< 3 January	5 January >

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

The result was delete. Tone 23:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ivo Ćipiko[edit]

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

machine translation of sr WP article (CSD A2 plus except for the bad machine translation) Steinhfer (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With these kind of machine translations, it is usually easier to just translate the whole thing again from scratch than it would be to clean it up. That said, if someone does clean it up, then we can keep it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this were written in intelligible English it would still lack any reliable sources that would establish notability. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 23:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David C. Pack[edit]

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

Notability concerns. The subject may more properly be treated as part of the article on Restored Church of God. RA (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He looks like a prolific writer, but I couldn't find any independent sources that covered him or his life in any depth, and I don't see any other reason that he might pass WP:BIO. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I added a wikilink to Restored Church of God to the article, so other editors could see the connection (I had to dig a bit), but I agree that on his own he is not notable enough for a separate article. --MLKLewis (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Methodius Stratiev[edit]

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

no references except for the basic data Steinhfer (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There doesn't appear to be a canonical spelling of the subject's name in the Roman alphabet, so here are some books that use different spellings: "Metodi Stratiev", "Metod Stratiev", "Metodio Stratiev", "Metody Stratiev". I haven't yet tried other possible spellings of "Stratiev" or any searches in Cyrillic, but that's enough to demonstrate notability as a Catholic archbishop. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An archbishop, so clearly notable. The reason given for deletion is not a good one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close – The nomination doesn't contain a valid rationale for deletion, per criterion listed at WP:DEL-REASON. The nomination is based upon content within the article, rather than upon the availability of reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Romanov (Catholic bishop)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ivan Romanov (Catholic bishop)

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

no references except for the basic data, date of death in the sources contradicts the torture story Steinhfer (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having looked into this regarding Romanov's predecessor, Vinkenti Peev, Checking into precedent, the question of whether RC bishops are inherently notable seems unsettled. There is a discussion of this question in the archives of WP:BIO, and past AFD discussions have fallen in both directions. In this case, if I'm reading correctly, he's an RC church in a land where Roman Catholicism is a tiny minority (currently under 1%.) As of 2004, there were a mere 34,000 members of this diocese, according to the diocese article. So we're not exactly talking the head of something huge; we wouldn't automatically list mayors of a city that size, for example. On the other hand, beatification is a form of being noted, although this only says that he was put on the path toward beatification (hence "servant of god") and not that he achieved it (which would make him "blessed")... and this was during the days of John Paul II, who beatified by the boatload. I'm still mulling my position on this one. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bishops of major churches are usually considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close – AfD is not for clean up. The nomination doesn't contain valid rationale for deletion, per the criterion listed at WP:DEL-REASON; instead it appears to be based upon content within the article, rather than upon the availability of reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Dzhundrin[edit]

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

nearly unreadable, no references except for the basic data Steinhfer (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bishops of major churches are usually considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close – The nomination's basis appears to be upon content within the article, rather than upon the availability of reliable sources per source searching. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have also fixed the unreadability in the article, although it still needs a bit of copy-editing. User:A412 (Talk * C) 06:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 22:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Togasahata[edit]

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

missing notability Steinhfer (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is probably too early to judge whether we should keep it or not, because it is waiting to be translated from Indonesian. Judging from the Google translation it looks like it's about the lineage of a royal family somewhere, ~~so the subject is most likely notable~~. I think we should give the translation process a little more time - we can always nominate it for deletion again after the standard two weeks is up. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on Jun Kayama's thoughtful analysis below, I think we should probably just delete without worrying about translation. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I reckon, nothing to really suggest this family/clan is anything notable, no relevant google hits for Togasahata or any of the names in the list that I checked (didn't google them all, just searched half a dozen or so at random), and hard to glean any context, based on all that I'd say the chances of this being translated are slim.--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a Batak clan lineage. It should actually be "Toga Sahata" (two words) and reference can be found here [1] on Page 4 of the PDF file. There's some trivia here [2] for background information on the three sons of the Batak ancestor ... similar to the founding story of Kievan Rus, but absolutely nowhere near equivalent in terms of historical significance. Translated or not, this article has no future for expansion. Jun Kayama 02:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 22:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skywrite PR[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've only found one source that looks like it might be somewhat usable [3]. Everything else are just PR releases that the company has passed on to other PR companies to release. They're active, but not active enough to get notice outside of their own press releases or brief mentions that they provided an image to a paper.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment. I'd like to mention that a major contributor to the article is also part of the marketing team for Hotwire, an associate company of Skywrite PR.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete - no claim of notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:35, 6 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 Huntsworth. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 23:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny Red[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Huntsworth. No claim to notability, fails WP:CORP, redirect to the parent company. A412 (Talk * C) 03:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per CSD A7 (organisations) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TippityTop Theatre Company[edit]

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

Too short Not notable Zzaffuto118 (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - qualifies under A7 and I have nominated it as such. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 22:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy; no reliable sources found via Google web or News searches, no references provided. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 5 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 SNOW delete via unanimous consent. While it technically might be entitled to run longer, the outcome is not in doubt. SALTing can be requested at RFPP if desired. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furs Of The Dead[edit]

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

The article appears to be about a non-notable book or comic made up one day, evidently by the page creator or someone connected to them. dalahäst ^(talk) 21:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - utterly non-notable fanfic. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G1 -- Google searches reveal nothing, likely hoax. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 22:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — if I read the article correctly, there are no Google results because the work has yet to be written. It appears to be an idea for a story made up one day by the article creator (his username appears in the article as the name of a character) and his friends. dalahäst ^(talk) 22:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Not notable. NereusAJ (T | C) 23:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SPIP yet claims nonexistent copyright protection and justification for plagarism. Worthy to be Salted. Jun Kayama 03:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and SALT. From what I can see, this is pretty much the equivalent of a fanfic. They stated that they based it off of Highschool of the Dead, just changing the characters around enough to where they're saying they're "original" creations that they can copyright. I agree that this should be salted. This is honestly something that should have been speedy deleted from the start.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Scarborough Research. There appears to be a rough consensus for a merger. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scarborough Sports Marketing[edit]

Article provides objective information and is separate from Scarborough Research. Should not be deleted.

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

Article is promotional, generally unreferenced and biased. Delete or merge to Scarborough Research. Cloudz 679 21:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply merge to Scarborough Research, assuming the parent company is notable. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milton William Cooper[edit]

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

Deceased self-published conspiracy theorist lacks notablity by all standards. Article was created in 2004, but after nearly 8 years the vast majority of the article still cites either his self-published book or his self-produced "audio recordings" (which themselves have no secondary sources). There is a serious lack of multiple non-trival sources. He is not a notable author (self-published) or radio host (broadcast on his personal short-wave) or politician (a minor fringe following). There are some independent sources, but they deal with him shooting at police and then being killed. However, even this event fails to meet notablity requirements in WP:EVENT. Apajj89 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was indeed a sorry mess of dubiously-sourced claims and details. I reduced it to only what WP:RS reliable sources will support. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs improving not deleting. The person calling for it's deletion should put some effort into that instead. Vexorg (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be sufficient coverage outside of primary sources already in the article to meet WP:BIO. All sections refernced by this author's self published books does need to be removed and the article generally cleaned up though. RadioFan (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book may have been self-published, but I remember seeing it available at Borders; it's also available in several hundred libraries: [4]. He actually had a pretty big following in the hip hop community; see this and this, and this. One other mainstream source that discusses him is The Skeptic's Dictionary. I can dig up more stuff if I need to. Zagalejo^^^ 07:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep. While the article is a magnet for conspiracy believers and unstable types (read the Talk page), the subject is notable and there are adequate WP:RS sources, more than a few of them scholarly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"While the article is a magnet for conspiracy believers and unstable types (read the Talk page)" - It's a shame that some (unsigned) editors view Wikipedia as something that reluctantly attracts people with views that conflict with that of this (unsigned) editor. Anyone wanting a proper encyclopaedia would not want it censored as per their own views. We all have certain views. I have certain views, but I don't want to censor Wikipedia to the boundaries of my views. It's sad that politically motivated people are editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be above partisanship. Vexorg (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, trying to connect me with some political/ideological conspiracy is missing the point. The article talk page is full of personal political rants, personal UFO sightings, and personal tributes from someone purporting to be Cooper's daughter. It needs to be cleaned out, per WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've worked in the book business in the past, and I know from personal experience that Behold a Pale Horse was a popular book always kept on the shelves at B&N, Borders, and other bookstores. The book is certainly notable, and by WP:AUTHOR, the author of a notable book is also notable. Yworo (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G11 by Orangemike (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winmarket[edit]

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

Neologism, no sources relating to the concept outside of the two mentioned in the website which read as primary sources. Doesn't pass the WP:GNG smell test for me. tutterMouse (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close By the time I nominated, it'd already been nuked by Orangemike as G11. tutterMouse (talk) 20:34, 4 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 West Memphis, Arkansas#Education. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article for this school isn't warranted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael's Catholic School[edit]

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

School through grade six. Appears to be non-notable; its claims to notability in the article seem to fall short of what we look for. Deletion of the unreferenced text (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine, w/merge of the referenced sentence) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is proposing merger not deletion so so should be closed speedily per WP:SK, "proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Warden (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is proposing deletion, while saying that merger of the 1 solitary referenced sentence would be fine.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion and merger are incompatible. Please see WP:MAD which explains the legal constraint. See also our deletion policy which advises against deletion nominations when there are sensible alternatives to deletion. Warden (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That essay (not a guideline -- just the view of one or more editors) doesn't require quite what you suggest it requires, as I read it. I don't, for example, see it as requiring a "speedy keep" here, as you suggest it does. And, it is simply an essay. The vast majority of this article is wholly unsourced. One lone sentence has a source -- the essay describes how that sentence could be merged. But, that is not a necessity -- I leave it up to the community. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The essay is a clarification of policy for those who don't get it. As it explains in the nutshell, it is an elaboration of Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Warden (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable primary school. I oppose redirecting because this is a very generic name for a school which should not be used as a redirect to a specific place. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG or current school guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) per convention and per nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). Note: Wikipedia has WP:DAB pages for articles that may have the same or similar names.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud Aero Training[edit]

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

The article title ("Cloud Aero Training") appears to be the name of a non-notable company. The subject (elearning in civil aviation using cloud computing) also fails WP:N. DexDor (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable even the references and links used dont actually mention it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:52, 4 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 deleted under U1. Pedro : Chat 20:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Willy Weazley/Signature[edit]

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

Wrong subpage Willy Weasley^{^Avada _Kedavra! 20:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

I have nominated it for deletion as housekeeping. Next time, all you've got to do is blank the page and then put a ((db-g7)) or ((db-u1)) template on it. It will be deleted within minutes. NLinpublic (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Knoxfield, Victoria#Education. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carrington Primary School[edit]

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable (and has zero refs). Deletion of the unreferenced text (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Knoxfield, Victoria#Education where it is already mentioned, per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures based on long standing precedent, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as normal Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG or current school guidelines no point in redirect.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:28, 6 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 Education in Penang. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Xavier Branch School[edit]

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable (and has zero refs). Deletion of the unreferenced text (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) per convention and per nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:11, 7 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 – no "delete" recommendations and nomination has been withdrawn. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Barley Mow, Clifton Hampden[edit]

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

Declined prod. Prod removed with rationale 'notable'; I disagree. It has references but these are to pub guides and other non-reliable sources. It's listed, but not every listed building is inherently notable, it has to meet the general notability guideline, which in my opinion this does not. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The pub has been described as the best known of all Thames pubs in a WP:RS and is included in the architectural historian Sir Nikolaus Pevsner's The Buildings of England series as a building of historical note, dating from 1352. It also has literary connections, being mentioned in the 1889 novel Three Men in a Boat. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep - you forgot to mention that it's mentioned in the classic book Three Men in a Boat (more than many listed buildings are) and I'm not sure why you think that the Buildings of England series by Nikolaus Pevsner and others is an unreliable source - the books in that series are the leading references works for architecture in each county. It wouldn't hurt to be expanded - so what's new? - but there's more than enough here for this 14th-century building to pass the GNG already. Bencherlite^Talk 20:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a reliable source, yes. However, that does not mean that every building listed in it automatically becomes notable enough for an article. Significant coverage in reliable sources is what the GNG says - not any old coverage in reliable sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - So which other of the sources in the article do you now concede are reliable sources? Bencherlite^Talk 21:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You tell me. Beerintheevening? Is that reliable? Pevsner is reliable. Three Men in a Boat is famous, but self-evidently not a reliable source as it's a humorous book. That's pretty much all I have to say really. In my opinion, there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate that the pub is notable. I'm not going to argue with you tit-for-tat, I'd prefer to let consensus decide. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quite evidently notable, based on the three published book references alone. Sionk (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite apart from being a famous mediaeval pub, the article is already properly referenced. Even if it didn't serve beer, Pevsner and being a Listed Building would be enough to make it notable; being named by Jerome K Jerome makes it pass with flying colours. And thirdly, it must be in every pub guide and advice to the tourist you can think of. Cheers! Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK - "obviously frivolous or vexatious nomination". Warden (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. Maybe you could let me know whereabouts on this diagram that comment fits. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's off the scale because there isn't an argument worth responding to. The nomination tells us at the outset that there's no consensus, that the article has multiple sources and that the building is listed. That's three strikes already and the subsequent comments further confirm that you're pissing into the wind. What's needed now is for this discussion to be speedily closed to spare you further embarrassment. I considered closing it myself per WP:SNOW but like to see at least one call for Speedy Keep for this and so provided one. Warden (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not a speedy, I don't think the nomination is frivolous, but I do think the age of the building and its coverage in sources like Buildings of England, The River Thames, etc. make it more notable than more recently created buildings and businesses that have a larger volume of coverage simply due to the virtue of their having been created in the internet age. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Listed building status almost always suggests adequate notability, and Pevsner plus the literary mention more than adequate additional sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations withdrawn. It's clear where consensus is going, and although I don't necessarily agree, consensus is what counts. Any editor who knows how feel free to close this. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 22:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of Israeli tanks in the Second Intifada[edit]

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

This violates WP:NOT in a few ways, including Wikipedia is not a directory #8 A complete exposition of all possible detail. This information could be worked into another article, perhaps, but as a stand alone article is outside of what we do here. It isn't customary to have articles that solely exist to cover the number and types of destruction of a particular type of military hardware in a single event. It may also run against Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #3 Excessive listings of statistics. as this list in now way covers why the destruction of tanks during the Second Intifada is independently notable to the degree as to warrant inclusion as an article. My gut feeling says this runs against other guidelines and policies as well. Even with lots of references, that doesn't solve the other issues. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The title is misleading and perhaps should be changed. This is not only a description of tanks destroyed, but also describes the events of several tactical enguagements. So it is of some interest to military historians. I recognize the delicacy of the subject. Maxdlink (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of the information may be fine in other articles, and likely it already is. I've been watching the article since it was created, waiting to see what it became and if it could be "rehabilitated". The problem (from my perspective) is that there is no way to just rename the article or merge the content to fix the underlying issues, and under no circumstances would a redirect make sense. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the rationale given by the nominator. If indeed the article describes events that are notable - individual articles can be created for them. The only one of these in the list seems to be the event that lead to the capture of Gilad Shalit, which already has its own article- 2006 Hamas cross-border raid Jeff Song (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see why different incidents should be put together just because of the vehicles involved. There should be articles on the whole conflict, on each incident (if notable), and notable problems with the tanks themselves. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary fork of Second Intifada. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SYNTH and OR list of specific engagements. NOT - WP is not a statistics handbook. Would love to see a OTHERSTUFF article if possible. --Shuki (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of non-notable events, with no demonstration of an overarching notable concept, doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Also is largely a duplication of an off-wiki list, see the amount of content cited to reference 11. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I’m new here at Wikipedia and am not so familiar with the rules of the game. But in this case I frankly don’t see the problem. Wikipedia is full of lists. Just two examples:

List of Lebanese rocket attacks on Israel List of prisoners released by Israel in the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange

I searched Wikipedia for “List of” and got 850,870 hits.

There is a separate article for each and every Palestinian terrorist act against civilian Israeli targets. Apparently they are all “notable”. There is a template connecting all these terrorist acts: Template:Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2000s

But to my surprise I discovered that whenever Palestinian violence had been directed against legitimate military target there was usually no article and to my knowledge no suitable template to connect them. So I wrote a couple of articles on this subject:

2002 Hebron ambush

Ein 'Arik checkpoint attack

Wadi al-Haramiya sniper attack

as well as the destroyed tanks article. Two of them are now tagged as not “notable” and one other has been defined as an “orphan”. I am not sure of the implications of that.

It is not simply a list of ”the number and types of destruction of a particular type of military hardware”. It’s an article about seven well-planned Palestinian military operations specifically targeting Israeli armored vehicles during the Second Intifada, leading to substantial losses in men and material. They are just as “notable” as the Palestinian terrorist acts against civilians. I don’t insist that the article remain a list. Quite the contrary, I would welcome the addition of more analytical issues, such as how IDF responded to the Palestinian capability to destroy their tanks. I could accept to subdivide the article into seven separate articles (the one about Shalit incident being redundant) but these would generally be very short, like most of the terrorist act articles, but without a suitable template to connect them. Maybe Template:Non-terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2000s?Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read What about article x?, as it explains how it doesn't matter what other articles exist. It could simply be that no one has nominated those articles for deletion yet, so their existence is automatically considered a non-argument to keep any article. This isn't an opinion, by the way, it is one of the most fundamental elements of a discussion in an article deletion. Lists ARE acceptable at Wikipedia, assuming they meet the criteria a WP:LISTS. This one does not, and also violate WP:NOT. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your non-policy based argument aside, if you really want to make sure everything is fair and equal the correct analogy to "Palestinian terrorist acts against civilians" is "Israeli terrorist acts against civilians." However there is an article on every single one of the latter but not on every single one of the former. Get to work.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Soldiers (and their AFVs) are expected to get killed (destroyed) every once in a while, so they generally don't get much notice. Civilian casualties in non-wartime situations are a different matter. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , but edit. The names of the soldiers are excessive detail for an encyclopedia . The general events, even at the tactical level, are appropriate. They can be described battle by battle, but articles by type of event are also acceptable. We should, of course, do similarly with earlier history. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For various reasons mentioned. It's the strategies and battles that matter, not the tanks per se. Seems really silly. CarolMooreDC 04:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, along with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. We don't need blow by blow accounts of conflicts, and about half the vehicles described as being destroyed in the articles aren't even tanks... Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nick D and Carol Moore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs)
Delete. Per Roscelese. Marokwitz (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all above. Flayer (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nick D and Shuki.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 21:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ascent Media[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page should be deleted because. Ascent Media's entertainment holdings were bought out by 2-3 different companies in December 2010. Ascent Media itself has re-branded itself into a completely different company with a different name in a different industry, so Ascent Media no longer exists. Jeremymonsayac (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This needs reviewing, but the grounds for deletion are not the right ones. There are plenty of articles about companies that no longer exist. The correct question is whether it was ever notable in Wikipedia terms. The last discussion was hardly conclusive, but it continued to trade for several more years after that. --AJHingston (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has already been through an AfD and the result was 'KEEP'. I don't understand why our time is being wasted by re-listing it. As the previous poster says, once notable always notable. Sionk (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. As per WP:NTEMP, if it used to be notable it still belongs here. A412 (Talk * C) 04:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 22:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitate Media[edit]

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

Not notable. Advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced advertising by an ..erm ...advertising agency (no surprise). I can't see any significant coverage or achievements to justify the article. Sionk (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found nothing that would make this pass WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 5 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. Sandstein 21:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C21 (company)[edit]

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

Firm does not appear to be notable despite some award typical of their industry. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Difficult to find any substantive news coverage other than the Manchester Evening News piece listed in the article. As they are a branding and advertising agency I'm sure they'd be the first to trumpet about any favourable news coverage or awards. Being 93rd in the Top 100 agencies outside of London doesn't shout notability at me! Sionk (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 4 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) 05:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Sionk, fails WP:CORP. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:23, 12 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ESS Drum & Bugle Corps[edit]

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

The notability and even the existence of this article's subject is suspect; attempts to verify it have produced nothing. A Google search for ("ess drum" bugle) yields nothing that looks like a reliable source; apart from WP-related links, the only "ESS Drum and Bugle" link is to a Tumblr page. Searching the online archives of the local newspaper, the Imperial Republican, likewise yields nothing: a search for "bugle" produced zero hits, and a search for "drum" produced 15, none of which appeared to concern the subject of this article. It is highly unlikely that a newspaper in a town the size of Imperial (population ~2000) would not have covered a local organization like this. If the article's claim that the organization was commissioned by the state government were true, then there would almost certainly be Google results as well.

Note also that an IP editor twice inserted material concerning the ESS Drum & Bugle Corps into the Imperial, Nebraska article on January 4, 2012, and that the name of the group's organizer was changed between these two edits (1st diff and 2nd diff). This article was created at about the same time that these edits were taking place, by an apparently just-registered editor. Ammodramus (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Something went wrong when Ammodramus created the deletion discussion page. In order to fix it, I deleted the page and have just now recreated it; I've copied and pasted his comments from the original version, and once I finish fixing things, I'll restore the original nomination. Nyttend (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - needs some proof or at least just an assertion of notability Smallbones (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally fails WP:GNG. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Lakhvinder Cheema[edit]

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

Unremarkable murder case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Breadth of coverage and diversity of sources indicates this event satisfies the general notability guideline. Exok (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I refrained from participating in this discussion due to the outrageous personal attack previously seen above.[5] The proposer refused to remove this but an admin has now done so instead. In addition to the attack the proposer has also listed a further notable article I created for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rekha_Kumari-Baker and generally been following me around on Wikipedia.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Highly notable and unusual murder by poisoning. In the talk page Talk:Murder_of_Lakhvinder_Cheema user:AFW even highlights mentions in The Lancet.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With all the reliable international newspaper coverage listed, the subject passes muster with flying colours! Seems to be a time-wasting AfD. Mind you, useful information is missing from the article's intro, for example 'Where?' and 'When?', but that is no grounds for deletion, of course. Sionk (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable sources, unusual murder, waste-of-space AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - unusual murder, notable, well covered. Also dubious reasons for afd nom per Shakehandsman above. Keristrasza (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 22:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4plu.net[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable social network site that only launched in November 2011 and has no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. The only referencing in the article is to their own web site. Whpq (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NWEB Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 01:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious DB-web/Advert tagged as such Secret ^account 01:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G11. Making a claim of notability was enough to escape A7 speedy, but this web site (created just last month) clearly fails notability criteria for inclusion, and clearly the article exists for no other reason than to generate traffic. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:55, 11 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. Notability established (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brodkorb[edit]

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

BLP used as a coatrack about an affair between a state senator and a staffer; this former vice chair of a state political party is not indepedently notable Jonathunder (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. WP:POLITICIAN may confer notability on a state-elected official. However, Brodkorb was not elected to his position by the people of Minnesota; he was elected by the Minnesota Republican Party. Thus, Brodkorb would have to meet WP:GNG, which, I don't think he does. He does act as a GOP spokesperson in his position as Communications Director for the party, but that doesn't make him independently notable as he is more or less just a conduit. Finally, his blog may get some press, but it appears to be confined to Minnesota only and is probably insufficient to make him notable. As for the recent events, that is clearly insufficient under WP:BLP1E.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting rationale: This article is a BLP. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether or not he technically passes/fails WP:POLITICIAN, Brodkorb appeared to be a major player among Minnesota conservatives even before the rumors regarding Amy Koch were reported. Per Ann Coulter: "In liberal's imaginary world, lone blogger Michael Brodkorb is more powerful than the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and the entire liberal blogosphere." Per Jay Weiner: "Brodkorb was then Minnesota's most active right-wing blogger."[6] Appears to have been a "powerful" part of the Minnesota GOP: [7][8]. It's silly to use WP:GNG to give a pass to an individual for some obscure record only listed in Guinness World Records, but not someone like this. Location (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be substantial coverage of Brodkorb in respectable sources. He appears to have played a major part in shaping his party's campaigns and messages, so he was more than "just a conduit". Argument that "he wasn't elected, ergo, he fails notability standards by WP:POLITICIAN", would apply with equal force to, say, Lee Atwater or David Gergen or George Stephanopoulos. Ammodramus (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:POLITICIAN is irrelevant, since he easily passes GNG - in that he has significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources [9], several of which I have added to the article. This reference says that he and Koch were "the two most powerful people in the Minnesota Senate." And it is not a case of WP:BLP1E, because he had plenty of coverage before his recent resignation and even before he went to work for the senate - for example, over his role in a landmark libel suit.[10] --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 22:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamicon[edit]

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

I found nothing that would make this company pass WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable company. I can find nothing online apart from commercially related mentions. Sionk (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Parent company is Kaimei Electronic Co. [11] which in itself fails the notability test. Jun Kayama 15:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sansa, Aurangabad[edit]

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

WP: N

No information, sources & links provided AKS (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This village exists, as you can check for example with the Pin code (824143) on the India post website. If we are sure a village exists it is almost always notable. In this case there is at least the 2001 Indian census data, which provided detailed information about the village. Yoenit (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A verified village. SL93 (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. As the village is verified, it is considered notable by precedent. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Bhadani (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, notability is established. The nominator would have done well to attempt to find the easily findable sources as is required per the AFD guidelines. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. G7 (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M. C. Ahmed[edit]

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

No ref found in link provided with the article. WP: BIO AKS (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See row 93 in that PDF, which lists "M C Ahamed" (the name in the article if not the title) for Kalmunai. AllyD (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 5 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acrobats (film)[edit]

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

No notability is established and no sources other than IMDB. Director and cast do not have pages. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This film was screened at several film festivals. Maybe it won a prize at one of them? It's unlikely that any of the cast will have an article, as this is a documentary film. The director seems to have a lot of documentary titles on his CV, maybe he has some coverage in Finnish? Lugnuts (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did a search and wasn't able to see where this won any awards. Is anyone aware if it's been shown lately at a film festival?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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?} 11:18, 4 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) 04:23, 12 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) 15:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Hill[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N AKS (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Could be left alone, too, or have people fill in the information that can do something besides Google the web and paste keyword search results in. People actually do in fact LIVE here and have no association with Chadwich School other than our lack of tolerance issues with its' crowds and noise twice a day clogging up our already small streets. Fortunately, The Information Highway does not employ its' Information Police from Google. If they did, immediately upon a hard drive crash or power failure, their world would go brain-dead instantaneously with zero hope for recovery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.196.131 (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find reliable sources for this. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage found at Google News or Google Books. Could be redirected/merged to Palos Verdes or Chadwick School. --MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it can be found on a map such as google or the USGS, Delete otherwise.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Recommended in the future that User:Luciferwildcat only bold one course of action to avoid conflict in gathering a concensus per WP:AFDFORMAT. Stubbleboy 20:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, that just promotes laziness on the part of the closing admin, this is not a vote. The comments should be read to see if any of the keep arguments are valid and if they are it should be kept.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I never described it once as a vote. I'm simply relaying you information directly as it is posted under WP:AFDFORMAT. If you want to make assumptions about what promotes laziness, that's your prerogative, not mine. Stubbleboy 00:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Stubbleboy 19:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Ifnord (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Imam Ali High School & College[edit]

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

Written without any Ref and is more like and advert. WP:N AKS (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no relaible sources. Some social media mentions. Agree that it is an advert. Fmph (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Conditional Delete~~ (edited to add:)Keep, since Kudpung found and added a ref to verify it is a high school. ~~unless a reliable and independent source can be found to verify it is at least a high school,~~ which would gain it an assumption of notability, per the consensus of hundreds of AFDs in recent years. Edison (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a high school. A reference has been supplied and issues of promotional tone have been addressed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP generally accept that high schools are almost always notable. This one's been around for over 90 years, so I don't see an exception. Sionk (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per convention (while deleting text that lacked RS sourcing).--Epeefleche (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per standard practice for secondary schools. Much work to be done here, obviously. Carrite (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keeps meets current school guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 22:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick D'Agostino[edit]

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

This person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article by NHOCKEY. He has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Berone (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting rationale: This article is a BLP. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 7th round NHL draft pick does not create notability. Not finding significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Scottdrink (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY. Being such a low pick does not confer notability and the player is currently an amateur. Can be recreated when/if they ever meet NHOCKEY or otherwise achieve notability. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DJSasso. Patken4 (talk) 21:53, 10 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. Jujutacular ^talk 20:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hala Halim[edit]

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

I am having trouble finding substantial independent RS coverage of this academic and translator. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting rationale: This article is a BLP. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winner of a state award for translation. Citation added. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! Question -- I'm not certain whether this matters, but were you able to find any independent coverage of her winning this award (I see that the paper reporting it -- which is clearly an RS -- is her employer). I was not familiar with the award, but it certainly sounds notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that she works for Al-Ahram, Epeefleche. I also noticed many books and journals on Egyptian culture/literature where she is quoted or mentioned. I simply don't think she's a nobody in her country and that's why I oppose deletion of this article. I'm probably not familiar with the background to compile a better article, but I believe it is possible - and here at AfD we should discuss potential of a topic. In my opinion the article has potential; all we need is a competent editor, not deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, V. As I said, the award certainly sound notable. If it is sufficient to have coverage of her winning it that is not independent -- but from the highest level RS, which I believe Al-Ahram to be -- I would be inclined to withdraw. I'll await a comment or two, and if they agree, I'll withdraw on that basis. I'm less concerned than you with whether the article has a competent editor, as you put it, but that the right support for notability exists ... even if it is not in the article. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Jaipur[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N AKS (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the list as it stands is of low quality, I have to question - given the size of the population of Jaipur, why is this inherently not notable when we have, say, the List of high schools in Massachusetts or List of schools in Antwerp? Average Earthman (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is an index of articles about notable schools, and so satisfies WP:N in that regard just as any other article index. It is complementary to Category:Schools in Jaipur, per WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Post. We have many articles that are lists of notable schools in a locality; they can be either lists, or in the article on the locality. See, for example, here. This list does have many unsourced schools that lack wp articles, which could be challenged and deleted, but AFD is not for cleanup.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 22:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar 2011[edit]

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

AKS (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not needed because people have this on their computer already. Kitfoxxe (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The PROD on Calendar 2012 put it best: "Redundant; Template:Calendar already does this with year 2011 as parameter"Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. Not suitable as an encyclopedia article; unnecessary. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:10, 5 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. If any editor wishes a redirect, I can do so; do please leave a note on my talk page. Right now, deleting Wifione ^Message 22:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Airlines Flight 85[edit]

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

Not notable in the least, does not even come close to meeting the criteria in WP:Aircrash Petebutt (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A plane had mechanical problems and was diverted to another destination in order to fix them? That's seriously it? The engine blew out in my Subaru last month and I had to have it towed, can we have an article on that as well? Not even remotely notable by any metric. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plus comment. This isn't a notable incident at all.
That said, the television show Mayday has just aired an episode on this incident. I don't think that's good enough reason to save the article but I had to be honest and bring it to everyone's attention.(Note- There is often controversy about what Mayday will and won't air. See this[12] for example. I've done lots of edits to the List of Mayday episodes page and Northwest 85 was made into a episode and it aired last week in Canada per Discovery Canada.) Honestly with so many other interesting crashes or incidents, the selection of Northwest 85 for a television episode is just baffling to me.- William 19:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No damage, no injuries or deaths, no changes to procedures, issuance of an airworthiness directives or changes to regulations, just a minor unservicability in flight. Fails to meet WP:AIRCRASH, totally non-notable, non-event. - Ahunt (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable incident. --JetBlast (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It did air, but I don't know why they chose this episode. Qantasplanes (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Northwest Airlines#Incidents and accidents. No notability, not a personal news site. ApprenticeFan ^work 23:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 22:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Stilianos[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:ARTIST - I cannot find any significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - I'm unable to find sourcing enough to justify the article. That said, usual caveats apply; if she later meets the requirements of WP:ARTIST, I'd be happy to revisit the issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the few online hits for the artist's work that I reviewed are not reliable sources in general, and indicate a non-notable artist at this point. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet our notability standards at this point in time.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 7 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 "Non-admin housekeeping closure following non-controversial speedy deletion for G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Msnicki (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sovoia[edit]

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

The article seems to be veering on the promotional; a Google News search found no results. Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 07:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references from Auction Bytes^[1], one of the leading e-commerce blogs, suffices the requirement for any proof regarding the authenticity of the information being provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taimooor (talk • contribs) 10:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — Taimooor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unambiguous advertising WP:G11 sufficient to qualify for WP:SPEEDY deletion. Lacks reliable independent sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. I've looked through the Google results and I don't believe the sources exist. Msnicki (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this seems to be deleted out of due process. Is there any sense to keep this discussion open? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 22:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Dunn (journalist)[edit]

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

This person does not appear to be notable, per wp standards. Tagged as such for nearly three years. Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 07:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if this were to be relisted again. Why is this BLP created is beyond me! No significant impact indicated, and no controversies, and no related events that reported him, and no significant articles that he created. --George Ho (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I can't find anything that would indicate that he passes the GNG. NLinpublic (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 23:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vidarbha Premier League[edit]

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

Non-notable regional unofficial Twenty20 competition. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CRIN guidelines. Just a mickey mouse tournament in the grand scheme of things. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 16:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 07:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much as I like the idea of having a VPL tournament, this is a minor, regional competition. Doesn't pass the Cricket notability guidelines (WP:CRIN). Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technology of Antioquia[edit]

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

Promotional article for an educational institution. Claims include: "It is considered one of the best colleges in the country" and "...is an institution known for academic quality and innovation of its programs, framed in an atmosphere of coexistence, integration, solidarity and social responsibility." —SW— ^communicate 18:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 07:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Institute of higher education. Badly needs cleaning up for neutrality but this can be addressed through editing. Perhaps the universities project can help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per what I understand is our usual practice with verifiable institutions of higher learning. I've also tagged it for puffery and being short on refs. Anyone should feel free to clean up those problems (by changing or deleting text or adding refs), and delete those tags.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 11 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 Hereford Cathedral School. Relevent material should be merged to Hereford Cathedral School. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hereford Cathedral School Chapel Choir[edit]

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

This school choir lacks sufficient substantive RS coverage. I've no problem with it being merged into its school article, however -- but only to the extent that any material is RS-supported. As of now, it has zero refs. Tagged for notability for well over 3 years. Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Smerge (selectively merge) to Hereford Cathedral School, retaining only information which can be referenced. A rambling and unfocussed article which is also about the orchestra and various instrumental soloists as well as the choir. No refs provided to show it satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements for organizations or for musical groups. Edison (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Smerge - I like 'Smerge'. Nothing notable here. Lets move on. Fmph (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I guess what it being suggested is actually Smergers ... as in Smerge RS. But as of now, at least, none is RS supported, so it might be easiest to just create any appropriate information in the target, if that is the goal, with appropriate RS support. And perhaps the photo ... which did catch my eye ...--Epeefleche (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the school as above. The choir is not at all notable and has only existed for five years or so. --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A question. All of the text in the article we have !voted on lacks inline citations, which are required with challenged text to save it from deletion, in accordance with our core policies. Are you suggesting that, despite this, the text be merged? I support any RS-supported text being merged; but I'm not sure that non-RS supported text should be re-created in an article, especially when it has been challenged. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know I said "merge," but what I was actually thinking of was "redirect while making sure that the choir is mentioned - just mentioned - at the main article." As you say, nothing is verified except (presumably) the existence of the choir. --MelanieN (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Tx for the explanation.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge as appropriate. I think the that can be perfectly well documented , though not perhaps from third party sources; third party sources are not absolutely necessary for routine information about institution, unless there's a reasonable challenge to the accuracy.Let's be honest with ourselves: how much of an encyclopedia would be left if we removed everything without third party sources--especially since, contrary to what Epeefleche claims, they need not be inline unless controversial facts must be specifically sourced. Not everything will make Featured article standards. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. The article as it stands now has zero text which is supported by refs. The existing text has been challenged. Our policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability tell me that: "any material challenged ... must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation."--Epeefleche (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by RHaworth (A7). 86.44.31.213 (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Niz-r[edit]

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

Lacks non-trivial, substantial independent RS coverage. Article has zero independent RS refs, as well. Tagged for reliance on primary sources for well over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No assertion of importance. Nominate it under A7. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 22:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Junk[edit]

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

Article about a fighter that lacks significant independent coverage. Subject fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:MMANOT. He has one fight (a loss) for a major MMA organization and zero wins as a kickboxer. Jakejr (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find some sources due to his appearance on The Ultimate Fighter. However, being on a reality show (where he lost) isn't enough to establish notability. He also fails WP:MMANOT. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet any of the notability criteria. Astudent0 (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:MMANOT. Mdtemp (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 22:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finney's HIT Squad[edit]

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

Article reads like an ad for the gym. The only coverage seems to be because of the gym's owners (previous and current) and notability is not inherited. Jakejr (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything to say why the gym itself is notable under this or its previous name. The news articles and other sources I can find about Finney purchasing the gym from Hughes should probably go in Finney's article (which has practically no content as it stands); similar thing with the few mentions I can find of other instructors retiring to work there. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no independent coverage that shows this gym is notable. Jakejr is right--it does seem more like an ad than an article. Astudent0 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no indication why this gym is notable and there are no independent sources primarily about the gym. Mdtemp (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 22:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Lawson (fighter)[edit]

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

Article does not show that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:MMANOT. All four of the sources are from the same website--2 about scheduling and canceling a fight, 1 about an appearance in an episode of TUF, and 1 about his being a late addition to a fight card in Japan. None of these show significant coverage or notability. Jakejr (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'm able to find some information about him through Google searches, but I'm not convinced it is enough to establish notability. He is close to being, but not quite, notable via WP:MMANOT. The current state of the article certainly doesn't establish notability. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject doesn't meet notability criteria and the article lacks good sources. Astudent0 (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Subject has no significant independent coverage and fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:MMANOT. Mdtemp (talk) 15:57, 9 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 minor planets: 162001–163000. Redirect target can be changed editorially if desired. Sandstein 08:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(162416) 2000 EH26[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO Gsingh (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not entirely sure about this one yet. By checking Google Scholar above, one can easily see that this object is only mentioned twice, and even then only among lists of similar objects. This shows a lack of in-depth coverage that I would normally use as grounds for deletion. However, its is possible that sources may be hiding under a slightly different name. For example, a search for "2000 EH26" on Google Scholar gets more hits, and some of them may provide some in-depth coverage. I don't have time right now to check them all out, but they may be good for establishing notability. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 02:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ - an unreferenced one-liner without any desription , not to say assertion on notability. Unnecessary for other wikipedia articles: nothing links to it. All scholar refs seem to say only that someone saw it. There are zillions of these rocks up there. Lodni Vandr (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of minor planets says "there are 310,376 numbered minor planets, and about as many yet unnumbered". That is not "zillions", which is not even a number. In any event, their number is irrelevant, see WP:NOTPAPER.James500 (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes zillion is a number, but I agree their number is irrelevant, so you are welcome to boost your edit count by creating >300,000 redirects :-) Lodni Vandr (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As to "no links", this minor planet is included in List of minor planets: 162001–163000, and that list is supposed to have a link to this article (if it is retained).
- NASTRO says that this should be redirected to List of minor planets: 162001–163000 if it is not notable. I do not see any suggestion that it should be deleted. And AfD is not for merger proposals. James500 (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Er..., I did suggest to delete it, thank you. Yes AfD is not for merger proposals, but, first, the nominator didn't suggest this, so your remark is irrelevant. Second, nevertheless "merge" is a valid output/vote for AfD. Lodni Vandr (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lodni, I did not say that you did not suggest that it should be deleted. I said that NASTRO did not suggest that it should be deleted. And the nominator's rationale was "fails NASTRO" which is, on the face of it, for a numbered minor planet, a proposal for merger, because that is what NASTRO says. James500 (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think I understand where your confusion comes from. This page is called "Articles for deletion". The nominator could have written nothing at all, and still his proposal by default is for deletion, by the nature of this page. If he wanted merge, he would have used ((merge)) template, not ((afd)) template. There is a chance that the nominator was confused as for options. However he does not continue the duiscussion and we cannot second-guess his "true" intentions, therefore we carry out this discussion according to WP:AFD, not WP:MERGE. Lodni Vandr (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirect but to List of Apollo asteroids (changed my vote per explanations above). What's your vote? Lodni Vandr (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd support a redirect too, would a new AFD be required for this to be an outcome? Gsingh (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - A new AfD would be a ridiculous overbureaucratification. Fortunatuly WP is not there yet :-), a vote here is ehough; see WP:DISCUSSAFD Lodni Vandr (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - A redirect does not require any AfD. James500 (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's correct. But this page is called "Articles for deletion", and the vote "redirect" efectively says "oppose deletion". Therefore, please don't complicate the life of the closing admin and state your vote clearly and in boldface: do you want this page deleted of not? Lodni Vandr (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Please keep in mind, the concensus reached as the result of an AFD discussion is not a vote. Please see WP:AFDFORMAT for a more detailed explaination. Thanks. Stubbleboy 19:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – This object does have some minor coverage in Mueller et al (2011), but not enough to satisfy WP:NASTRO. Hence, redirect as suggested above. I slightly prefer List of minor planets: 162001–163000 over List of Apollo asteroids because the latter is only for "well-known" Apollo asteroids, which this is not. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 22:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Immigrant cuisine[edit]

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

Begun as an article on Americanized cuisines from other cultures, this article is now little more than a definition and a (partial) listing of various cuisines, without references to reliable sources. The article is too North American-centric and the subject matter is probably too broad for one article. Those looking for information on various cuisines are better served by the (already existing) individual cuisine articles. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Meaningless term, much less an article and for that reason alone, not improveable Plutonium27 (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Maxdlink (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Plutonium. 'Immigrant Cuisine' is a meaningless term . . . considering that all people originated in Africa and then emigrated all over the world, pretty much any type of food source could be considered 'Immigrant Cuisine'.--Stvfetterly (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 22:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler Hoffman[edit]

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

A footballer who has yet to play a professional game per WP:NFOOTBALL. References are primary only... NCAA, Pac-12 sources. Prod was contested because, "...signing a generation adidas deal is notable as is the first person from a state to be drafted in the MLS SuperDraft. 1st game is only a matter of time." Bgwhite (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As nom has already stated, Hoffman has not played professionally or received significant coverage, resulting in failure of WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. PROD objection is speculation which is never grounds for notability per WP:CRYSTAL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Savas[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN Gsingh (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sitting county commissioner in Clackamas County, one of the counties in the Portland metro area. HERE'S a piece on him from the website of the Portland Oregonian, largest newspaper in the state, from less than a month ago. Carrite (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

INTERVIEW with Savas by Oregon's version of Rush Limbaugh, Lars Larson. Carrite (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WILSONVILLE SPOKESMAN on Savas's recent campaign announcement (paywalled). Carrite (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANOTHER OREGONIAN PIECE on Savas. Carrite (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This just scratches it, as a preliminary Google search should have indicated before this nomination was made. Pretty clearly passes GNG, looks like he's being groomed for bigger things by the Oregon Rs. Carrite (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:FUTURE, as this point in time, he's not notable enough for his own article, we can't have articles for every city/county politician. Gsingh (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper. No limit to how many articles they could have. And future doesn't matter, since he meets the WP:GNG do to current coverage. Dream Focus 21:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Looks like he's being groomed" counts for nothing. An 11-minute audio interview, plus routine enter-the-race announcements, do not constitute significant coverage. In fact I'm having trouble deciding whether this article is merely unintentional self-parody by the subject or someone close to him, or an attack page by someone intent on embarrassing him: "In his early life, Paul was always considerably handy in mechanics. He holds a degree in automotive technology. He had always thought that Government was a well oiled machine but learned that its 'inefficiencies and inconsistencies' needed immediate attention. He later earned a place at the Oak Lodge Water District and then the Oak Lodge Sanitary District boards." EEng (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presumed it was written by someone close to him. The badness of the article is not a valid deletion rationale, but rather means things need to be improved, which I presume would be the view of 100% of Wikipedians. Two pieces in the Oregonian is as "reliable and independent" that published coverage can get. And he is the SUBJECT of the pieces. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 'badness' is not the rationale, the rationale is that it fails the notability criteria. Gsingh (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An elected official of one of the biggest counties in the state is the object of multiple stories in the biggest newspaper in the state for doing political stuff and that doesn't count? I'm still looking for the rationale... Carrite (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination indicated that this was a failure of WP:POLITICIAN, I cite the above sources as proof that this subject passes point 2 of that special guideline: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Carrite (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The key word is significant, your first link is from soundcloud, an audio sharing site, the second link has one sentence saying "Clackamas County Commissioner Paul Savas has filed for the county chair position in the 2012 General Election." That's hardly news coverage; WP:POLITICIAN states, A politician who has received significant press coverage has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. I believe that Paul Savas does not meet this criteria. Gsingh (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, in quoting Point 2 of WP:POLITICIAN you omitted the footnote, which provides: A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. I've read the sources -- typical "meet the candidates" pieces with age, grew-up-here, owns-this-business, and soundbites on how government should be better and so on; or just rehash of press releases. That's far from multiple, in-depth, news feature articles. By your standards any candidate for any office, unless completely ignored by the press, would notable. EEng (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, that doesn't change a single thing. Above are two FEATURE articles BY JOURNALISTS and ABOUT the subject from Oregon's Big Boy newspaper (circulation 200,000-ish). Next I'm going to hear that the pixels that make up the characters of the footnote of the subsection of the subsidiary guideline to GNG connote something that they do not. This is an ELECTED POLITICIAN, one of FIVE running the THIRD LARGEST COUNTY IN OREGON. There are MORE THAN TWO articles ABOUT that individual that have run in the Oregonian, and a slew more behind paywalls that anybody with Google can suss out. Open, shut, done deal. Passes section 2 of WP:POLITICIAN. Carrite (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was fact-checking my guesstimate on circulation, which I worried was high. And it might be, who knows. But the Oregonian is [THE 21ST LARGEST CIRCULATION DAILY NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA, so there you go. Carrite (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 23rd LARGEST with a circulation of 268,000+. Carrite (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As already mentioned, short meet-the-candidate basic bios and press release rehashes are not "in-depth" coverage, regardless of how many there are or the circulation of the paper. Please point to the article you consider the most in-depth -- perhaps I missed it. EEng (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Significant, ongoing coverage in reliable sources equates to topic notability; topic passes WP:GNG.

"Incoming Clackamas County Commissioner Paul Savas will transition from solving car troubles to county problems". The Oregonian: Yuxing Zheng. Retrieved 2010-08-06.
"Savas and Austin Seek Position 2". The Clackamas Review: Anthony Roberts. Retrieved 2011-12-08.
"Clackamas County Commissioner Paul Savas to challenge Rep. Dave Hunt, Chairwoman Charlotte Lehan in 2012 chair race". The Oregonian: Yuxing Zheng. Retrieved 2010-08-06.
Zheng, Yuxing (September 30, 2011). "Clackamas County Commissioner Paul Savas considers running for chairman in 2012". The Oregonian. Retrieved January 05, 2012. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Paul Savas files to enter three-way race to lead Clackamas County commissioners". The Oregonian. December 16, 2011. Retrieved January 05, 2012. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Paul Savas files for Clackamas County Chair in next election". Wilsonville Spokesman. December 20, 2011. Retrieved January 05, 2012. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required)Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Substituting the word "significant" for "in-depth", I repeat my earlier comment/query (as yet still unanswered): short meet-the-candidate basic bios and press release rehashes are not "in-depth" coverage, regardless of how many there are or the circulation of the paper. Please point to the article you consider the most significant -- perhaps I missed it. EEng (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Significant does not mean in-depth. Never has, never will. Dream Focus 21:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does to the extent we're relying (as Carrite does) on WP:POLITICIAN, which as already mentioned provides that A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. So significant does indeed mean in-depth after all, at least in WP:POLITICIAN. EEng (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on coverage found. WP:GNG is clearly met. Dream Focus 21:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep probably doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN as I dont know if I'd call county commissioner a 'major political figure' but coverage in 3rd party sources is sufficient to meet WP:BIO RadioFan (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep all elected politicians are notable because they undoubtedly have more than trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources as this man has.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Because WP:POLITICIAN says 3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" and in the footnote to Point 2 defines "significant coverage" as "'has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. I've repeatedly asked for someone to point to an example of in-depth coverage, with no response. EEng (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined by the General Notability Guidelines OR the secondary guidelines. It doesn't have to meet both. And most politicians will pass WP:GNG quite easily. WP:POLITICIAN is there to catch those that are notable but don't pass the GNG. Dream Focus 08:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per sufficient substantial RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:22, 8 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kazeka Muniz[edit]

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

This article has no independent sources and doesn't show that the subject meets any notability criteria. Training with a national team isn't the same as being on a national team. My search found he has a 3-1 record as an MMA fighter fighting non-notable fighters at non-notable events for non-notable promotions. Jakejr (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There are unsupported claims that Muniz is a two-time World Brazilian Jiu-jitsu Champion and a two-time gold medalist in Sambo. I am unable to find independent sources to verify these claims (including the International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation website). The only places I can find mentions of these wins are in advertisements of his visits to local gyms and dojos and for instructional videos. If an independent, reliable source can be found to back up these claims, I think he would then be notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no independent verifications of anything that makes this fighter notable. Astudent0 (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found nothing in reliable sources to show he's notable. Mdtemp (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've been rooting around unsuccessfully to find some mention of this guy but his wins in Sambo, the Mundials, or anything else don't seem to be documented online.--Stvfetterly (talk) 20:07, 9 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 London Borough of Camden#Education. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article for this school isn't warranted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cavendish School (Camden)[edit]

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

Primary school. Zero refs, for which it has been tagged for 2 years, though it does have a primary source EL. Appears to be non-notable, per what I understand is our standard approach with primary schools. Tagged for notability over 2 years ago. It purported claim to fame -- the attendance of a notable person -- is not IMHO sufficient to confer notability upon it. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to London Borough of Camden#Education as per standard policies on non notable primary schools - no hits on news, only self-referential and standard Ofsted links on search. The fact that Lily Allen went there is irrelevant - see WP:NOTINHERITED. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The school is documented in detail in sources such as this. Founded over a hundred years ago, highly respectable, covered in detail in multiple sources, celebrity alumni. What more does one need? Just some development in accordance with our editing policy... Warden (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But as stated above, the current standard procedure is that such a school is mentioned, but in the main article for the area, rather than an article in its own right. Note that under London Borough of Camden#Education, only Brookfield School has an article, and somebody could AfD that for similar reasons if they so wished. --Ritchie333 (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no specially agreed standard for schools - see WP:SCH which is marked as failed. So, we must consider each cases on its merits with respect to standard guidelines such as WP:GNG. And this topic passes those easily. Warden (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The source cited by Warden is clearly promotional and not independent. Not "voting" either way just yet. At the moment there isn't it enough to justify a keep. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'delete for the present. It's a non-notable independent primary. WP:Runofthemill. The source quoted above can not seriously be considered either 'significant', nor 'independent'. As is customary in this sort of market, the publisher collects their information not by sending independent inspectors into the school to survey and write the entry, but by asking the school to write it. At the bottom of this page they are asking schools to "promote your school or company". I've had a good look at the sources without success. If someone else can find some significant coverage by independent sources, I may be willing to change my mind. Redirect to Camden#Education if necessary, but I can't see the point myself. Fmph (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That source is adequate to establish notability because it has an independent publisher and operates in a commercial marketplace, in which people will pay for this information. If you are concerned with the probity of independent inspection then, of course, we have that too - see here for a detailed inspection report. The school is thus clearly notable and the balancing of these various sources is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ISI is about as independent as the TUC. It's a trade assocation. Fmph (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is an inspectorate which is explicitly authorised by the Education Act and whose performance is reviewed annually by Ofsted, e.g. here. They are certainly a reliable source for our purpose, having a specific concern for accuracy and professional standards. Warden (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indpendent Schools in England are inspected by Oftsted unless they are members of the ISC in which case they are subject to ISI inspection. So what we have is a report that the school HAS to have. It doesn't make it notable. Still not "voting", just clarifying Tigerboy1966 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schools only have to have inspections if they fulfil certain criteria of size, status, &c. In any case, the essence of notability is that there should be sources and the reason that these sources are created is immaterial unless it affects their independence. Movies and books get reviewed as a matter of course by professional reviewers and such reviews are considered satisfactory for those topics. There is no reason in policy to set a higher standard for schools. Schools are more worthy of our attention than this week's movies such as Alvin and the Chipmunks 3 because they are less ephemeral and more respectable. Warden (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of notability is not that there should be sources. I think you need to study WP:GNG again. Fmph (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text of WP:GNG is "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.". See - it's all about the sources. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have to do this again, but statement "Schools only have to have inspections if they fulfil certain criteria of size" is demonstrably false. The smallest school in England [13] has an inspection report [14]. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a maintained school. For independent schools, the threshold for registration is five pupils: "An independent school is defined as any school that provides full time education for five or more pupils of compulsory school age...". So there are criteria there of both size and age. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if it has less than five pupils it is not defined as a school. Thanks for proving my point! Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it just means that it doesn't have to register. Schools with few pupils may still be considered schools as your example of a school with 3 pupils demonstrates. Warden (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: if it's a maintained school, it gets inspected regardless of size. If it's an independent school with 5 or more pupils it gets inspected. If it's an independent institution and has less than five pupils it is not defined as a school. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the school which is our topic has about 200 pupils. It was founded in 1875 and so has over a hundred years of history under a variety of regulatory regimes. Under the current one, it is registered and inspected by independent, professional inspectors whose detailed reports of ~12 pages provide ample material upon which to base an article per WP:WHYN. The topic is therefore notable as defined by the WP:GNG and that's that. Warden (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG in current state as sources required or current school guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. The "official site" fails WP:VERIFY as "Schools can amend their information at any time". Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) per convention and per nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Warden's comments above. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect per previous comment by User:Ritchie333. Stubbleboy 19:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 7 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 Lansdowne School. Wifione ^Message 22:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burrows School[edit]

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

Primary school. Zero refs, and tagged for such in March. Defunct. Appears to be non-notable, per what I understand is our standard approach with primary schools. Merger was proposed in April, but that did not lead to a merge. Delete (w/redirect to Lansdowne School, would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A simple redirect to ~~Burrows School~~ Lansdowne School, as there's nothing to merge anyway. No sourcing either. NLinpublic (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Did you perhaps intend to suggest "redirect to to Lansdowne School"?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm As a matter of fact... NLinpublic (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG or current school guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect: No reason why notable. Couldnt find a reason why it is notable. Little or no coverage on Internet, but that isnt really a suprise given the school has been shut over 20 years. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:32, 6 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 Normanton, West Yorkshire#Education. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normanton Junior School[edit]

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

Primary school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable, per what I understand is our standard approach with primary schools. Merger was proposed 2 years ago, but that did not lead to a merge. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. There is no RS-supported text; hence, nothing to consider merging. Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as usual for elementary schools with marginal sourcing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG or current school guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) per nominator's own suggestion. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect if neccessary. Non - notable. Fails WP:GNG. Get rid. Fmph (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Submerge into Normanton, West Yorkshire - it's missing an Education section. Acabashi (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 22:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colton Primary School[edit]

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

Primary school. Zero refs, for which it has been tagged for over 2 years. Appears to be non-notable, per what I understand is our standard approach with primary schools. Merger was proposed nearly 4 years ago, but that did not lead to a merge. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing that could establish notability. The best the article can offer is that the school used to be based in a building that was almost interesting. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG or current school guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Old building does not appear to be listed so this cannot be used for notability. There is no evidence that English Heritage even considered the building for listing - the article just states speculation (by whom? and on what basis?) that it might get listed. Certainly, I don't see why ownership of the building would affect its status with regard to listing. No other reason for notability found or asserted. No real coverage beyond the usual routine sources. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG - no rreason to keep. If necesssary merge to Colton, Leeds#Education but may need someone with local knowledge to fill in. Fmph (talk) 12:22, 9 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 Georgetown University#Student life. Wifione ^Message 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Georgetown Chimes[edit]

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

Non-notable college glee club. Fails all WP:MUSIC notability requirements. Fails WP:GNG as lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Only sources provided are fleeting mention in 1 WashPost article, a mention of a performance, and a college newspaper article. All told, that's not enough for notability. GrapedApe (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete 2 sentences in the Washington post is a bit skimpy for significant coverage, and the campus paper is a bit weak on "independence" of sourcing. Edison (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Georgetown University#Student life. Agree there is not enough significant sourcing to establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 7 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. Wifione ^Message 22:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rekha Kumari-Baker[edit]

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

Woman who murdered her children and is now in prison. Classic WP:BLP1E. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Notable not just because of the brutal and pre-meditated murders of her children, but also because of the length minimum sentence which was "one of the longest jail terms given to a woman in the UK in modern times". BLP1E states "if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them". The BBC ref already discusses Kumari-Baker alongside the likes of Beverley Allitt, Rose West and Myra Hindley, all of whom already have articles. Additionally, the later of these is deceased and Allitt is held at Rampton Secure Hospital whereas Kumari-baker was deemed to be in an healthy mental state (aside from very minor depression). Allitt also received a shorter minimum term of 30 years, so Kumari-Baker's tariff is second only to West's in terms of living British female prisoners. There's also the issue of wider child protection issues with people expressing concerns about the perpetrator before the crime and the murders resulting in a serious case review. Her crimes have already received coverage in this book discussing empathy [15] by Simon Baron-Cohen--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It hardly seems relevant to point out that the BBC has mentioned other women sentenced to long prison terms in an article about Kumari-Baker's sentencing. That is part of the one event that we are discussing here. Likewise, if Baron-Cohen mentions her, it is almost certainly in relation to this event. In and of itself, this is a tragic though unremarkable crime and has had no visible effect on law, policy, etc. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Child killings are not automatically notable. This article as it remains can't stay under the womans name and needs moving to Murder of Davina and Jasmine Kumari-Baker. Although crimes against children are especially upsetting to all the question remains, is this double murder notable? Wikipedia:Notability (events) seems to be the related notability guideline. I had never heard of this double murder so I will have a search around to see what results it returns. Youreallycan (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are the names of the victims more discussed and more identifiable of this topic than the name of the killer? I doubt that. postdlf (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Probably not. This woman is not "highly notable" as you can see by looking at the article and citations currently in it. As to whether she's "notable enough" for an article under her own name I am undecided. Youreallycan (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This would be better analyzed under WP:NOTNEWS rather than WP:BLP1E. This is far from a "classic" BLP1E, in that the subject is not a private person only incidentally caught up in a larger newsworthy event not of their own making (as an article on her husband would be). Instead, the "event" of the murder (really a rather facile word to use here) was solely her own intentional conduct. And to further roll into that the highly publicized trial and her apparently historically significant sentence really stretches the word "event" out of all reasonable meaning. A crime such as this is really a biographical one, in that who she was in relation to the victims, her motive for for killing them, and her trial and incarceration afterward is the real story; the method of exactly how she killed her daughters, though relevant, is just a small part of the story that is much less important by comparison (this isn't an elaborate bank robbery such that the commission of the crime gets the greatest weight in the story). Currently the article doesn't even have any discussion of her possible motives, despite information on that; I hope that hasn't been intentionally excluded because to do so would be to completely misunderstand the nature of the subject and how best to write about it.
So in my view, the only question is whether there is lasting significance and sustained coverage of her such that this would not just be routine news coverage. There's at least a prima facie case for that, and no actual counterargument so far, so I'd like to see more discussion on that point. postdlf (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to you comment about the missing motives I agree with you. The current weight of the article seems to be directed unduly at the social services and their responsibility - of which they actually had none. - Youreallycan (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that plenty of content is missing from the article and also agree the motives need plenty of coverage.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The killings, the trial, and subsequent legal proceedings have had significant coverage in news publications in several countries from 2007 through 2011, per Google News archives, satisfying the notability requirements. Edison (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd just like to highlight the timing of this nomination, with it occurring very soon after i had an entirely unrelated exchange on the BLP noticeboard with both Delicious carbuncle and User:Youreallycan. The former has also now nominated a further very notable article I created for deletion [16] and their rationale contains rather unhelpful comments to say the least.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has recieved significant coverage by news media.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment I've now started an ANI in relation to the conduct of the submitter of the two AFDs. It can be found here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding.2C_attack_and_disruptive_editing_by_Delicious_carbuncle

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minicraft[edit]

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

I dont think a small, free game created in a weekend with little content and gameplay deserves as much attention as its own page. If anything this should be a small section on Markus "Notch" Persson or Minecraft's page. (Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotron:_2084#Remakes_and_sequels ) Thanks chaps. --206.248.165.19 (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — 206.248.165.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above is a rationale for deletion posted on the article's talk page by an IP user who attempted to nominate this page for deletion. I am completing the nomination on their behalf, but I am not expressing an opinion about the page at this time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as creator of article. This game actually has no direct relation to Minecraft, beyond having had the same creator make it. It has had significant coverage in a number of gaming news websites and periodicals. It is also practically guaranteed to have further coverage when the "sequel", MiniTale, comes out fairly soon. (I am still debating with myself on whether I should make MiniTale its own article when it comes out and have this article be a subsection there or something else. Of course, it all depends on the specific amount of coverage MiniTale gets. It might end up being a subsection in this article instead.) Silver seren^C 09:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the page is on a very topical subject and thus does not have longevity of the encyclopedic worthiness to distinguish it from indiscriminate adding of information, particularly in it's lack of depth and duration of coverage. Possible future developments are speculative, we could say that many things could become notable but what matters is if they are. --Dishcmds (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tossing out policy links is not an argument, especially when you're using them incorrectly. The only close to correct statement is the final one. But, let's start from the beginning. A video game is not an event and is not subject to the Events notability guideline. There is no indiscriminate info in the article, as it does not fall under "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics", or "Excessive listings of statistics". The info in the article is specifically about the game, its background, its gameplay, and its reception in gaming media. And you used another erroneous link to Notability (events), which I already commented on, so skipping that. As for crystal balling, I was referring to what should be done with MiniTale when it comes out, but Minicraft already has significant coverage in gaming media, as expressed by the references in the article. Silver seren^C 10:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article does fall under indiscriminate inclusion of non-notable topics. This game was created during an event and for an event, the competition. Hundreds of games have been created during this event and Persson has created several others for past events, but not those hundreds of games or his previous games or even the winners of the previous competitions have their own article pages. The game was made in one weekend and is comparable to thousands of existing java or flash games in it's depth of gameplay/content. Coverage of this competition is limited in depth and duration, as is coverage of the game. Crystal balling what coverage may be in the future doesn't justify an exception to notability requirements for the current coverage.--Dishcmds (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying thousands of flash games get coverage in gaming magazines and major gaming websites? If they do, then they should also have articles. The notability guideline for all articles is the WP:GNG, which this article passes with flying colors. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by depth of coverage. The sources discussed how the game was made, the gameplay within the game, and then also made comments on whether the game was good or not (critical reception). That's the information that all game articles have. This article currently meets the notability guidelines. Whether MiniTale will do the same will have to be seen, but Minicraft clearly currently meets the guidelines. And what the game was created for is irrelevant. Just because the game was created for a competition doesn't make the game an event itself. The competition is an event, not the games within it. And even the competition doesn't fall under what Wikipedia defines as an event, considering it is an ongoing thing. An event is an explosion, a shooting, a death, things like that. A competition doesn't really fall under the event rules. Silver seren^C 20:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Articles aren't deleted because of lack of longevity. Once notability is established, it's considered permanently notable (WP:NTEMP). BBC news, Wired news, PC Gamer, PC World are all major publications and have established notability. There seems to be enough content to validate a separate article from Markus Persson--Stvfetterly (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes the general notability guideline and WP:V with flying colors. Just take a look at the extensive independent refs. Steven Walling • talk 19:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable game by notable developer covered by the indie and open source community passes the GNG. Marlith (Talk) 21:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notability due to multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Merging into another article would mean losing content in order to balance the weight. Someone another 22:51, 4 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) 23:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of coverage in reliable, third party sources. It seems like this nomination was based more along the lines of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, not actual notabilibilty concerns. (No bad faith intended on my part.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Easily passes WP:GNG and as stated above this does seem to be an "I don't like it therefore delete!" nomination. Barts1a | What did I actually do right? | What did I do wrong this time? 23:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How this article is "notable" I'll never understand. At best it should be deleted, at worst merged into notch's article. --The Lone Bard (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If theres a rule for "I dont like this delete it." why is there there no rule against "I like this keep it forever and give it its own page"? --206.248.165.19 (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC) — 206.248.165.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is. WP:ILIKEIT. Silver seren^C 21:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True but I don't think that this is the case here because the people arguing to keep it here are stating that that article meets WP:N not because they think then game is fun/cool/amazing.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I would agree with you. :P I was just responding to the question on whether there was an opposite rule. Silver seren^C 08:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that you're as biased as they are. --206.248.165.19 (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — 206.248.165.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Being a small game doesn't stop it being notable, it's well sourced too. Wagner ^u t c 17:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mojang. The content from this article would significantly improve the coverage of the company's history. Jarble (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minicraft isn't Mojang's game. It was made as a personal project by Persson for a Ludum Dare, unrelated to Mojang. Wagner ^u t c 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Markus Persson, per the above. This is where his other Ludum Dare entries are, and I agree with Dishmcds' statement regarding the longevity of the coverage. Also, I don't think it passes WP:GNG because the sources imply this was notable for about one day. If MiniTale is released and fits the criteria for notability, then merge this into MiniTale instead. Cheeftun (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has clearly been notable for more than one day, as the sources continue for more than one day, even up to as recently as two days ago (and I could probably find one for today as well). Remember, for now, sources about MiniTale are also about this article. Once MiniTale comes out and it gets coverage, this article will be moved, so we're discussing a one and the same game. Silver seren^C 21:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having searched on Google News, I see only two news articles across multiple sites: articles reporting on Notch entering Ludum Dare and describing Minicraft, and articles reporting on Notch's intent to spin it off into MiniTale. These strike me as reasons as to why MiniTale may be notable enough for its own article in the future, not why Minicraft requires differentiation from Notch's other Ludum Dare entries. Also, the sources I've read do not distinguish it from his other entries on merit, which, again, indicates that Minicraft should remain in the list of Notch's Ludum Dare entries unless and until MiniTale is notable enough for its own article. If MiniTale itself had more coverage, I would suggest moving it now, but as you mentioned earlier, MiniTale's notability at the moment (outside of the announcement) is speculative at best. Cheeftun (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're essentially saying that if reviews of a game come out within the same time period after a game is produced, since that counts as one time period, the game is non-notable? That's not how things work and that's not what notability is. Notability is the fact that so many different gaming magazines and news websites wrote an article reviewing Minicraft, regardless of how short a time period it was that they all did it in. Silver seren^C 21:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point me to a legitimate video gaming review site that has done an honest review of Minicraft in the same style and markup that they would for any other video game and accept you. --206.248.165.19 (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — 206.248.165.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you're talking about a review with a rating, there's not going to be one for a game that was made for free. MiniTale will probably get some, if Notch has it cost something, but free games don't get normal reviews, they get news coverage, like this one has. Another example of a free flash game is Robot Unicorn Attack. It didn't get ratings because it's free, but it got tons of news coverage. Silver seren^C 00:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a review is a numerical rating and Minicraft is culturally as significant as Robot Unicorn Attack.--206.248.165.19 (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — 206.248.165.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't know if that's supposed to be a negative comment about Minicraft or not, but either way, these types of games don't get ratings from gaming periodicals, they just get coverage, much like any other indie type game. So I don't understand what kind of point you're trying to make. Silver seren^C 01:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minicraft was just unofficially ported to the Android yesterday, garnering a number of new news articles on the game. Continued coverage, there you go. Silver seren^C 12:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Of all the small-scale games created in 2011, I would have to say Minicraft received by far the most publicity, considering the author and circumstances of its origin. The size of the game might be questionable, but it made enough of an impact that it should be readily available on Wikipedia. DarthBotto_talk•cont 08:05, 06 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides "impact"? Just because an website reposts information from a tweet means something is important? Is this Wikipedia or CWCki? --206.248.165.19 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — 206.248.165.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Also, cool opinions bro. --206.248.165.19 (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — 206.248.165.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I'd say WP:1EVENT should have been applicable. However, Wikipedia's guidelines are biased towards content reliably sourced, and reliable sources in this case are biased to cover Persson's game instead of 890 other games from the competition. It certainly seems unfair and systematic bias is a big problem, but we ought not compromise Wikipedia principles. The content is verifiable and reliably sourced to satisfy WP:GNG at is simplest form. Also, I think there's too much sourced content to merge, so an independent article is fine. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This seems to be a case of inherited notability, as the game is not really of much significance in itself outside of it's creator. On that basis the article should be merged with it's source of notability, Notch himself.62.49.19.234 (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The reliable sources given would indicate it is notable on its own. Whether it is because Notch is notable or not (inherited notability) is not a factor when addressing WP:GNG. It's a silly case this time in real world terms, but almost clear cut in Wikipedia notability terms. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the topic of this article is actively in development. As noted above, the state of notability may change after MiniTale is released, which may be quite soon. As a comment before realizing this I was going to suggest Merging with Minecraft which is the only article large and developed enough to receive this article without major problems, and Minicraft is most related to Minecraft among those articles.Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 20:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Plenty of reliable sources that has established independent notability here. I'm not sure whether merging would be useful in this situation, as Someone another mentioned above. --MuZemike 20:12, 9 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 per WP:SNOW. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The passing era of Football[edit]

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

Contested prod. Attempt by one editor to give a name to a period in NFL history, no assertion that there exists a consensus (or attempt thereof) among memorabilia buffs to refer to that era by that name. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonsense. Awesome unintentional neologism "evolutionized"--GrapedApe (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, the only applicable notability criterion. Magister Scienta ^talk 04:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails every sort of guideline we have. Referencing "Espn.com" doesn't suffice. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. cmadler (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure original research, and not very good either.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, lacking multiple sources of significant coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 18:22, 4 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 primary schools in Hong Kong. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Lok Yuen International School[edit]

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

Contested PROD; removed without an edit summary. The fairly short brief article, which is written like an advertisement, is about a non-notable school that fails WP:NHS and WP:GNG. Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect. As I understand is our convention with schools through grade six, absent unusual circumstances.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) to List of primary schools in Hong Kong. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kud. Out of curiosity, I noticed that you suggested merging any useful content. From what I can see, all of the content here is unreferenced -- no references to non-RSs, let alone RSs. Are you suggesting that any of this content should be merged? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) template on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 10 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 or Merge One thing is certain, this article is not going to be deleted; I can find no consensus, however, as to whether this article should be kept or merged; the best way to determine that is a separate discussion on the article's talk page.. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nasal breathing[edit]

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

No citations or sources, biased, no real research, seems opinionated Asoccer345 (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Breathing as plausible redirect. The ICD used in this article doesn't mention Nasal Breathing. ICD 10 is used for "mouth breathing" while ICD 9 is used for "Other symptoms involving head and neck".--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep per expansion and references. I've removed the inaccurate infobox --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 04:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. This is obviously a real medical/physiological topic, so it likely has received substantial coverage; I'm inclined to say keep, but I strongly believe that it should either be kept as an article or retained as a redirect as suggested by Lentice1. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Breathing. This is an unnecessary fork, but it contains content which should be added to the Breathing article with appropriate references. Also merge/redirect the companion article Mouth breathing. There actually is a fair amount of information in the medical literature on this subject, for example [17] [18] [19]. --MelanieN (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable and so should be developed further per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Breathing. Whilst important, I don't believe it needs to be a stand-alone article. Bazonka (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click on Google book search at the top of the AFD. They measure nasal breathing for a medical test to be done [20], plus people write about viruses its more vulnerable to than mouth breathing, etc, in various books, plus one about psychiatry and nasal breathing. This article can surely be expanded. Dream Focus 17:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Breathing, no indication that a dedicated article is warranted here RadioFan (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep all body processes and functions, especially one as noted as this one are notable.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. The subject is certainly not one to be deleted; I leave it up to the consensus of others here to decide whether it is better as a stand-alone article or as a merge, as I don't have a strong opinion between the two options.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A notable topic covered in reliable sources. Article could use expansion and more inline citations. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:56, 9 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandros Nestoropolous[edit]

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

Person is not notable as per WP:ATHLETE, does not meet the general notability criteria or the specific criteria for boxers Gsingh (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most references do not work, are irrelevant or are direct copies of the wikipedia article. Gsingh (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and all 6 WP:ATHLETE criteria for boxers. Magister Scienta ^talk 04:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and Magister Scienta.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 8 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Akinwunmi Irede[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the clubs a player has played for aren't notable, the player generally isn't either. Clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; hasn't played in a fully professional league, thus he fails WP:NFOOTY. Fails WP:GNG as well due to no media coverage. – Kosm1 fent 11:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:50, 6 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 and set redirect to where information has been already merged. No prejudice against recreation once WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lawless (film)[edit]

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

Though footage for the film has been shot, it does not appear to have entered principal photography. The production designer has pointed to a June start date, and a lead actress says she won't be working on it until September. The page therefore does not pass WP:NFILM. Krevans (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Useful info into Terrence Malick and then delete. Can be recreated once WP:NFF is met. Lugnuts (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All the relevant info is now in Terrence Malick. I'd be more than willing to recreate the page once principal photography begins.--Krevans (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already merged so redirect to Terrence Malick. Fails NFF, but this can/should be recreated whenever possible. NLinpublic (talk) 20:29, 4 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.