in the UK for many years ought to qualify as notable - there must be other sources out there. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I have acted in Bad Faith here. Our guideline of notability for a corporation of any sort WP:CORP sets a much higher bar of sourcing than even the general notability guidelines. It would look to see if the Bus Company was running services on a national (or international) scale and substantially recognised in secondary sources. Or if the bus company was only running Local services that it had achieved national (or international) coverage of its activities in reliable sources. Neither of these applies here and there is no presumption of notability for any small bus operator or even small business. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be correct. The guidelines at CORP are an alternative to GNG: indeed, CORP begins "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP is subject specific, not just an alternative - As with most Subject Specific guidelines they refer back to the GNG and then add additional considerations that need to be met for articles within that subject i.e; higher bar. Corp refers back to the GNG in "Primary criteria" then specifically rules out certain types of mention of the article subject in reliable sources as examples of notaility and asks for sources that provide more depth instead. Amongst the other criteria it says " attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." which is what I referred to above. I also referred to the section that reads "Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favouring larger organizations or their products." but since the company isn't mentioned in any reliable sources it fails to make the general notability guidelines let alone the specific terms applied to the subject of businesses. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not correct. WP:N states clearly "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." That is, the subject-specific criteria are alternative, not additional, conditions for notability. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken part in the AfD's of a number of non notable companies (including PR firms who might have marginally made the GNG but failed CORP) - I have to say I have never seen Policy interpreted that way however it makes not a jot of difference because there are no sources for this company reliable, independent, in-depth or otherwise. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2012

(UTC)

I have tabulated the following from all the subject-specific guidelines. Some are expanding the GNG wording in for the subjects: most make it clear that they are giving alternative criteria:

Wikipedia:Notability (academics): "Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria"
Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects): "If an astronomical object meet none of these criteria, it may still be notable, provided it meets the conditions of WP:Notability"
Wikipedia:Notability (books): "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria"
Wikipedia:Notability (events): "This guideline is intended to explicate the primary notability guideline with regards to current and past real events"
Wikipedia:Notability (films): "A topic related to film may not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline, but significant coverage is not always possible to find on the Internet, especially for older films. The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:"
Wikipedia:Notability (music): "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on a person, band, or musical work that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline"
Wikipedia:Notability (numbers): "the relevant criteria are whether professional mathematicians study the classification and whether amateur mathematicians are interested by it"
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): "These criteria constitute an optional, alternative method for demonstrating notability. Organizations are considered notable if they meet one of the following sourcing requirements 1. these alternate criteria, 2. the primary criteria for organizations, or 3. the general notability guideline"
Wikipedia:Notability (people): "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability"
Wikipedia:Notability (sports): "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)"
Wikipedia:Notability (web): "may be notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria. 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. "

Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:N. Rcsprinter (gossip) 21:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How? What independent reliable sources helped you come to this conclusion? Goodvac (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence whatever of notability. It is unlikely that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources can be found.--Charles (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Speedwellbus. The Steve 09:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (not everything, but the most significant bits) to Speedwellbus. A plausible enough search term with some significance as the precursor to a more notable company, but in terms of meeting WP:ORG by itself it doesn't seem to have acquired anything like enough coverage in reliable sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I should mention that in the unlikely event that Speedwellbus gets deleted at its ongoing AfD, I would then support deletion of this article since no sensible merge target would exist and the company doesn't seem to be independently notable. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge to Speedwellbus, and should be mentioned at Stagecoach Manchester as well. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Speedwellbus. Currently, the subject does not have enough coverage in reliable third party sources to warrant a separate article. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedwellbus[edit]

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

Non notable (ex)Bus Company, Article created by a SPA, Sources mainly seem to be Blogs or Self Published with one small mention in the "Glossop Advertiser". Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Notable company, well known in the Eastern Greater Manchester area, not created by an SPA, he just does that sort of thing, but other edits too. Not my fault there's not much coverage, but I'm sure if you Googled it there'd be loads. Rcsprinter (lecture) 13:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodeswood has Two Contributions both creation of articles about this bus service under the previous Glossopdale operator and under Speedwell so yes he is a SPA and he hasn't done anything else (Unless you have evidence he's editing under another account?). Checking for sources through google and other means of searching for sources is the first stage in deciding whether an article is suitable for AfD - I've checked and there are no reliable sources what sources there are are detailed above. As you've been told many times before Notability is a measure of how often the subject has been noted in reliable sources not a measure of how well known it is in the local area. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my mistake, I thought it was created by Sf07, as he does that sort of thing, but I never checked who actually created it. That doesn't matter anyway, the notability is more key. Rcsprinter (talk to me) 13:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sources to establish notability.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of which is reliable and doesn't begin to meet GNG let alone WP:CORP, per WP:BURDEN if you wish to keep you should try and provide something better. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already have cited in the article these two pieces in a local newspaper which contain sufficient depth of coverage to meet GNG: 1, 2.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CORP - "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international thource is neessary." so that would rule out the Glossop Advertiser and from the WP:GNG - "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." this is not significant coverage about Speedwell it doesn't address speedwell directly in detail it discusses two incidents related to speedwell neither of which asserts that speedwell is notable. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No policy "rules out" the Glossop Advertiser as a source to establish notability. Policy simply requires us to have at least one regional or national source. With the VOSA investigation this shouldn't be too hard to find. Secondly, I believe you're plain wrong when you say the two sources I gave above aren't about the subject and don't address it directly in detail. The articles talk only about the company and it's operations - this is significant coverage which the GNG you quote above goes on to say "is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Here it is the main subject of the articles. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are speculating on sources that you feel "shouldn't be too hard to find." Yet no-one appears to be able to provide them all we have is some mentions in the local rag which is ruled out from being used to assert notability by itself (the intent of my last post if not the actual wording). Secondly do you honestly believe that those articles constitute "Significant Coverage" if so then I propose a simple test: if these two sources discuss the article subject directly and in depth you should be able to remove all the Blogs, SPS, and primary sources a write a reasonable article from the secondary sources you claim assert notability of this subject. It may not be a test that is enshrined in policy but it would clearly establish that you are correct in your assertion. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the definition of "significant coverage" as used in our notability guidelines. The two sources mentioned are sufficient for the GNG. In both cases our article's subject is the main subject of the source article. "Sources sufficient to meet the GNG", and "sources to support every statement in the article" are two different concepts.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the GNG again; "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." and; ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." I ask again; if you remove all the unreliable sources do you have enough material left to write an (not this exact) article without resorting to original research ? Even with those unreliable sources there is more than enough original research in the article to hint at what the answer will have to be (I'll give you a clue it starts with an "n"). Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop arguing. You've both made your point. Rcsprinter (chatter) 16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the sources discussed. The Steve 09:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm actually not entirely convinced by the sources presented so far, not so much because they're local in scope but because they all come from the same publisher. However, other reliable sources seem to have provided non-trivial coverage of their collapse (examples include Tameside Radio and Coach and Bus Week, the latter mostly hidden behind a paywall but with enough visisble to convince me that the coverage is significant). Throw in yet more coverage from MEN Media and I think there's just enough to meet WP:ORG here. I haven't been able to look offline yet so there may be more to come, not that that's worth much right now. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While these new sources do show slightly wider coverage, they all focus on a single event. While WP:CORP doesn't specifically address this as a concern, it is addressed in other guidelines. Those guidelines suggest it fails because Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. And state that being in the news does not in itself mean that something should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Where reliable sources cover the company only in the context of a single event, and if that company otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile company, We generally avoid having an article on it. Articles in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we also have this piece about an unrelated earlier event, and the sources about the company's closure provide some background on it (e.g. date of formation, number of vehicles, area of operation - all of which can apparently be summarised in three sentences if this is anything to go by). Combined with routine fleet and service news from industry sources and perhaps some material from primary sources such as the company's website, I think there's enough information to avoid any neutrality issues. By the way, which policy/guideline are you getting the low-profile company stuff from? It certainly doesn't appear in NOT#NEWS, and WP:BLP1E (which uses the "remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile..." wording - is this what you were referring to?) doesn't apply to companies. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't BLP1E apply to companies - by their very definition (from the latin "Body of People") a company is a legal person though BLP concerns are not relevant concerns about notability raised are still valid; not that it matters since BLP1E doesn't exist as a notability guideline in itself but rather explains why various policies act to prevent the creation of articles about the subject of one event - those policies still apply equally to corporations, and other subjects such as inanimate objects even when not explicitly spelled out. The glossop advertiser piece is a minor mention of an infraction in a local newspaper - a comparable might be if a councillor received a small mention in local news for losing his driving license for speeding, followed by marginally wider coverage in an obituary when he died a few years later. The small mention and the obits don't suddenly make his otherwise unnoted life suddenly notable and he would still fail our notability guidelines. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omnientheism[edit]

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

Neologism made up by the article's creator. The single-digit number of Google results speaks strongly to its lack of notability. Cybercobra (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though the term was coined ~20 years ago, the reference in question is new. Even if the term were brand new, the newness of a term does not make it invalid or un-useful. This Wikipedia policy speaks to the reference issue:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving;
the material does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
the material does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Cybercobra claims on his talk page edit to be willing to go through the Wikipedia:BRD cycle, but instead has already reverted to ignoring any debate and revising his talk page to eliminate the conversation. It seems he gets accused of being overly bold rather often.

I suggest anyone interested in this debate read the entry and ask themselves if the concept is theologically, philosophically, and/or epistemologically useful. There are plenty of pages on Wikipedia describing ideas that have far less notability.

JahSun (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With regard to the Self-published or questionable sources on themselves policy quoted above; this is part of WP:Verifiability, not WP:Notability. The Notability guideline specifies the need for sources that are independent of the subject in order to warrant the creation of an article. I haven't found sufficient coverage in any independent sources that would convice me this topic is notable. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the policies and guidelines cited by nominator and User:Yunshui. There's no evidence that the theory/concept received a significant reception in reliable and independent sources, which is definitely needed to maintain any article on this project. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform presenting someone's personal ideas and opinions. There's a lot of free space on Internet where you can inform others about your theories, JahSun. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable, independent sources; no wide usage; basically a neologism; basically a private / fringe theory. Hence, no sign of notability. To put it another way, pure POV. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is POV/OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writer and theologian Orlando Alcántara Fernández (Cristorly) has written a book on Omnientheism, and it is quoted in numerous places on the web. Omnientheism: GOD According to Biblical Universalist Unitarianism (also available in Spanish as Omnienteísmo: DIOS Según El Unitarismo Universalista Bíblico) is a completely independent take on the concept and thus discounts the calls above of Neologism & made up as the word has been in print for many years before being written about by the principal author of the page.

The term is known enough to be featured prominently in the everything.explained.at online encyclopedia with references that can be found here http://everything.explained.at/pandeism/. I call for the opinion of an actual expert in theology, theism, and panentheism to chime in here. The opinions of a clique of mods who have no credentials or written papers in the field amounts to near worthlessness in determining the notability of this term. If any of the above users have some qualification in this (other than being wikipedia fanatics) which are not posted on your respective user pages, I ask that such references be posted here. JahSun (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, this "book" (which according to User:Cristorly was written specifically for Wikipedia and therefore could be qualified as original research) has not been published - leastways it does not appear on Neilsen Bookdata, and does not appear to even have an ISBN assigned to it.

Brian Cryer's Everything Explained At is a self-published website, and sources only Cristorly's essay for it's information on Omnientheism, so you've actually only provided us with one source here - which doesn't appear to exist in print. Certainly not a reliable source. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, for whatever it matters, "essay" not "book" according to this obituary. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is only natural that an admin who actually has studied philosophy or theology be brought in.JahSun (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let me to inform you that (a) admin's don't have any special privileges in discussions beyond the persuasiveness of their argument (b) the whole point of the "This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions" notice above is to try and bring in relevant commenters; this being a volunteer site however, we can't force people if no one happens to respond.--Cybercobra (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The related term OMNITHEISM turns up hundreds of results on Google, including Wiktionary, with a page here on Wikipedia no less: omnitheism. Just as we have pages for pantheism and panentheism, it makes sense to actually not only leave the omnientheism page, but expand it. Perhaps some actual theologians can help to build the page up? JahSun (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But we're talking about "omniENtheism", which in stark contrast turns up a mere handful of results, of dubious reliability. Even if we accept Cristorly as a source, the WP:GNG requires multiple (i.e. at least 1 more) independent pieces of coverage. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't see that omnitheism is related to omnientheism, I will not try to change your mind. Students of theism know that the EN is often inserted into these words to delineate an important variation on the concept. See pantheism vs. panentheism. JahSun (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment above, I for one don't accept Cristorly as a source, since the information is unavailable (apparently unpublished) and hence doesn't even meet WP:V. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Archive.org still has a copy before his site went 404. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) That was an interesing read, thanks Cybercobra. So... published on a now-defunct personal website, by an author who does not appear to be a noted expert in the field (in spite of their userpage claims, no evidence seems to exist showing Cristory being published by reliable third-party publications) - nope, still doesn't do it for me, I'm afraid; it fails WP:SPS on every count. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it seems that Cristorly might have been a less than stellar source to bring into the discussion. I also don't feel like getting sidetracked and debating the Wikipedia:Bias aspects we started to get into. Thus, I have removed the offending statements and will merely hope that someone with a real background in theology and panentheism shows up to weigh in. This isn't really important enough to warrant the time being spent, as I have real tangible issues to deal with ATM. JahSun (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Omnientheism article was rated to be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy by a ranking philosophy member. Granted it was given low priority for the project, but it is clearly considered worthy of some philosophical notice. Check the talk page for the article. JahSun (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hey, I'm a strong inclusionist, but I can't find even one Google Book or Google News Archive reference to this term. Not even one! Its like the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeastern Quartersphere, wikipedia is simply not the place of new, or unverified, ideas.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have added a speedy delete tag. Aside from JahSun's personal opinion, this seems to be nonsense. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense? The fact it was nominated for the Philosophy project says otherwise. The fact that another encyclopedia wanted it for their site also. It may not truly worthy of Wikipedia yet, but it is certainly not gibberish. You have already given your opinion on this issue, why I ask, is this measly article important enough for you that you feel the need to go back and try and get rid of it even faster? Does it offend you somehow?JahSun (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)And I've rejected it. This is not patent nonsense as is meant under the speedy deletion criterium. Oh, and Strong delete, there is no indication that this in any way suitable for inclusion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without my offering it to them, another online encyclopedia has taken this Wikipedia article and ported to their site. On my talk page you can see that an interested user asked my permission to use the material for their site. JahSun (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They don't need to ask your permission as Wikipedia content is licensed under Creative Commons. In fact, you couldn't have refused permission had you wished to, as by clicking 'save' you release the rights in your edit. What the situation is when something is deleted here, I don't know. User:Moonriddengirl probably would. The rights in your edits may revert to you, or they may remain licensed. Anyway, on Google (once Wikipedia is minused out of the search) there are 11 hits, one being at blogspot and apparently by the author of the article, two at gogetpapers (which contain plenty of questions but precious few answers on this topic, at least. Some of the others are 'pickup' sites - those ones that contain interesting words to get you in so that they can try to sell you things. The 'other online encyclopedia', Everything2, has (to quote our article on it) "no formal policy on subject matter", so their desire to have this is of no relevance. All in all, this doesn't give much in the way of coverage. Peridon (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Yunshui. Begoon ^talk 00:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Some good discussion here. However, Struway2's analysis is strong and effectively shifts the consensus. Kubigula (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Watkins[edit]

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

Semi-pro football player who has never played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:NFOOTBALL Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Player has never played in a fully-professional league or at senior international level, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. No evidence of sufficient non-trivial independent media coverage to show general notability. Struway2 (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the editor who accepted the page through Articles for Creation I think I'd better explain why. While it is true that the player doesn't meet the football guidelines, it is very clear that with multiple independent news sources, it passes the general notability guidelines easily, which is more important (as it is a requirement of articles that pass the football guidelines too). --Mrmatiko (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG. ~Feedintm^Parley 17:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Must admit I'm surprised that people think this article passes WP:BIO. Disregarding stuff from Luton Town F.C., which clearly isn't independent of the subject or those associated with him, source #4 quotes his manager saying if he keeps working hard he might get into the first team squad; #11 quotes his new manager thinking he did well in pre-season; #3, a week later, quotes his manager thinking he did well in pre-season and Watkins being pleased the manager is giving him a chance; #13 is BBC Sport reporting his new contract with Luton; #15 quotes his manager thinking he's done well in pre-season but saying people shouldn't get carried away, and reports Watkins' selection for the England C team; #8 is a report of a match in which he scored twice against a team from three divisions below Luton; and the other independent sources are name on team sheets, presence at a club function, etc.

I'm an inclusionist by nature, and wouldn't !vote to delete a decently referenced article about a footballer who'd actually had a career at below-WP:NFOOTBALL level. This lad hasn't, yet, and the lack of genuine content in these multiple sources only serves to demonstrate that there's nothing yet to write about. WP:BIO says that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", and the explanatory note says that a 200-page biography is non-trivial where a one-line directory listing is not. I'd suggest the sources here (quite understandably given the subject has done very little in his career as yet) are an awful lot closer to the one-liner than the biog. If the number, quality and content of the sources in this article really constitute enough significant coverage to pass WP:BIO, then we'd able to create and keep articles on pretty well any footballer down to the seventh level of English football, possibly further. Which is interesting, given that the prevailing view around Wikipedia seems to be that WP:NSPORT should be made stricter. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget the players of the Irish League who get deleted because their league is not fully professional

Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hope that these days, an article about a player from a top but not fully professional league where the article contained evidence of significant media coverage wouldn't be kneejerk-deleted. But I don't see the relevance of Irish League player deletions to this AfD, I'm afraid. Presumably this wasn't some sort of POINTy nomination? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think all four recent nominations (two of which were very badly thought out) were a reaction to this. Number 5 7 23:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it satisfies the GNG. In the case of this footballer, there may be no good reason he received the (small but sufficient) amount of coverage that he did, but deletion is for subjects that are not notable, rather than those who don't deserve to be. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure anyone was discussing "deserving". Only that a person who'd had a career in their chosen field would have generated sufficient media coverage above the routine to be notable in the WP:BIO sense. Because this subject has done little in his chosen field, coverage of him is limited, routine, and essentially trivial in nature. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and probably WP:GNG per Struway2's comments. Due to the nature of football coverage including match reports, it's always easy to find a player's name mentioned frequently in the media, but that doesn't necessarily translate to "significant" coverage (unlike, say that that Sonny Pike received). Number 5 7 23:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG, a lot of the football coverage is WP:ROUTINE and WP:NTEMP - nothing significant that passes notability. --Jimbo^[online] 01:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As we can see above, references are not significant coverage and do not appear to assert notability per the guidelines we have on Wikipedia. Cloudz 679 11:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Struway's compelling analysis proves that the coverage does not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the person has been the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable third party sources and meets the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Struway2 has explained convincingly that the coverage tends to be trivial. Sandstein 08:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only independent sources referenced are the BBC (which lists him but not mentions him) and some local newspapers of unknown importance. And he plays for a fifth tier club. Also per Jimbo_online. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 15:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Pilkington[edit]

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

Semi-pro football player who has never played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:NFOOTBALL Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Did you look at the article WP:BEFORE nominating? Mr Pilkington began his career with Manchester United, played for them in the English Premier League, and has since played nearly 400 games in the Football League. Ridiculous nomination. Struway2 (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. (edit conflict) Erm, he has played in several fully professional leagues – including the Premier League – as even the most cursory glance at his statistics will reveal. I suggest that this nomination be removed quickly. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, has been a professional sportsman for 20+ years. Giant Snowman 11:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - come on this is an easy one! I made a stats table, you see he has played in the following fully professional leagues: Premier League, First Division, Second Division, Third Division and League Two. Also has about 40 references; that would hint at notability.--Echetus Xe 11:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Appears to be a WP:POINTY nomination. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

request speedy close as keep, nomination based on a mistake Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was wrongfooted by this article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:58, 30 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 nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craig McAllister[edit]

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

Semi-pro football player who has never played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:NFOOTBALL Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Player has played for at least three clubs over two full seasons in the Football League, per [35] and [36], thus comfortably passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Struway2 (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Football League Two is not a fully professional league. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it is, according to the list at WP:FPL. Further, the first link above shows that Mr McAllister played in Football League One as well. Struway2 (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 11:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Appears to be a WP:POINTY nomination. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - It's quite clear he passes WP:NFOOTBALL, Mr. McAllister has played in both Football League One & Football League Two with Exeter & League Two with Barnet & Rotherham. Don't you think if he wasn't notable it would have been noticed in the GA review. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

request speedy close as keep, nomination based on a mistake I was wrongfooted by this article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:58, 30 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 into existing articles. Spinning Spark 03:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Day-by-day summaries of the 2012 Australian Open[edit]

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

This article has almost no information that is not already found on pages like 2012 Australian Open – Men's Singles and 2012 Australian Open – Women's Singles. Since there is almost no prose to go with it, this is merely a list of tables, which violates WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Is an unnecessary content fork, and the few items of useful information can easily be included in the forementioned articles. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment - per consensus the day-by-days must be kept or merged into the "main page." Prose can certainly be added as opposed to elimination as the day-by-days of the 2010 Australian Open shows. Unfortunately the 2010 Open is way over-sized since the merge and the day by days should really have been left on their own imho. I don't really care one way or the other about the day-by-days but I do care that this has already been done, discussed and polled in favor of keeping or merging the day-by-day format if it doesn't make the main article too big. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That previous AfD resulted in Merge, showing a clear concensus not to have this as standalone articles. The argument that it cannot be merged because the main article is too big is weak for several reasons: #1: We do not have standalone day-by-day articles for recent French Open , Wimbledon or US Open. Then why are they needed for the Australian Open? #2: The Men's Singles and Women's Singles articles I mentioned are 56kB and 41kB respectively, thus they can easily take in any useful items from this day-by-day. Actually there is 80% overlap between these articles, so an smerge would hardly make them any longer. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But also the very clear consensus was not to delete it. As long as you leave it in it's day to day format it can be merged but it can't be deleted to keep the history intact. We may have a large main article but at least that will satisfy the merge option. And we have a lot of articles for some things that we don't have for others, but I don't know what that has to do with the price of eggs? There can be many reasons why that happens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had already requested to not mark the article for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Day-By-Day earlier this morning & had clearly said - Since the problem of length and quality surfaced at the main article which was unnecessarily becoming voluminous and lack of ease of reading the article, the need to create a new page for simplicity & better readability was must. Almost, all the conditions of making the article as per wiki norms is meticulously taken care. (The article has a lede, has reliable references, ....). The article tends to focus on pompous information (Seeds Out, Today's tournaments) related to the Grand Slam event catering to sports news in brief. Requesting not to mark the article for deletion as was done for 2011 Australian Open (Day-by-day summaries). This part of article itself should not have been entertained in the main article in the beginning itself & I would than not have created the page. Please also refer WP:DETAIL and WP:TERSE

I do agree with MakeSense64 that there is no prose & Fyunck(click) that Prose can certainly be added .... but I personally feel that such kind of article should not be with a prose since the main idea is to get the information in a summarized form as short and as brief as possible. If the need to add a prose is a necessity than I will surely update the same but the prose would than be nothing other than -

# Eighteenth seed ... defeated sixteenth seed ...

# ...., the biggest upset in the tournament to date.

# ... who lost to ....

# ... who went out to ...

# ... successfully made their way into the semifinals by defeating ...

which has already been taken care in the lede section of 2012 Australian Open – Men's Singles

Being a novice, I am not aware whether such articles should be entertained or not but as a WP reader, I may need just a quick summary of the tournament's day-by-day summaries where else in WP are the dates of the 2012 AO tournament mentioned ?

Ninney (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting not to mark an article for deletion is not how WP works. These articles were not kept as standalone articles for AO 2010 and 2011, so then why create one for 2012 against this concensus? There is no any rule that says it has to be merged into main tournament article. In fact, other than the courts on which matches have been played, this article has no information that is not already found in the men's and women's singles articles. And if prose is found to go with it, then it belongs in articles like 2012 Australian Open – Men's Singles, which are not too big to be expanded (in fact they also lack sufficient prose) MakeSense64 (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what that means. We discuss things... and the editors on the talk pages request no rfd's all the time. It's exactly how wiki works. Sure it can be ignored because that's also how wiki works. But wiki mainly works by consensus and consensus has already been made on this subject... "Merge" with main article and do not delete. I guess if we have a 100k main article then so be it, but the info should be retained. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary merge viewing - I added and reverted what the day-by-days will look like added to the main article. It's 93k in size, which is a bit big, and will be larger if/when prose is added to each day. I'm flexible as either separate or with the main.... I just wanted everyone to have a ready view of the landscape. At least with merging it keeps things in one spot though much bigger, however just going to "events" leads us to 15 more branches so I don't see where one more day-by-day branch is a really big deal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hold the same opinion. Agree with you Fyunck(click), BIFURCATE instead of MERGE will be the best solution

Like -- Ninney (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - But why are you trying to merge in the main article? That's obviously not what I am talking about. If there is anything to say about matches, then it should be in the already existing content forks for the men's singles, women's singles, and so on..

Why not take a look at how this is done for other sports events? E.g. the football world cup. We don't find any day-by-day articles for these events, even though you could easily create such articles. We also don't find any match reports or day-by-day in the main article : 2010 FIFA World Cup, only some very brief summaries. The match reports are found in 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. Applying this to Australian Open, we should not have day-by-day standalone articles, and match reports or day-by-day do not belong in the main article either. As I mentioned in my deletion rationale, any match reports belong in 2012 Australian Open – Men's Singles and 2012 Australian Open – Women's Singles, which can easily contain that information. But right now Day-by-day summaries of the 2012 Australian Open is mainly a list of match results which are already in the other articles, just arranged differently. That's why we can delete Day-by-day summaries of the 2012 Australian Open because it is redundant. What do you want to keep from this article that is not already elsewhere? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) The day by days work fine in 2009 Australian Open, and 2) I'm following an already made consensus to merge with the main article. It isn't a question of where to merge since that was already decided by consensus and agreed to by an administrator. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Concensus can change. And if there is a better place to put this information, then we should do it. The fact remains that this day-by-day has only match results, which are already easily found in our other 19 content forks for this year's Australian Open. What are you going to merge from this article that is not already covered elsewhere? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True consensus can change but until it does we follow it. We just don't arbitrarily decide which consensus to follow and which to ignore. This was brought up, talked about and decided upon formally not very long ago. I come out on losing sides of consensus debates about half the time here. I may or may not be happy about a decision but when it's finally settled I follow it to keep everyone on the straight and narrow, and to move on to other things that need doing. We can move the mostly complete day-by-day to the main article (which I did for comparison) but we can't strip it and send it piecemeal to different locations. We can always dump the other content forks if they have the same info. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There is a couple of big differences. The day-by-day section in 2009 Australian Open has a lot of sourced prose describing the matches. The Day-by-day summaries of the 2012 Australian Open is mainly a list of match results sorted by day, but little or no prose to go with it. These match results are already covered in other articles. So there is no reason to keep this article.

I also disagree that these day-by-day sections cannot be stripped and sent to different articles. Why not? It is mainly the men's singles and women's singles matches (and a few doubles matches in the later rounds). Sorting them out by tournament and adding them in the tournament content fork where they belong (men's singles, women's singles,..) would make it much more clear and readable. Now it is just just a mish-mash. Description of women's matches can logically go into 2012 Australian Open – Women's Singles, coverage of men's matches can be put into 2012 Australian Open – Men's Singles.. that's the kind of information that is currently lacking in these articles. Why is the project Tennis insisting on creating a 20th content fork (or a day-by-day section in the main article) when the other 19 content forks for the Australian Open have barely any sourced prose to go with its long lists of stats and results? MakeSense64 (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) just because it's short of the prose of the 2009 article doesn't mean we delete it...we make it better. Just like when a player becomes notable if they only have one word in the article we don't delete that either... we improve it. 2) As I had said before the-day-by-days cannot be stripped piecemeal because it's against a ruling already made by an administrator. And it's not a mish-mash, it's a day-by-day look in an all-encompassing way of events that transpired... one day at a time. When we have a list of all the 4 Major winners in one chart that is also information that is already available at wikipedia, now just put into one place. The day-by-days are like that. I look at this as if my wife has just brought home a new sofa she loves and I have to place it somewhere. It doesn't matter if I like it or not, and I'm not going to take a reciprocating saw and start cutting it apart to make it fit better. My option is to find the best place for it as is, maybe add some pillows or quilts to make it look better, or hide it in a corner, but it needs a room to go in. That's how I look at this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got an idea if it would work, you all tell me! I think we should template each day or all the days, which I would let you all decide what to do. If we template them se could make a navbox of them to allow people to get through the days and a category to boot, it would allow for seemless navigation or viewing.HotHat (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Example: Template:2012 Australian Open Day 1HotHat (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted and example on the talk page to see if it work, which it did! Now, tell me what is you all's opinion on the matter.HotHat (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At first TEMPLATE seems to be a nice alternative but its one and the same thing as creating a new page/ new article. If one template is used then its OK but if new template for each day is created then 1 grand slam has 15-20 templates and the annual 4 grand slams will have 60 - 80 templates only in 1 year. Why create 'n' number of templates for each tournament ? Also, Templates usually contains repetitive material that might need to show up on any number of articles or pages. They are commonly used for boilerplate msg, std warnings or notices, infoboxes, nav. boxes & similar purposes. Sorry ! but Templates cannot be used for day-by-day summaries.

-- Ninney (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from me. Template doesn't seems to be a good solution neither. We must get rid of these kind of statistics anyway from tennis articles. If I were a casual internet user and would come across an article with such a title as "Day by Day summary" I would like to see prose about the events. Like a story told for each day. Not a table of flags and seeds. These articles should stand on their own, but this way they simply don't. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 09:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP and MERGE: These should not have ever been created into separate content forking, which the creation of this is a POVFORK to highlight these as being so-called news and INDISCRIMINATE. These are intricle parts of the main article, and without them the 2012 Australian Open has virtually no context and plot lines to the event, such as the 2009 Australian Open has with the inclusion of the day-by-day aricles. I think we use SIZERULE to much, which when a Grand Slam deserves the extra information, we can go over the limit, which only occurs four times a year. By the way, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia clearly states this is a general encyclopedia at the same time a specialized one, so we can have them because we can create a tennis encyclopdia inside Wikipedia with more detailed content including these Wikitable. I agree these articles don't stand on their own, nor should they have ever been created. So, I say keep the information and merge it back onto the main article because we have had four years of consensus for them on the main grand slam tournament articles just go look.HotHat (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But why this idea of merging it in the main article, as if that is the only possibility? The 2012 Australian Open has 19 content forks, as you can see here: [37]. And most of these content forks have no prose whatsoever, so they would improve if we added the properly sourced match reports there.

But somehow our editors found no way to include the match or day-by-day information into these 19 articles, and created a 20th content fork: Day-by-day summaries of the 2012 Australian Open. And if we look at that article it is mainly a list of results , which are already in these 19 other content forks. So we can delete it. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They cannot clearly be deleted because it would end the plot of the tornament and would not tell the full story without them or their inclusion. I would like all of you yelling prose, prose, prose to go and actually write some for once on a tennis article if it is that important to you look at Wikipedia law of complaints at the bottom of Raul's Laws of Wikipedia. This is my belief and what I have strived for if I want something done do it myself instead of complaining about it. By the way, these would fit on none of the articles, which are mostly draw articles, and these have different matches from varying draws. It must go back on the main article and it must get talked about on the Talk:2012 Australian Open article, not on some random deletion discussion. This deletion discussion sets a various dangerous president for wikipedia at-large not just with respect to these articles. It says that if you want any part of an article deleted make it into some sub article and advocate for the deletion of it. See it would impact more than just tennis!HotHat (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought of summarizing the discussion -

USER	PAGE	PROSE	MERGE
MakeSense64	Page to be deleted	Prose needed	Merge
Fyunck(click)	Page needed	Prose can certainly be added	Merge (if size permits)
Ninney	Page needed	Prose not needed	Merge not a solution
HotHat	Page needed	Prose to be written immediately	Merge
Lajbi	Page to be deleted	Prose needed	??? Merge ???

Thanks HotHat ! I will certainly start writing the prose - Ninney (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally you'd want it to look like 2009 Australian Open though I would have only about 2/3 as much prose as that article has now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That doesn't look like a good summary. So far I have seen nobody arguing the case that this page (article) is needed. Because in the past such day-by-day articles have not been kept as standalone. And we also don't have any "day-by-day" articles in other sports.

A few people say merge, but so far they fail to say what they want to merge from this article. It is mainly a list of results, which are already found in other articles.

And if we are going to write prose about the matches then it should be added in our existing articles about the men's and women's singles tournament, because right now these articles are also lacking prose to go with the tables. This fails WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.

See for example [[2012 Australian Open – Men's Singles]]. That's where we need the prose about the matches if we are going to have any. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must counter with, these day-by-day synopsis are in line with NOTSTATSBOOK rule No. 1 Summary-only descriptions of works because it is in fact a listing of matches on the three biggest main courts as a summary of the day's matches at the event. So, it is a summary and not in excess, which would be to list all matches on all courts. Under No. 3, it says "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." This means we need to add prose and not delete them, just because things are not up to code does not mean we wholesale delete, what it in fact means is we tag them and hope some editor comes along to make it a better place. So, the article is a summary of the day's goings on at the event and all that must be add not by me but by whomever because I don't particularly care about prose but you all do, is to add prose into the article in each section. Or back on the main page, where these articles should be in the first place not on some NPOV Content forking article becuase of over emphasis on just the SIZERULE policy.HotHat (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - So it's really looking like merge as per Ninneys chart and the fact this was "afd discussed" just last season with the result to merge (or keep if no merge) as determined by an administrator. So we already had the proper go-ahead to merge from last time. I just merged the info but did not add the proper merge tags yet nor blank the day-by-day with a redirect. Of course this can be undone but I wanted to get this moving along so we can work on other things. This day-by-day article title must remain as a re-direct for a merge. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be merged if that is possible, because the draw pages don't actually show which matches were played on each day, rain delays etc. If references are found and prose is written, it may need to be a standalone article for size reasons. 03 md 04:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It is important to be aware that the quality of the sources is more important than how many of them there are, and those arguing to delete have made a compelling case that the sources used here are of a poor quality and/or not relevant to the subject anyway. 18:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Beeblebrox (talk)

Agdaban massacre[edit]

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

Articles like these should be deleted. I recently fixed another article like this one, Capture of Malibeyli and Gushchular. All sources on the article are not reliable, nor third party references and are also from nationalist sites trying to promote the word "massacre', or "genocide" during a ethnic war that took place with civilian casualties. I see one third party sources in the article that does not mention the massacre directly or anything, so its irrelevant. Okay to break it down, the PAGE for this is here Battle of Kalbajar, civilian deaths occurred during that battle. This is basically nationalist propaganda that should have been deleted by now. Google books gets no hits: [38] and Google search results are basically all from Wikipedia off shoots and such, [39], no third party reference is available that can verify this article. The only thing it can verify is casualties during the war which dont point out to a massacre anyway, no reliable or third party sources exist, however the amount of civilians that died during the battle can be added to Battle of Kalbajar. I've done my research and concluded that this page should be deleted. It goes against four of Wikipedia's main guidelines.Nocturnal781 (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Theís article should be kept for now. Enough reliable sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per BabbaQ. The deletion of the article had already been discussed in the past. It was decided that it would be kept. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to keep in mind that consensus can change but, for context, could you please provide a link to the previous deletion discussion? The only past deletion-related discussion I found was Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 24, which was mostly about procedure and not the article. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cornell, Alizadeh, Baghdasaryan and the International Labour Office are unlikely "Azeri nationalists" to be dismissed as POV or anything of that sort. There has been enough coverage by the third-party provided to earn it a separate article status. Parishan (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The information from third party sources don't even mention a massacre for a fact but say that civilians were killed during a battle. Concluding that a massacre did not take place intentionally. Civilians die during battles almost always, this page is not notable enough to have its own page especially under a 'massacre'. Nocturnal781 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename~~ the only sources that call it a massacre are not neutral. --George Spurlin (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge with Agdaban. Upon further examination, I'm changing my vote to merge with Agdaban article. A sentence long article can certainly be improved with the added information. --George Spurlin (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with BabbaQ. This massacre is happened and proven fact, therefore don't need to remove just because it is ruining armenian genocide's true image.--NovaSkola (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has nothing to do with the Armenian Genocide, nor its image. If you did research on the topic you would see where I am coming from, all third party sources or reliable sources I researched on this topic does not say a massacre occurred, if its a proven fact, please show your source that makes you confirm that because I've done my research and haven't found anything that can confirm that. I'd love to keep this article if I found reliable sources confirming a massacre of civilians occurred.Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have searched for and found no coverage of this in reliable sources, let alone any calling it a massacre. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Darkness Shines. --va c io 09:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Darkness Shines. Unless third party/neutral sources can be found, it's better that this article be deleted altogether.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep for now, but the article needs to be expanded and better sources.--Abbatai 09:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The problem is that better sources, i.e. third party sources do not mention a massacre in Agdaban. --va c io 11:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There might be some Russian sources for this massacre maybe Armenian and Azerbaijani users here may help us to fin some, most probably they speak Russian language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbatai (talk • contribs) 13:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked two relevant sources:

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki, Azerbaijan: Seven years of conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Helsinki (Organization : U. S.) 1994
"Small nations, great powers" of Svante Cornell. December 1, 2000, ISBN-10: 0700711627

There is no mention of Agdaban massacre. Please, if you want make WP better, don't vote to keep articles which include statements that cant be verified from third party sources. --va c io 12:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Darkness Shines. This is Azerbaijani nationalist propaganda. Dehr (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clear propaganda effort, which is not confirmed by any non-Azerbaijani, reliable source. The author refers to the years of war between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh, and plays on guesses and allegations by what he / she calls "witnesses", or "other sources". The only non-Azerbaijani source is referred as mentioning destruction of "the military station". Definitely manipulation, and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spankarts (talk • contribs) 04:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Darkness Shines, no reliable source. Sardur (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is based on Baku propaganda and there are no credible sources to support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprutt (talk • contribs) 02:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is an event, which is the capture of Agdaban, as part of the Nagorno-Karabakh War, and its aftermath. The references in this article are in many places either dead links, or dead trees. Now while there is no inherent problem with book sources, to properly assess the notability of the event, these sources are needed to see if there is significant coverage, or passing mention, and if the sources are reliable. When I go over the sources now I see the following:
- Ref1: dead link no idea on how reliable this source is, of how significant the coverage
- Ref2: dead link. The resulting page indicates "This Account Has Been Suspended", which gives doubt about the reliability of what was there.
- Ref3: published book source. This looks like a good reliable source, but we have no indication of the significance of coverage of the event
- Ref4: No significant coverage. Haven't really checked the reliability, but that doesn't really matter, since the coverage doesn't infer notability anyway
- Ref5: A 2006 book with no ISBN listed on google books (which gives pause to how important this book is). It is online on google books, but I don't speak russian, and can't check for significant coverage (I wouldn't know the cyrilic spelling of Agdaban, so I can't even do a quick mention-count)
- Ref6: Not a RS
- Ref7: No significant coverage
- Ref8: No significant coverage
- Ref9: Dead link
- Ref10: No significant coverage, and seemingly partisan source
Stepping over the NPOV problems of this article (which could be fixed by a refocus, and a rename to, for example, Capture of Agdaban (1992)) I don't think this event by itself is notable. If someone happens to be able to assess ref3, and it happens to be significant coverage, or could find out if ref1 is a good source, then I'm willing to take another look, but as it stands, I don't think there is enough here to satisfy the notability guidelines, or to properly verify the content. These small titbits here and there are just too thin to write a decent NPOV article on the subject. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to ref3, however the only sentence where the village Agdaban is mentioned, is already quoted in the footnote (From early February onwards, the Azeri villages of Malybeili, Karadagly, and Agdaban were conquered and their population evicted, leading to at least 99 civilian deaths and 140 wounded). --va c io 14:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I withdraw my nomination. (non-admin closure) CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 02:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You Better Run[edit]

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

No content. Doesn't explain why the song is notable. Just because it's an Elvis Presley song doesn't make in inherently notable. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 06:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have found a few mentions of the song [40][41][42]. It seems this is a gospel song performed on a few occasions in concert and was never recorded, though a live version appears on bootlegs. That's not enough in my view to warrant an individual article; I have added that info to List of songs by Elvis Presley. "You Better Run" is also the name of a top 20 single by The Rascals (later covered by Pat Benatar, whose version also charted), which has a much better case for meeting WP:NSONGS. I went ahead and expanded the article - which had been redirected to The Rascals main page - with information relating to this song. If needed, perhaps a hatnote can be added so people interested in the Elvis tune can be directed to the list. Gongshow ^Talk 21:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and with that expansion with something notable, I withdraw this AfD. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 02:16, 31 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 --Salix (talk): 10:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The T.Ocho Show[edit]

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

This is an unremarkable television program with only a handful of episodes; it was cancelled due to poor ratings in its first season. This stub has very limited potential for development, and should be deleted. The information concerning Terrell Owens and Chad Ochocinco hosting a show on basic cable can/should be mentioned as part of their biography articles. SENATOR2029 talk 06:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SENATOR2029 talk 06:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was created after originating network was relaunched; indeed, unremarkable show with unnotable run. A redirect to Terrell Owens, where there is a section about it (and if I remember right, I had put the mention in the NBCSN article as pointing to) should work. Nate • (chatter) 06:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:TVSHOW and had impact as per e.g. this source Keizers (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No impact, ext. link provided above is for an article announcing its debut, but provides no proof of notable impact. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beta Theta Pi Fraternity Alumni Associations[edit]

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

This article at the moment lists 4 associations, all are redlinks. If I presume that these are the 4 most known societies (as opposed to other non-AGF possibilities), then I am afraid that this list will never gain any notability. Moreover, all the statements are unreferenced. As an alternative, put this in Beta Theta Pi (the 'mother' article) when the notability of the association is enough to have independent references, and redirect this article there. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list whose every entry is a redlink, no references, no encyclopedic content outside of the list. JIP | Talk 06:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is completely unsourced. In any event, it would be easier to just include a link on Beta Theta Pi to wherever the fraternity maintains its own list of all the alumni associations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasoning. List of non-notable < 100 person groups. jni (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 30 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 Politician. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statesman[edit]

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

Somewhat procedural nomination, per a request by an IP user. Their rationale was that the article lacks substance, and could better be suited as an entry at Wiktionary, and I tend to agree. I haven't done a search for any references to build the article, this is more a nomination on behalf of the IP. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Statesman' is a term of respect for politicians and diplomats, and isn't really a distinct field or profession. It doesn't need to have its own article. 69.205.120.39 (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this can be expanded to be more than a dictionary definition. Where is the list of politicians who have been commonly called as statesman for example? Anon on talk page seems to think this should be deleted because who is a statesman is ill-defined in English language. It is true this is not a distinct field or profession, but neither is Robber baron. Just in case this gets deleted, remember to move Statesman (dialogue) or the disambig page in its place. jni (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The robber baron article is specifically about the 19th century term, and discusses it solely in that limited context. The list on that article is a list of 19th century American industrialists. 'Statesman' has no specific context, and the maintainers of its page have already agreed that any list would be inherently POV. The only way to avoid it would be to make it a list of "prominent leaders, politicians, and diplomats", and of course there are already articles on each of those subjects. 69.205.120.39 (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a little bit dictionary-definitiony, but an encyclopedic noun that is apt to show up in the leads of WP biographies, particularly for pre-20th Century figures. As such, this "job description" really does need to show as a bluelink, not red, for the betterment of the encyclopedia. There is certainly much room for improvement, but even in its current state there is sufficient content that a non-native english speaker using en-WP should be helped out by the link's existence. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per wp:dicdef. Anything useful could be merged to the article politician --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Politician per SupernovaExplosion. The article can be reinstated if and when enough substantial sources are found for expansion.--JayJasper (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to politician, since the two are essentially the same.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 7, 2012; 18:21 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flip Burger Boutique[edit]

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

The article as it is is a vehicle for promotion of the restaurant, featuring glowing reviews and still "press release" and marketing-type language. I do believe the restaurant may be notable due to its mention in multiple national media, however no one is stepping up to remove this promotional content, and this can't be allowed to remain on Wikipedia, unless we are ok with Wikipedia turning into a directory of press releases/promotional brochures Keizers (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it is overly promotional in tone, it is sourced from several reliable third party sources. It needs a cleanup, not a deletion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nominator suggests subject is notable, AfD is not for cleanup, articles like this abound yet we don't delete them. Hopefully, we improve them.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have done substantial gutting of the baloney in the article. The sourcing is pretty darn good, though, for notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nom: Yeah, i see where you just gave just desserts (liquid nitrogen-ified i am sure) by adding the quote "Each burger tastes as if someone said, "Dude, let's figure out a way to cram a bunch of crap on one plate so the diner can't identify a single ingredient.", but we don't need to make it an attack article either. The mention re overdone is fair.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is assured through a number of reliable sources. Milowent's cleanup has much improved the article. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:02, 31 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 21:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Lower East Side of Life[edit]

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

Per WP:NALBUMS, "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence." This album does not meet the general notability criteria, and lacks reliable sources to justify a standalone article. CrazyHos12 (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reviews in Allmusic and Country Standard Time comprise reliable, third party coverage worthy of a standalone article. The fact that a brand new editor is filing AFDs has me suspicious. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do two reviews justify "significant coverage" per WP:GNG, plus the review on Country Standard Time is done by a relatively unknown author, I question the reliability of that review. The fact that I am a new editor does not relate to the AFD whatsoever, I am well within my rights to question the notability of this album. -CrazyHos12 (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Unknown author" is irrelevant. Country Standard Time is a reliable site. If two sources review an album, that's a good enough sign of notability — it'd be too much info to merge/redirect. I also see an article in the Tennesseean about the album, but it's paywalled. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per 8,000,000 similar past AfDs about albums, this coverage is sufficient.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two reliable sites have reviewed this album, so it passes WP:GNG just fine. Dream Focus 09:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reviews listed in the article demonstrate there exists significant coverage in multiple reliable sources; meets WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep well reviewed album reviewed my multiple notable publications by notable artist. Bouket (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews present in the article in question. GNG threshold is met. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reviewed by two reliable websites. Eric444 (talk) 17:42, 31 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) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore International School[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article is about a school, but no reliable sources have been provided or found. This article has been prod-ed and deleted before. TN X Man 03:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a verifiable K-12 school. I'd give this high school deletion a snowball's chance in hell. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Keep, per common outcomes. Consensus suggests that high schools are inherently notable, and give that it educates pupils to the age of 18, this school seems to fall into that category. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a reputed and a recognized international school in the city of Bangalore. A deletion of this article wouldn't be viable. Sahils1512 (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC+05:30)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony Online[edit]

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

Upcoming potentially notable unofficial mmorpg. Not notable yet. Mythpage88 (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a crystal ball exercise. I really do not want to contemplate a MMORPG consisting of tens of thousands of those MLP whackers... Carrite (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely crystal ballery. 3D community-made MMORPGs are rare as hen's teeth anyway for obvious reasons, and an MMORPG made from someone else's unlicensed intellectual property? Come on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has the potential to become notable, but at this point it hasn't been released yet and as such, doesn't pass WP:CRYSTAL. There's a bit of coverage, but not enough and not in-depth enough to be the amount needed to warrant an article at this time. This would absolutely be worth mentioning on the main MLP:FIM article under the fandom. I'd also like to add that the fandom has started to reach the point that it might be worth creating a branch off article about it, if someone more savvy than I would like to do so. (I'm just a casual fan and probably wouldn't be the best editor for this. I know that MLP AfDs are usually often read, so I'm mentioning it here in case anyone is interested.) This article also might be worth userfying if someone is interested in doing so.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N and the sub-par citations do not help. User:SweetieBelleMLP 17:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's currently not notable, and honestly I doubt it ever will be. Wagner ^u t c 20:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as WP:CRYSTAL mostly. While the few sources could contribute to GNG, their coverage is minimal at best and was only prompted by the brony community. There's no critical reception and without it real-world significance cannot be established proper. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony Live: The World's Biggest Tea Party[edit]

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

Non-notable MLP musical. Mythpage88 (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a source and you totally taking this too seriously on one page because you think it's not notable. Do some research for once.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A source" is not enough to meet even GNG. Additionally, if WP:LOTSOFSOURCES isn't a reason to vote keep, why would only one source be one? You're gonna have to do more than just say that it's notable in order for that to fly. Mythpage88 (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:LOTSOFSOURCES" is part of an opinion essay, not part of policy doctrine. Carrite (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it's a widely-accepted one, frequently cited and applied in deletion discussions. Mythpage88 (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that grownup males into "My Little Pony" make pedobear smile, that's what I think. I'm gonna just Assume Bad Faith on those weirdos... That shouldn't matter though. There are a MASSIVE number of Google hits for "My Little Pony" + tea party. I'll be damned if I'm gonna spend five minutes sussing them out, but it's pretty clear that an iceberg that big is gonna generate enough shavings for a Reliable Sources snowcone... MLP is creepy, but this one passes muster. Carrite (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See WP:GOOGLEHITS for why this is not usually an accepted argument. Mythpage88 (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But in an ideal world, one running a proper WP:BEFORE would make such arguments unnecessary, since the massive number of G-Hits would indicate to the nominator that it was a Needs More Sources tagging problem rather than a Sources Do Not Exist problem. This one is pretty obvious with a quick Google search, it seems to me... Carrite (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...Or that unreliable sources mention it, or that the search is picking up irrelevant results, etc. Mythpage88 (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always want to stress to people that if you want something to be kept, do the work yourself. Never assume that someone else will end up doing the legwork. (In this case I did, but I could have easily walked away and did nothing.) If you do nothing, then don't be surprised if nobody else does and the article gets deleted because no sources were presented on the page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I agree completely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've no doubt this is every bit as bad as the article hints that it is, but it was a big enough deal to run for years, play huge venues like Madison Square Garden, and get covered in reliable sources (example source: link ) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, cause you know, it needs to be well, cooler. It needs to be about 20% cooler. (sorry, just had to) Sourcing is weak, but it looks like it can be expanded. ViperSnake151 Talk 05:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm trying to do a rescue on this right now and I'm finding more than a few reviews of the DVD out there from staff reviewers and the like. I'm going to refrain from voting until I'm done, but there does seem to be some sources out there.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep. I found some reliable reviews of the DVD and there seems to be more out there. If not for about 6-10 pages of notes that need to be typed up, I'd still be searching for sources. I want to note that for anyone looking for sources, you will want to search "My Little Pony Live" separately from the rest of the title.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 30 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clockwork Recordings[edit]

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

Exists, but the 3 sole gnews/gbooks hits are insufficient to supply the multiple, non-passing, substantial RS coverage that warrants a stand-alone article. Tagged for notability and zero refs since May. Epeefleche (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references except for own website etc.; no indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject lacks any coverage whatsoever in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Der yck C. 12:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent LED-embedded glass[edit]

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

Sounds more like a advertise for a product made by a single company than a technology Craesh (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is expressly not about a single company product, and that would not in itself exclude it from Wikipedia (if it did, many patent protected products would be out). A google search shows that glass with LEDs embedded is widely used for a variety of purposes and available from many sources. --AJHingston (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I read the whole article and looked at all of the on-line references. The title and the particulars seem to be about one company's products. There is no real overview information as there should/would be if were a general topic/technology. The on-line sources were generally about the one company's product, plus a bunch of patent search results which seem more like incoherent filler rather than supporting text. If this a real field (by this name) rather than one company's product, it sure isn't covered in this article. North8000 (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per AJHingston. But shouldn't it be renamed to LED-embedded glass? "Transparent" is obviously redundant. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M&M Proyectos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/M&M Proyectos

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

Orphaned since 2007, no reliable sources, some claims of notability but nothing which proves it, notability is not inherited. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indicaiton of wp:notability. The two "references" aren't references. 90% of the article 'content" is just vague promotional doublespeak. North8000 (talk) 02:56, 30 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malinche Entertainment[edit]

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

The subject of the article absolutely does not conform to the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. There is no rational way to claim that this business is in any way notable. Furthermore, none of the claims made by Howard Sherman (the business owner) in the article are verifiable - not even the date of the founding of the business! Laval (talk) 02:15, 30 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) 13:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two citations in Wired, one from a local newspaper. All three are directly covering the business and the business's products. That looks like multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject, each of which provides significant coverage. As best I can tell, that meets the general notability guideline. — Alan De Smet | Talk 17:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncovered another useful citation in the form of published PhD Thesis. Added it to the article. — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly, largely per Alan De Smet. While some of the references are to blogs and other less formal sources, they are from people who have made names for themselves as game developers. No one will mistake this article for a PR piece. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability, sources do not support claims. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaojun Campbell[edit]

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

The one source that even mentions the subject, does not mention the subject in any detail or even by first name. The only claim of significance in the article is a net worth in the tens of millions, which indicates that this person is unlikely to meet the notability guideline at WP:BIO. See also WP:INHERITED. PROD was contested by the author.

I am also nominating the following related page for similar reasons - no indication the subject meets the WP:GNG or WP:BIO, and no substantial sources.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, speedily in the case of Julia M. Campbell. The Xiaojun article has no sources that identify her by name. The Julia article is about a high school student, is sourced only to the web sites of schools she attends or has attended, and contains no claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but with qualifications. The point that has not been properly addressed in this discussion is that WP notability is likely to result from her career as a dancer prior to marriage. It would appear that this was under the name of Xu Xiaojun and I have had no success in a Google search under that name; however, given the problems of such a search it would be desirable for others to try. The vague mentions of her career in the article suggest that she never rose above the level of the corps de ballet at best, but I would be happier if I had not drawn a complete blank which suggests I could be missing something. Obviously her daughter is a completely different matter; we need strong grounds for retaining articles about minors. --AJHingston (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Julia M. Campbell has been deleted speedily. I'm looking at the other one. Peridon (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything about the mother. I agree - probably corps de ballet at best. I'm always suspicious when people link to institutions and not the individual concerned. I've tagged the article for Speedy. Peridon (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: an article about the banker husband has already been speedied. Peridon (talk) 12:36, 30 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Racing TV[edit]

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

This article has been written like an advertisement since its inception, and most of the edits since Sept 2010 have been by people associated with the company. No evidence of notability — Google comes up with nothing. If this had been a new article, I would have speedied it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Project Thoroughbred Racing here. Tend to agree with nom: article lacks independent sources and is promotional in tone. I am going to dig around and see if I can improve it. Will notify here if I make any major edits.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cable network with national reach and on known providers. The writing is promotional, but it can be fixed rather easily. Nate • (chatter) 07:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. National network. Hundreds of references on GNews [43][44]. Edit the promotional stuff, keep the facts. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:08, 30 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) 20:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Emperor (2013 film)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Per the notability guideline for films, it's generally inappropriate for a movie to have an article until principal photography has started. Since according to IMDB, this film is still in pre-production, it's too early for this article to exist yet. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A clear delete in my book. Obviously fails WP:NFF, and other than an infobox, there's nothing on the article! --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accord Language School[edit]

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

I don't think this language school passes WP:CORP. I can find a couple of mentions in passing on Google Books, but I don't think this is the kind of depth of coverage that WP:CORP requires. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 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?} 19:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything (that is not an advert) in English or French apart from this article, which has a few paragraphs. Certainly not enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Sionk (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks third party sources to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per BIODEL Wifione ^Message 04:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emil J. Biggel[edit]

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

not notable – few relevant Ghits. This article is essentially a vanity bio. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 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?} 19:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, failing WP:PEOPLE. --Ifnord (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:06, 30 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decoupling modification[edit]

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. In fact, most of the coverage in gbooks does not even relate to this tax concept. Tagged for notability for 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clarify. Based on the tax form used as an example, the term has a somewhat broader use than just for depreciation schedules, but for various other state modifications of their income tax rules to provide for differences from the corresponding of federal income tax rules. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see substantial RS coverage of this term -- which at best is only a dic def anyway -- in gnews and gbooks. Nor is it reflected in the article. Nor does DGG point to anyway. In the absence of meeting GNG, and since this is a dic def, I don't see the basis for this !vote in WP policy.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Corporate tax in the United States#Earnings and profits (or perhaps State income tax#Corporate income tax). As far as I see this sense of the term "decoupling modification" is exclusive to Maryland. --Lambiam 11:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could see a redirect. But I don't think this is appropriate material for a merge. It is all challenged text that lacks inline citations. Once redirected, of course any appropriate referenced material could be created at the article to which it is redirected.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The current text is not clear enough and needs to be rewritten; finding usable references is less of a problem (e.g. "Q. Do all states follow the federal depreciation rules? A. No.", "Many states follow the federal depreciation rules. However, a number of states do not accept some or all of the accelerated depreciation rules.", and this page or form 500DM itself for the Maryland term "decoupling modification" – and for an in-depth treatment, "this paper".). Only a redirect violates the WP:R#PLA rule that the user should readily see why they were sent to the target page. --Lambiam 22:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - A redirect can (and, per your comment, it would seem should) be accompanied by the creation of content at the target page. That is often, though not always, the case. Often elementary schools for example are redirected to target articles that until then have no content on the school in question -- not even a name. The benefit of doing it this way over a merge is that there is no need for the person suggesting a redirect to ensure that the history of the old, unreferenced text is moved over. A simple creation of new text (properly sourced) is all that is needed.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 30 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 List of Digimon. JohnCD (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seasarmon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Utterly non-notable subject; no reliable sources cited. The article is filled with game-guide type material, and there seems to be no real-world significance. A prod was not possible because of an earlier nomination. J Milburn (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Digimon. Previous AfD was a pretty dodgy close, if you ask me; looks more a like "no consensus", veering towards "delete". Mind you, it was a long time ago, I daresay the guidelines were different back then. Now, however, they are made of sterner stuff, and this totally fails the current incarnation of WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to list of Digimon. Agree that it's impossible for this to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tofmicq[edit]

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

As stated so well in the previous PROD, removed without explanation: Non-notable page discussing a high school physics teacher's exam strategy. Completely unreferenced, violates WP:FORUM and WP:MADEUP. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Qwfp (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for violating every WP:OR-related guideline we have and some which we haven't got yet but clearly ought to. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:38, 30 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 Pedestrian crossing. Wifione ^Message 04:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walk button[edit]

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

This article is entirely superfluous to pedestrian crossing and pelican crossing, and is purely an undesirable content fork. There is nothing in this article that is not covered elsewhere. The button is not a particularly significant component of the crossing, nor is it a particularly significant example of a push-button, so there is no reason for it to be covered independently. Redirect to pedestrian crossing was contested, but even a redirect is questionable: the article itself contends that the button is called a 'crossing button' or an 'intersection crossing button' (and only colloquially as a 'walk button'); as far as I can determine, more common colloquialisms are 'crosswalk button' or 'stop button' - and none of these are anyway shown to be notable colloquialisms. Delete RichardOSmith (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Or merge with pedestrian crossing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to pedestrian crossing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect to Pedestrian crossing. People might still search for the common (in the US) phrase "Walk button" so I would strongly prefer a redirect over a delete. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:25, 30 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James P. Comer[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Merely concerned that not enough third party references are present in this orphaned article to establish notability. Will leave to AFD to decide. GlassCobra 19:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the long-term holder of an endowed chair at an Ivy League university he clearly passes WP:PROF#C5. And I think having a profile in the New York Times also speaks to his notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article could definitely do with better sourcing - though where the subject has written an autobiography, there is always going to be a strong temptation to use it to source biographical details which may be otherwise difficult to find. But the subject is clearly notable - not only passing WP:PROF#C5 but almost certainly WP:PROF#C1 as well - not just because of the GScholar results but also his Heinz Award and Harold W. McGraw Prize in Education (I will let others decide what other notability criteria these might satisfy. I would also note that the article's orphan status resulted entirely from other articles where the subject was already mentioned in contexts where links might have been expected, either not linking at all or trying to link to James Comer. I have now corrected several of these. PWilkinson (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above DHooke1973 (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Moore (businessman)[edit]

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

Nominated it for WP:PROD originally, but but was contested. I am scratching my head as to why this person passes WP:NOTABILITY. For all WP:PEOPLE, we expect multiple pieces of notable achievement, and/or an award. I can't see how setting up a pizza frachise or acting as its CEO achieves this? If it does, we might as well write Bio's for all CEO's. Origially written by a named editor who at the time was working as an account manager for this companies PR and plc launch, it hasn't developed much since then, and still hence seems like more of a vanity piece than anything else Trident13 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said when I contested deletion, there is no requirement for "multiple pieces of notable achievement, and/or an award", but simply for significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which is demonstrated in the article. The nominator seems to be making up requirements that have no basis in policy or guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While requesting that Phil Bridger follows WP:CIV and WP:NPA, may I direct him to WP:NOTAB - Any Biography: (1) The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times; (2) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. If you feel that Chris Moore passes this criteria, and there are WP:RS to support this, then please do so. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Domino's Pizza UK & IRL. He might be independently notable, but at the moment the article only really contains information directly relating to his role in Domino's Pizza. Should more notable information about his career crop up pre- or post-Domino's, we can consider splitting it off again. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the number and depth of sources already provided (and there are far more available, like this one), Moore clearly meets WP:BASIC, which as WP:NBIO makes clear is enough to establish notability. The nomination seems to be based on a misunderstanding, since the part of the guideline cited appears in a section headed "additional criteria" and clearly isn't intended to be the only way a person can be notable - hence why it's titled "Any Biography" rather than "Every Biography" (and in my experience about 95% of people with Wikipedia articles would fail it). The merge argument is more compelling, but given that the current article contains a fair amount of information about his life before joining Dominos and that much more could be added (e.g. from this source), there's a big risk of either a) losing information or b) causing a big WP:UNDUE problem. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets the basic criteria of notability, per WP:BASIC: "... has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Multiple profiles in national newspapers achieves that. Tassedethe (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet the wp:criteria. North8000 (talk) 03:02, 30 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ostrich Media[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable but need references. Rcsprinter (speak) 21:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a number of references in numerous sources. I dont doubt I could find more. The subject is notable as being the vehicle used to launch the UK's first participation television quiz channel. It is also notable for the furore that erupted less than a year later when the, at the very least immoral, practices of such channels started to emerge. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:01, 30 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ShixxNOTE[edit]

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

Non-notable shareware computer program. No independent coverage apart from two user-submitted reviews on computer websites, nothing in reliable sources. See earlier deletion discussion from 2006 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShixxNOTE LAN Messenger. Article has been written and maintained by single-purpose COI account User:Sirola, who is the developer of this product. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I think this article is not candidate for deletion. It is notable shareware computer program which explain how desktop notes work, how you can send them across LAN. If you need independent review check Editor's Review on Softpedia site, or at Download.com. ShixxNOTE is shareware program and everybody can see how desktop notes program can be also LAN messenger. If this article is on Wikipedia more than 7 years why now again Gene93k want to delete it. Again there is some administrator who wants to remove this usefull article. Please check "Find sources" above and click on "books" link you will get 3 books where you can find ShixxNOTE program. In book "Network security assessment" (O Reilly, by Chris McNab) you will find ShixxNOTE program, also check other two books "Windows-Only Instant Messaging Clients: Xfire, Tencent Qq, S4pg, ..." and "Windows-Only Instant Messaging Clients, Including: Windows ..."• sirola (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that article ShixxNOTE should be deleted. If you write in Google "shixxnote" you will get about 743,000 results. ShixxNOTE program describes how desktop sticky notes can be used as LAN messenger. You can read also about Messenger Service and NET SEND command which program use if you have Windows 9x/Me/XP. Also you can find how to improve communication in any company. You can read Softpedia Editor's Review "Communication Has Never Been Easier". In ShixxNOTE article you can find out more about communication, network, sockets, port, etc. Finally this article is on Wikipedia more than 5 years so please consider this. Kind regards. • sirola (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't pass WP:NSOFT. There are reviews on Softpedia (linked above) and CNET downloads (in the article), that isn't enough even for WP:GNG. Implication of notability, required by WP:NSOFT is missing entirely. Furthermore, the WP:COI and promotion issues stands, as the software's author made about twice as many edits as all the other contributors together. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this article is notable. If there is near one million pages with ShixxNOTE program on the Internet therefore I think program is notable. Yes I made too many edits only because I didn't click on "Show preview". But text is not changed till article was created. I only added new images. If you want I will never again make any new edit. And why now you are against this article? Deleting article which is on Wikipedia more than 5 years is absurd for me. • Ozren Sirola (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are those documented in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (namely WP:GHITS, WP:VALINFO and WP:LONGTIME). At the same time, a single reliable source that doesn't belong to download farms would sav the article. You might prefer to find it. BTW, the WP:COI is noted not as a reason of deletion but as an indicator of the fact that if this article survives AfD, it should undergo a serious fact checking against the independent reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: It has About 737,000 Google hits, so it is clearly of interest. Dmitrij you said there is three reasons why this article is notable. Check out Google Test. But also I will put link to University Master's thesis which reffer to my program ShixxNOTE. Also this book explain concept of Instant Messaging, ShixxNOTE program stands next to the Windows Messenger and it is not book about security flow.• Ozren Sirola (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please next time avoid voting twice. As I've noted before, the Google test only reveals lack of valid arguments to keep this article. The book is Wikipedia-sourced (we don't allow self-sourcing, so it doesn't count for a reference) and the Master's thesis... don't see the way it can prove notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This program had as noted in article, independant reliable review in "Bug" magazine (published in paper and online) in Croatian. Buffer overflow in ShixxNote 6.net retrieved January 8, 2006. is also independant reliable source. Moravek (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources fail WP:SIGCOV. Also note, that WP:NSOFT requests implication of notability, which is clearly not the case in any source discussed above. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, read [45] ISSN 1330-0318 Because that is one of most reliable independant source. If article is not properly link, that is different problem, but not for here. Moravek (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you Moravek for supporting this article to stay on Wikipedia. There is plenty of reliable independant sources on the Internet for ShixxNOTE program. But also some of them are not on the Internet. For example students of "University Of Medicine in Zagreb, Croatia", uses my program for messaging. Because they have building with several floors and one big network, they asked me if I can give them program for free to improve communication, which I did. Now theirs communication is so much improved. They can send note from the computer on the first floor to the computers on the second, third or anywhere else in the University building. Also as you wrote Croatian BUG Magazine added my program on CD/DVD which is part of magazine three times. Also last time they wrote an article on Croatian about how program works. And ShixxNOTE version 4.net was rated 10/10 which is must have program for them. Sirola (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where is the article? Is this the one linked in the article? If you have source, please identify it the way it may be accessed to verify the information. As I already said above, the fact that you have users is very nice, but unhelpful for establishing notability. Given that BUG Magazine releases CDs periodically and bundles quite a lot of software, this is no way an indication of notability. If this is indeed the most reliable source for the article, the deletion is really unavoidable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I just want to tell that not every article about ShixxNOTE is on the Internet. There are some books and Master Thesis which are not online. Till now I wrote so many things to leave this article and to prove ShixxNOTE notability. BUG magazine is just one independant source. Sirola (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Please read WP:N and WP:NSOFT on why the article in the BUG magazine doesn't help to establish notability. As I said above, the ShixxNOTE article needs one good reference (in addition to those present) to clearly pass, but that one should be an in-depth review at least implying notability. You might want to ask some of the reliable sources to make a lengthy review of a kind. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: These are some users of ShixxNOTE program: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, United States [rrecco@syr.edu]; European Air Support, Zaventem, Belgium [minhtri@europeanairsupport.com]; Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic, NY, United States [dominick.dellavalle@ppfa.org]; Camara Nacional de Comercio de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico [lbrosas@hotmail.com]; Lozano Law Offices, Harrisonville, Missouri, United States [conoton@att.net]; University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada [w.skrobacki@utoronto.ca]; Bar Council Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia [plsoon@malaysianbar.org.my], etc. If you want contact all those users and ask them if this article is notable. I really don't see why Dmitrij D. Czarkoff is now so against this article. And on every attempt to prove notability of this program he is trying so hard to discredit article about ShixxNOTE program." Sirola (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told to please not mark more than one posting as a "vote". I've now crossed your repeated "keep" marks, so as not to confuse readers into thinking there were more than one person voting this way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never actually tried to discredit something. I'm actually trying to determine the availability of references from reliable verifiable sources. And right now the article is fully discredited by the lack of such sources without any action from my side. I'm glad you have users, but I see no sources and the statements from the users don't count per WP:R and WP:IRS. I have nothing againt you or your software, but I don't like the idea of keeping articles which don't pass even the WP:N. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not so familiar with Wikipedia rules. I didn't mean to represent that post as another user "vote". Kind regards. Sirola (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind. The fact that you are not familiar with Wikipedia rules clearly follows from your arguments. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not fact any more. Currently I know much more about Wikipedia rules. So sarcasm is not necessary. Sirola (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep - Per CNET Editor's review from February 27, 2009 and coverage in Bug Magazine, which other users have stated exists both in print and via internet. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be kidding. We often discard such short notices from sources. Just imagine how the article would look like based on these. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think now that maybe Dmitrij D. Czarkoff have something personal against me. Because every time when I wrote something or user Moravek have wrote something, and now when user Northamerica1000 wrote "Very weak keep", he promptly replies to discredit what user thinks about ShixxNOTE article. Till now I didn't want to say this but maybe because he is born in Moscow and now he lives in Montenegro (country got independence from Serbia and Montenegro on 3 June 2006) and I am from Croatia, he have something against Croatians. Croatia country and Serbia and Montenegro country were in war 20 years ago. But in Serbia, Montenegro and some parts of Croatia lot of peaople still thinks about war. I live in Rijeka which is 45 minutes drive by car from Trieste, Italy and I'm open minded personally. Also I hate war and everything about it. Me and Dmitrij are speaking the same language (very little diferences). So why user Dmitrij D. Czarkoff didn't administrate or wrote something about ShixxNOTE article on Croatian Wikipedia or Serbian Wikipedia where ShixxNOTE article is listed till 2005 and nobody never have something against it ?! Sorry if I offend Dmitrij with this post, but please read everything he wrote. He is trying so hard to delete ShixxNOTE article but only on English Wikipedia. And also he wrote to user Northamerica1000 that he must be kidding for supporting my article ?! Why lobbing ?! If I'm wrong Dmitrij please receive my apologies. Sirola (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So the fact that I come from Russia and live in Montenegro suggests you that I'm Serbian nationalist and I hate Croatia? And my hatred towards Croatia motivates me in endorsing deletion of a piece of this piece of software? And I mask these with my request to add at least any reference longer then 50 words? I don't actually know, whether I'm more amused or offended. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ShixxNOTE program is not some piece of software. It is very known communication tool with users all around the world. A company with Windows network could use a software application like ShixxNOTE which is a network-enabled sticky notes program. Every computer on the network listens for new messages which when found are presented to the user like colorfull desktop sticky notes via which a reply can be sent instantly. Check Google or maybe I will ask some of my big customers to write something about ShixxNOTE program. So I just want to tell everybody that purpose of ShixxNOTE article on Wikipedia is not for self promotion. It is LAN messenger, instant messaging tool, personal organizer and many many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirola (talk • contribs) 21:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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