< 15 March 17 March >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God[edit]

Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book by a barely-notable author. Was only a bestseller on a very special-interest index. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have converted my vote to a comment, accordingly. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps as a compromise I might propose that we merge this article into Francis Chan. Popular as this book may have been I do not think it has any lasting notability beyond it's stint on the bestseller list. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't even call that a compromise, basically you just want us to move the information over to Francis Chan, but still delete the article. You still haven't even given an actual reason as to why the article should be deleted.--Jacksoncw (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enoh's point[edit]

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

Obvious hoax article, a search for Enoh's point only brings up15 Wikipedia pages. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Dia (Syrian-American)[edit]

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

A WP:BLP entirely unsourced, except for the individual's existence. It fails both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I have found no significant coverage in any sources. The references provided -- a self-submitted YouTube clip, an unidentified photo, a mention of a classroom talk local to a college, etc. -- do not meet reliability standards. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reference you added to the article lists Mahmoud Khattab as "one of the organisers" and two quotes from two children (Tala al-Saghir and Nadine Tayeb). There's no mention of an "Ali Dia" so I don't see this reference supporting your statement here that he led the rally. QU TalkQu 09:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is him in the picture, compare to youtube video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.82.190.79 (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The image caption does not identify the person in the picture. Regardless of whether the person in the picture is Dia or not, this is not substantial coverage about him, and does not verify in any way that he was a protest organizer. -- Whpq (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Dia's page is well sourced and is accurate. I am unsure as to why cactus is so adamant. It may be sensorship because Ali Dia is such an outspoken critic of Bashar Assad. Maybe Cactus is pro-Bashar? Im completely against Wikipedia censoring someome based on their political views. Would be sad if such an informative and accurate portrayal of Ali Dia would be removed. The following are links which support the accuracy of what is stated:

https://www.facebook.com/events/122362341210634/

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XE4ikUVTfeYJ:www.radioislam.com/+&cd=52&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

https://www.facebook.com/events/367078286641635/?ref=nf

https://www.facebook.com/events/246384535417202/

http://plancast.com/p/8l4s/syria-contextualizing-revolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBeesQJDvt4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw55dK9C_Zw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.71.19 (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:RS. Facebook, youtube, et. al. are not reliable sources as they are self published. They also do not establish notability. QU TalkQu 08:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Barnes (minister)[edit]

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

as per my previous nomination. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Being quoted in the media on a few occasions does not make you notable. The keep arguments last time were weak and did not address notability in mainstream not Christian press. In addition, he is a very minor figure in the church, he is a pastor of a small suburban church. LibStar (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He does seem to have written many more books than the average preacher: the article lists 11. -- 202.124.74.111 (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that does not mean he automatically passes WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure this is a sufficiently high standard for notability? Almost any priest will find themselves mentioned in their local town or city newspapers. They are by definition local public figures. I do not think Wikipedia should turn into a catalogue of every local preacher, hence we require a higher standard than mere mentions. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me put it this way: the SMH and the Age are the Australian equivalents of the NY Times and the Washington Post. And, given that Melbourne (where the Age is published) is 900 km by road from Sydney (where Barnes lives) calling the Age a "local newspaper" is hardly appropriate. In fact, Barnes gets national-level coverage. -- 202.124.75.234 (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the age and SMH have the same owner and often publish identical content. Do you have any connection to Peter Barnes? LibStar (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald have independent editorial staff, do not publish the same story unless it is of interest in both cities. Also, your suggestion that people !voting "keep" have a connection to Peter Barnes is unjustified and a breach of WP:AGF. -- 202.124.74.36 (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
please answer the question, i ask to assist knowing where you are coming from, a good faith question since I don't know if you have a connection to mr barnes. Regards LibStar (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am the 202.124.75.234 and 202.124.74.36 above. I am not Peter Barnes, and have no connection to him. I had thought that was clear from what I said. Can we get back to discussing the article now please? -- 202.124.74.196 (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this is not a criterion for WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since these books reflect theological scholarship but are widely sold in the evangelical community, they satisfy WP:PROF #7: "Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study." -- 202.124.74.36 (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC) — 202.124.74.36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That's not quite true: there's also mentions in news stories on abortion, church history, hymns, etc. As AJ Balmforth points out, he's one of the key Protestant "go to" academics for media outlets seeking an opinion. -- 202.124.74.196 (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but they're still only one-line mentions. A succession of sources giving him trivial coverage do not add up to significant coverage.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ad hominem tagging is an admission that the "keep" arguments can't be countered; and if you're going to pretend that all the 202.124 !votes are different people, then you have to count them all as independent "keep" !votes. -- 202.124.74.151 (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC) — 202.124.74.151 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I don't know how you can claim the SPA tags are unjustified. The editors who got tagged have indeed made "few or no edits outside this topic". 120.124 has about three dozen edits, about a quarter of them relating to Barnes and most of the remainder to the Presbyterian Church and related topics. Balmforth has three edits.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The dynamic IP 202.124.*.* has over 80 edits, in total, as you can see by clicking "contribs." -- 202.124.74.84 (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — 202.124.74.84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I clicked on every tagged 202.124 contrib link in this discussion, there were three-dozen-odd edits. You want me to be able to easily see your editing history, get an account.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline is WP:PROF with, as I have argued above, #7 being met. -- 202.124.74.118 (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything he has written that is ”widely popular” for ”general audiences”, nor is there anything to note he is ”widely regarded inside academia”. He is not even close to PROF, I'm afraid. Novaseminary (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 08:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tumbleweed Tiny House Company[edit]

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

Delete. SPAMish article about a non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it probably is. There needs to be a discussion on the inclusion of article about businesses to avoid WP becoming a business directory. As things currently stand there is nothing stopping potentially 100s of 1000s of article being added to WP. Even though WP is not paper we should avoid this scenario. WP:NOT etc is not stopping the steady stream of SPAM by stealth. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Alan. StandardSwan (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So can I interest you in a delete rather than a keep? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...maybe next time (sincerely). While I'm in overall agreement with your argument, I can't justify voting to delete this article -- they are by all means within WP's criteria for notability. Although it could use some copy editing to bring it up to MoS standards. StandardSwan (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are used to shape what WP is as a whole so if we continue allowing articles in if they meet our current notability guidelines we will end up with a business directory. It is nest to impossible to create notability guidelines and WP:GNG is used to trump all other notability guidelines. And so the problem remains... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Delete" arguments based on WP:AIRCRASH are not particularly compelling because that page is an essay.  Sandstein  08:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian C-130 Hercules accident[edit]

Norwegian C-130 Hercules accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per WP:AIRCRASH. Nobody notable on board which is a criteria for military crashes. ...William 21:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-For one thing, I don't see that there is a criteria for military crashes about notable persons on board. Besides, I think it would be a shame not to have an article about this crash, as this is a very unusual event, and no other known website keep track of incidents like this. Oz1sej (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Hercules fixed-wing aircraft is not a 'copter. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think the tallest mountain in Sweden is "something important"? That is a landmark if I ever saw one. And they seem to have hit it since the plane exploded. Very rarely do planes like these explode midair. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A mountain is not what I meant I really meant important buildings or structures. Military aircraft fly lower and sometimes faster than civil aircraft, they dont generally fly airways where they can be watched and warned. That said the C-130J is a new aircraft with modern avionics so it is designed not to hit things but when the aircraft was flying only a few thousand feet above the height of the mountain it should have missed it!. Nobody is saying it is not a tragic and sad accident and our thoughts are with the friends and relatives of the five lost aviators. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not the first loss of a C-130J the RAF lost one in Iraq (ZH876). MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said "fatal". --Ysangkok (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles on that WP:OTHERSTUFF because they are criminal acts, not accidents. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2008 San Diego F/A-18 crash isn't a criminal act. --Ysangkok (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning is quite offensive. Do you think anyone is proud of this crash?. No, not every crash with a plane has a separate article on Wikipedia. But when a crash like this one happens (these kind of crashes are very rare in scandinavia) it is notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not wikipedia for Scandinavia. With the world as a backdrop, nothing in the article indicates that the crash is notable. "Proud"? I'd venture a guess that soldiers/combatants who oppose Norway in Afghanistan, have a less sentimental feeling about the accident then you might. In addition, this wikipedia is not exclusively for those sympathetic to NATO/ISAF. Military airplane crews die every day. Nothing notable yet about this crew that died in bad weather. --Gerrymanders (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK so we should delete this article because combatants in Afghanistan are potentially angry at Norway and doesnt care about the death of five people? hmmm. No this is not Wikipedia Scandinavia, it is a Wikipedia were articles are made on notable subjects. A crash which is very rare in Scandinavia is notable and should be included. No matter what some Afghans or Americans thinks.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had a very rare bicycle accident on Main Street in Hicksville, Alaska outside building/property number 1212, in bad weather. I am not expecting an article about that. Military aircraft/crews test themselves in adverse conditions/bad weather. Nothing notable about that. That there are few military aircraft in Scandinavia (even when counting the ones holed up in Afghanistan or going to/coming from there), does not make this crash notable. It wasn't even a combat mission (which might have added some notability). This crash is not a notable subject, according to the text in the article and the text in this discussion. --183.88.34.4 (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note a combat loss would actually make it less notable. MilborneOne (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These all are very good points. Nanobear (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Major news for several days" does not satisfy WP:PERSISTENCE. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. A tad difficult to say more when "several days" is all that's passed, though. Which is why I think Wikipedia:RAPID makes sense, and we could afford to wait before we possibly decide to delete it. Wikipedia is no crystal ball, but we don't need to make sure that no one ever encounters an article which could possibly turn out not to be notable. Also, I didn't argue we should keep it because it had been major news in several countries for several days at the point – but yes, I did and do consider it a contributing factor. /Julle (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apples and oranges; the Fairchild crash was the result of significant chain of command failures and led to significant changes in procedures. As opposed to, tragically, a plane just flying into the side of a mountain. (See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) Also this is not the first crash of a C-130J; see comment above regarding ZH876. Also is there any WP:PERSISTANCE for this case of CFIT? - The Bushranger One ping only 15:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that the above quote was truncated in favour of the author the article as written isIf an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article above it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports. So it may qualify as a stand-alone!!Petebutt (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of the facts:

You are distorting the facts. Because it passes WP:GNG it doesn't need to pass WP:AIRCRASH. Also note that AIRCRASH isn't even an official policy. It is also not relevant where the news happen, so you are misguiding people when you tell them it's not a Scandinavian newspaper, cause it's not an English newspaper either. The fact that we do use the English language sadly causes an English/American bias. Also, it is too early to know if there are any notable effects of the crash. There wasn't any serious aftermath to 2010 Austin suicide attack and 2002 Tampa plane crash either, but we're still keeping those cause they pass WP:GNG. Tell me why WP:AIRCRASH is the over-riding criteria here, but not concerning the 2002 Tampa crash. Tell me why Qantas Flight 32 is notable, if it is not because it is the first A380 issue (not even a loss!). --Ysangkok (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AIRCRASH deals with aircraft accident notability, so it is not applicable to intentional and/or criminal acts like 2010 Austin suicide attack and 2002 Tampa plane crash. - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider also WP:What Wikipedia is not#When you wonder what to doPetebutt (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "no notable effects": as I've tried to point out above, this has put focus on the fact that NATO is involved in military exercies on Swedish – neutral – territory (something most Swedes had missed until the crash), and rekindled the Swedish debate on whether or not Sweden should join NATO and what the Swedish relationship to NATO should be. A few different examples of opinion pieces (the first hits when I did quick search in Mediearkivet ("The Media Archive")) from different newspapers in different parts of the country:
"Kraschen sätter fokus på Natos närvaro", Svenska Dagbladet 2012-03-18; "Lägger ner allt eller gå med i Nato", Sydsvenskan 2012-03-16; "Natolandet Sverige", sv:Sydöstran 2012-03-19; "Inte lätt att vara neutralitetskramare", sv:Blekinge Läns Tidning 2012-03-19; "Svensk militär vardag", Helsingborgs Dagblad 2012-03-20; "Man hjälper sina grannar", sv:Mariestads-Tidningen 2012-03-20; "Ärligare med fullt Nato-medlemskap", sv:City Malmö 2012-03-19; "Tala klartext om Nato", sv:Skaraborgs Allehanda 2012-03-21; "Fredsframtvingaren Sverige", Dala-Demokraten 2012-03-21; "Sverige är aktivt i krigföringen" Dala-Demokraten, 2012-03-20.
I think there are other reasons to keep the article as well, but I would happily argue for its inclusion simply based on this. /Julle (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the WP:PERSISTENCE? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, seeing how the debate I pointed to is ongoing, it's certainly not lacking. Whether it will have a lasting effect is of course difficult to judge, but seeing how this accident has been an important part of fueling the (as far as I know) most intensive debate on the NATO question in Sweden for years, I'd say it's already played a political role. And if I'm going to repeat myself, I might as well quote what I wrote above: "A tad difficult to say more when "several days" is all that's passed, though. Which is why I think Wikipedia:RAPID makes sense, and we could afford to wait before we possibly decide to delete it. Wikipedia is no crystal ball, but we don't need to make sure that no one ever encounters an article which could possibly turn out not to be notable." Still, I'd be happy to include most accidents that spark nation-wide debate on foreign policy. /Julle (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(And if we who belive this is wrong and it goes through AfD and gets deleted based on a failure of notablity a few years from now? Well, then we'll be wrong and it'll be deleted. No harm done.) /Julle (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Petebutt:I do not understand your argument. Why do you mix the phrase, Scandinavian newspaper into the discussion? 109.232.72.49 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

California Farm Water Coalition[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for a number of years for a variety of issues, including lack of notability and having no reliable sources. It was actually tagged as a PROD in 2009, but the PROD was contested with the promise to introduce sources to the article. That never happened, and the article has been pretty much sitting here dormant since. The arguments for the PROD still apply, namely that there is nothing that distinguishes this particular non-profit as notable, and that while mention of the organization does appear in a few third party sources, they are trivial mentions at best. Rorshacma (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  19:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Arian Catholicism[edit]

Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Arian Catholicism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the sources are self-published, the article is clearly fringy (see last section), and I can not establish any form of notability for the subject. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 20:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support the nomination, although I have to admit that I got a laugh when i saw that they self described themselves as Anglicans! I think Rowan should be informed! Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose of course. Just because you may not like the article or the group does not mean (sighs) it warrants deletion. What's with the uptight Wiki-bombing here? The thing is sourced, and the church and religion exist, whether you think it's all that "fringe" or not is irrelevant. If the wording of the article needs fixing, then do that. That's the recommendation, not to simply remove an article from WP just because you don't happen to like it. There are plenty of "fringe" religions out there that have WP pages, so what. As far as the sources, you have to understand something, when I created this article I was not doing it willy nilly, but because there was a reference to it in ANOTHER article, so it was kind of like a dead link situation. The thing is notable enough for it to appear on various articles, and they are an official religion in England. If the style is a bit "unencylcopedic" to some readers (though it's not), then simply modify or change or whatever. Not delete. Good day. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at WP:V (specifically WP:SPS) and WP:NOTABILITY; these are the guidelines I nominated under, and will stand even if WP:FRINGE is not met. I do not know if this matters, but the above oppose I believe is by the page creator and maintainer,12 who deleted the Deletion Template here. Plenty of fringe religions have Wikipedia pages? Well, either they have received independent, third-party coverage, which makes them notable even if they're small (Westboro, Peoples' Temple), or I'll nominate them for deletion as I run across them. This one has lots of Google entries, on websites hosted by the sect; third-party coverage is zero, as anyone can verify using the links at the top of the page. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 01:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, I don't really care THAT much about this article. Nor this group. My personal view (not really relevant, but) is that this group is a sick twisted illogical wacko group. But that's not the point. Yes, they're not as "notable" as the Mormon Church or Roman Catholic, no kidding. But so aren't many other groups or churches or religious sects that have WP articles. If this article is deleted, I won't lose one millisecond of sleep about it. But my point also was that this was a dead link type situation in another article that had this church's name. It lacked WP wiki link referencing. That was all. Now if this church (which admittedly is an idiotic and fringe sect) lacks enough sources, then so be it, that's how it goes. I was thinking though that though lacking Google source support it was notable in that it is a religion that is known by at least a few on this planet, besides the group itself. But whatever happens ultimately with this minor article (that I did not really care that much about, but only did it to source from another WP article, etc), is no big deal to me. Cheerio. Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know - I first came across its website a year or so back, I think, and my first impression was, "this must be massive - a Catholic Church of Catholicism! Arian Catholicism! I guess Bauer and Ehrman were right!" until I saw that every part was written by the same "Archbishop Cardinal-Priest Doctor Professor Most Reverend Brian Mackenzie-Hanson, ThD DD DPhil BM BCh LLB, Rightful Primate of All England". St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 12:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  20:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Landmark (Toronto)[edit]

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

Non-notable proposed project that fell through; no significant coverage. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stas Krylov[edit]

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

This article was proposed for deletion and the tag was removed without explanation by the article's creator. This is a biography of a non-notable Israeli actor. It fails the requirements of WP:BIO and is basically an unreferenced biography of a living person since the links provided don't even mention him. It seems that his professional career consists of a couple of commercials (at best). I have failed to find substantive coverage about him specifically. Pichpich (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  20:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mahyad Tousi[edit]

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

No claim of notability, the article fails WP:FILMMAKER and appears to be self-promotional. Sources provides are not RS, and the NYT's paper is not in-depth. Farhikht (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Farhikht (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge/redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 AFC Challenge Cup Final[edit]

2012 AFC Challenge Cup Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is not necessary because there is main page for the final match. The tournament is just for emerging Asian states. So the competition is small and not required here.--Uishaki (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content Central[edit]

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

Notability is not established: the article completely lacks reliable sources and nothing (except for press releases and blog stuff) is available elsewhere. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Boucher[edit]

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. Miniapolis (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is tagged as having no sources, so it sounds like you can provide some. Miniapolis (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As could you. Google Books has plenty of sources readily available, which shows that this person does meet the GNG. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry—I'm up to my neck in cleanup work as it is and have no dog in this fight; the burden of proof to provide reliable sources rests with the editor(s) who want the article kept. I'm no deletionist, but this is one of so many articles which languish for years without needed improvement once they're created; apparently, they're forgotten. Miniapolis (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shanon Mayer[edit]

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

Biography that fails to establish notability of the subject. The only claim to notability is that she was the author of several books. However, these books were self-published, therefore they themselves are unnotable and subsequently had their own articles deleted via AFD. No reliable third party sources exist to help establish notability in any other way. Rorshacma (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Piquion[edit]

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

I see no $35,000 ITF wins. I see no main draws in WTA events either. No Fed Cup either... per reason this player fails NTENNIS and Tennis project guidelines for notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It froze after the last step...it looked ok but a link looked funny and I wasn't sure how to fix it. Thanks to snotbot.:-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that sometimes a person is very notable without making the cut at Tennis project guidelines or WP:NTennis... nothing is perfect. But I don't think this person really qualifies as being notable. We have to take tennis out because she has done nothing at all tennis related to make her notable. So then we have to see if she's notable for having a bunch of magazine or newspaper articles written about her nonetheless. Big articles in newspapers or magazines that would have to do with mostly her... not an interview after a match especially in super low ranked tournaments. Looking at your source, the first Google hit is from 2010 La Provence and it is nothing... saying no French ladies made the tourney bracket, Nathalie Piquion being the last to lose. The next hit is from "Paris/Nomandie" city talk and forum... one sentence from 2011 that says her year stunk and she joined something called ACE Rouen CPU. The next hit is for La Parisien... a short paragraph that said Piquion cryed after being crushed in a tiny tournament 6-3,6-1. The rest of the first hit bunch looked about the same. My point is these are tiny little blurbs that usually mention a bunch of players of whom Nathalie Piquion is one. These are not magazine expose's or multiple major newspaper articles talking only about this person. They are tiny tidbits that all the low ranked pro players and jr's get at some time or another. If you make it to a final and any websports person is there covering it (no matter how tiny an event it is) you will get asked how you feel about the loss or win... that does not make a person notable. From what I saw nothing made this person notable. Maybe she will be in the future but not now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing this must have been a consensus discussion? When I look back when this was created in July 2010, WP:NSports/Tennis notability guideline said
Tennis figures are presumed notable if they:
Are a member of the International Tennis Hall of Fame, either in the contributor or player category.
Have competed in at least one Grand slam tournament (the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon, or the US Open), an ATP World Tour Finals, an ATP World Tour Masters 1000 event or a WTA Premier Tournament.
Have won a match in a second level event, such as one of the ATP International Series Gold events, or the ATP World Tour 500 series or WTA Tour.
This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players. Junior players are not presumed notable.
  • Now we've gotten far more detailed since then, so it really doesn't matter, but at the time of creating it looks like it didn't meet specs either? Maybe there were other guides? Or was this more the tennis consensus talk (which is perfectly legit) like scoring format and sourcing... which were talked about, polled and understood but not actually written down in the guide yet? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD has been running for 10 days. Shouldn't it get closed or relisted? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:57, 15 March 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, —SW— chatter 16:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator advances no policy-based reason for deletion; Wikipedia is not censored. Article does need additional references for verification, but AfD is not for cleanup. The Bushranger One ping only 18:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explosive belt[edit]

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

Reveals too much about explosive belt making; can cause trouble on suicide bombing/terrorism front. Please look into this. Thank you. Diarev (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC) — Diarev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zubair Farooq Khan[edit]

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

Contested WP:BLPPROD. With greatest respect to the subject of the article, Mr Zubair Farooq Khan appears to have been an unsuccessful candidate for the Islamabad Capital Territory "NA-49" electorate in a recent election. This article would appear to fail WP:POLITICIAN, or in the alternative, WP:ANYBIO. As always, I am more than happy to be proved wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 10 March 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, Shirt58 (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 17:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of commemorative months[edit]

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

This page is in serious disrepair. What is a "commemorative month" and if it is a list of the months surely it would just list the months, not the events within. It is seriously redlinked, which is contrary to the guidance at MOS:SAL; I am not sure that the events themselves, especially all are particularly notable. Sure the underlying illness/event may bbe, ut it seems that the events within a month may not. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment. I'm all for Self-Harm Awareness Month if its purpose is to make people aware that "to self-harm" is not a verb. It makes me cringe when I hear or read about people who "self-harm" rather than harm themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  20:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centreline Air Charter[edit]

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

Ureferenced article about a small air charter operator. No assertion of notability other than an uncited claim of £10m turnover - which is very small for a charter airline. Bob Re-born (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Technically this can't be closed as "nomination withdrawn" due to 2 outstanding "delete" !votes. However, since this has been open almost 7 days and the nominator's concerns have been addressed, I'll punch it "keep". Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden Shaw[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable author/model. Fails the criteria at WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO; insufficient coverage in reliable sources found to pass WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, see below. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did run a WP:BEFORE check, and found the entries on Google books - however, with the exception of an interview in OUT magazine (which constitutes a primary source), all I saw was passing coverage, works by the man himself (also primary), and fiction written using him as a character (not appropriate for verifying any facts about him as a person). He gets mentioned a lot, sure, but where's the independent, in-depth coverage? Yunshui 雲‍水 08:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Ben Mhenni[edit]

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

A blogger who has apparently been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (the article doesn't say by whom). Any obscure university professor or politician for example can nominate anyone for the Nobel Peace Prize, and the committee receives hundreds of nominations/proposals each year. Nominees hold no official status, and the committe doesn't comment upon the proposals it receives (so there is really no way of verifying whether someone has been nominated at all). The way the article presents her, this nomination is her main claim to fame. Note that the committee rejected the proposal and awarded the prize to someone else. (the article was originally tagged for speedy deletion) Josh Gorand (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. For any who care, the reason for the deletion of the corresponding article at de: was that it consisted only of a collection of these jokes.  Sandstein  08:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

East Germany jokes[edit]

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

The jokes presented here are not representative of jokes in the GDR. It seems more likely that they were made a) by West German people or b) post reunification. The jokes are anti GDR propaganda and insulting towards East Germans. It should be difficult to find reputable sources for real GDR jokes. The corresponding German article Witze der DDR has been deleted long time ago. -- Sloyment (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. At least no consensus to delete, based on the research by Voceditenore, the results of which have not been contested.  Sandstein  20:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Zen[edit]

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

1. notability (ft.com ref trivial coverage, ) 2. advert 3. COI Widefox (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to www.ft.com is, as the nominator says, trivial coverage, containing only a minor two-sentence mention of the subject of the article. The source cited at www.globaltimes.cn is, however, substantial coverage. If globaltimes is OK in terms of reliability and independence, then there remains the issue of whether that single source is sufficient to establish notability. (Wikipedia:Notability says "Multiple sources are generally expected", and Wikipedia:Notability (people) says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (My emphasis in both cases.)) However, there is also the fact that www.globaltimes.cn has the avowed purpose of promoting knowledge of Chinese people and affairs in the wider world, which somewhat reduces the confidence we can have in it as an indicator of notability.
A Google search for "Shadow Zen" is hampered by the appearance of numerous false hits. (E.g. a page at www.pedigreedatabase.com about a dog named "Magros Dark Shadow Zen", a trivial page created by a 17 year old who likes to be called "Shadow Zen Maricat", a brand of eye shadow called "Zen", a MySpace page for someone who uses the name "ShadowZen", and does not appear to be the person in this Wikipeida article etc, etc.) In fact, the only Google hit I found that seems to refer to the "Shadow Zen" we need is the Wikipedia article. I tried to narrow the search down by including other terms which, to judge from the article, are relevant, but I did not have much success. For example, a search for "Shadow Zen" "Drinking with the Stranger" produced only the Wikipedia article; so did "Shadow Zen" "Shanghai Hardhan Theatre"; a search for "Shadow Zen" "Donna Sheridan" produced Wikipedia, Twitter, a blog post by Shadow Zen, not about her, and a page advertising the production of Mamma Mia!, in which she is taking part, and that was all. A search for "Shadow Zen" "Mamma Mia!" did better in terms of numbers of hits (109), but many of the hits were such sources as Wikipedia, Twitter, blogs, promotional pages, etc. There was also an article about "Mamma Mia!" which does not mention Shadow Zen, but which includes a readers' response (blog-like) section which includes a post starting "Hi this is Shadow Zen, I play Donna Sheridan..." There were also hits which have nothing to do with this particular "Shadow Zen", such as a page selling magicians' equipment. In fact, despite the claims in the article, I have been unable to find anything anywhere to suggest that Shadow Zen is a star in any significant production.
On current showing I have to say that notability is not established, but I am not saying delete yet, to give others a chance to do a better job of finding sources than I have managed to do. JamesBWatson (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. at this point, it seems there is no consensus. If notability is not clearer in 3 or 4 months, a renomination would be appropriate DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obix programming language[edit]

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

Appears to be a relatively new programming language. Can't tell the age. Can't tell notability of this, either. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 14:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 14:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+Transwiki We can transwiki the page becuase the articles nobility isnt very high bu high. And it could work better in a new wiki. Or we just leave it where it is and let some more people edit it.Algamicagrat (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 06:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 01:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Parsakalleh[edit]

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

A candidate for the Minnesota House of Representatives. Can't find anything about her except for her announcement. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. There is no place at the moment to merge or redirect the article to. Prod was contested with, "state politician is notable because of officially acknowledged endorsement of U.S. Congressperson" Bgwhite (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 06:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidate not inherently notabile. Only minor and routine local-press coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Balkany[edit]

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

Does not meet notoriety criteria as either business leader nor electoral candidate. Miquelon (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Strongly suspect sockpuppeteering as three main contributors have no other entries on Wikipedia page. French language page was canidate for speedy deletion. See talk page for info. Miquelon (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete: notability not sufficient. Page was written by three users whose sole contribution was this only article. Being cited in a trade magazine and running for office are not sufficient criteria for notability. Miquelon (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xelbaz has once again removed the request for deletion tag in clear violation of procedure. Miquelon (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other language Wikipedia's have different notability criteria, so in fact we should totally disregard it's deletion or retention elsewhere.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 06:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge/redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraphing (entertainment)[edit]

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

Non-referenced dicdef, essentially unchanged since creation in 2007 - not an encyclopaedic entry. Emeraude (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 06:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to confound notable with important. It has sources, it's notable.Diego (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps then it would be more appropriate to transwiki this topic to wictionary - at most this seems to be informal actor's jargon for signifying plot element non-verbally. A simple definition would suffice. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about that, it has some encyclopedic content that would be lost. If it's transwikied, the name should be redirected to Telegraph (disambiguation) and that page should include the Wictionary box for the term. But I think the stub has potential, see the similar Telegraphing (sports). Diego (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be prepared to change my mind if you could convince me that this was a notable topic in theatre-craft / acting, something that had the potential to be worked up into a decent article. I'm not sufficiently educated in the dramatic arts to know this for sure but the lack of any major articles on the subject (just casual usage) suggests that we really would not loose much with a transwiki. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided several more references that directly define and analyze the term as a literary device both in theatre and writing, making it verifiable. At the very least the content should be preserved, probably merging it with Telegraphing (sports) (which should then be renamed to remove the wp:PRECISION title) given that the meanings are clearly related. Diego (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to keep it then please do not merge it with a sports article! --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they are merged it won't be a sports article, it will be a "communicating future intentions with gestures" article with two subsections. But hey, you're the one willing to change the current structure. Diego (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of an alternate solution - You can merge this article to a section in Foreshadowing and create a "redirect with possibilities" to that section, if you don't think it merits a stand-alone article. The concept is relevant there and we have reliable sources connecting both topics. What do you think? Diego (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems sensible. It's not exactly the same thing as foreshadowing, however it's very similar. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The alternate solution sounds fine to me.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If Diego is willing to execute his proposal I'd be happy to go with his plan (and change my vote), otherwise if nobody is going to volunteer to change the article I think we'd be better off without it. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Diego (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Telugu Vaishyas[edit]

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

The criteria for this list is far too vague in terms of geography, connection to the Vaishya varna and indeed even the definition of "vaishya", which is by no means set in stone. Furthermore, practically no-one self-identifies with this or the still lower ranking "Shudra" varna, which means that there are major BLP issues. Basically, the list is a coat-rack. Sitush (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To provide an analogy for those who perhaps are not fully conversant with the terms, the list is akin to us hosting one that enumerates "middle class people who are predominantly from the Portuguese-speaking area of Portugal or closely connected with middle class people". - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 06:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Most are of the opinion that the story of this possibly fictitious war hero is notable enough to merit coverage, but needs further cleanup to separate facts from myth.  Sandstein  20:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Jammal[edit]

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

The article makes dubious claims about a figure named Jules Jamal. According to the article he sunk a french battleship named Jeanne D’Arc in a suicide attack during the Suez crisis, and has been honored in various ways. I am unable to find secondary sources backing up these claims. As far as I can tell no large ship was sunk during the time mentioned, and no french ship named Jeanne D’Arc was lost the time. The loss of a ship in such a spectacular way should be mentioned in some of the books I own on the subject. I am also unable to verify any of the honors he is supposed to have received. P.S. (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 06:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  19:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Ronin Publishing[edit]

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

Non-notable game company; unsourced save to their own website since December of 2006. Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I'm not sure the current article says a whole lot, but if anyone is willing to do a little work, I might be able to check my Dungeon back issues for a cite or two. -Sangrolu (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 06:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To agument my above Keep, two Green Ronin supplements were just nominated for Origins awards: link. For those of you not familiar with the awards, they are the highest awards in Green Ronin's industry, and will likely generate additional RS coverage of the company in the near future. Jclemens-public (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 18:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infiltration attempt in Syria from Jordan (27-02-2012)[edit]

Infiltration attempt in Syria from Jordan (27-02-2012) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This article was nominated for merger into a larger context article about the 2011-2012 Syrian uprising, but several sub-articles exist about that conflict, and no suitable merge target can be found. The single event has no context in the larger main article, the incident appears to be non-notable in the overall context of the conflict. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 06:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This appears to be the consensus for the current version DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gargoyle (router firmware)[edit]

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

Previously deleted under name without parentheses, speedy as previously deleted declined. Has less/weaker sourcing now than when deleted before. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2012

  1. Deletion log
    • 08:24, 22 July 2011 Bigtimepeace (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Gargoyle Router Firmware (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware) (view/restore)
    • 17:54, 12 July 2011 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) restored page Gargoyle Router Firmware (73 revisions restored: Being relisted at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 12, per rough consensus to relist at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 1#Gargoyle Router Firmware)
    • 03:23, 1 July 2011 DMacks (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Gargoyle Router Firmware (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware) (view/restore)
  2. Contents at time of deletion
  3. Content when speedy (as previously deleted) declined
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close. Page was blanked when nominated; nominator un-blanked then AFD'd. I don't get it either. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Latter Rain Movement[edit]

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

no content RichardMills65 (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Bobek[edit]

John Bobek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 17:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astoria Boulevard[edit]

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

Article does not cite any references or sources and is written almost entirely through Original Research. I cannot find any proof that this street meets General notability or Notability Guidelines for streets or what is so "important" about it that it is worth having an article here. The only confirmable information is that one subway station and two bus routes serve it. This clearly does not make the street significant enough to be on Wikipedia because there are many other streets in the city (some of which are one-way or dead-end residential streets) that have a few subway stations or bus routes serving it. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If we go by the numbers, the result is to delete. However, the IP user has refuted the argument that the subject does not meet WP:PROF, so it's a keeper. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miftahur Rahman[edit]

Miftahur Rahman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 134.193.245.123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The result was no consensus. The only thing that is certain here is that no delete buttons are going to be pushed. I didn't find the "keep" !votes here that convincing. The "merge" !votes were stronger but there wasn't enough of them to slap a big purple tag on the article. However, I was still tempted to close this as "merge" and that would be my recommendation. Same goes for any other "fictional" city that isn't discussed extensively in secondary sources or at least isn't the setting for more then one show. (ie Riverdale). I would suggest that a merge discussion take place on the article's talk page and that those who advocate keeping this as a standalone article at least be open to the idea that this information might fit better in the main show's article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Llanview[edit]

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

Only sources are episodes. Plot summary, in-universe, no secondary sources, no notability. Prod declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:35, 5 March 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, v/r - TP 01:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional: You might want to look through Google books- I saw quite a few in there along the lines of this entry: [30] I've got a lot of schoolwork tonight, otherwise I'd look more myself, but I wanted to put my two cents in here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. There is a consensus below that deletion is not appropriate. The suggestion to make the article focus on the series of books that recount the fictional war rather than the war itself, as an element in the fictional history, may make good sense, but ultimately that's an editorial decision that can be hashed out on the talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

War of Souls[edit]

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for elements of fiction. Neelix (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps argue against the naysayers, the article can (fairly easily) be rewritten so that it is about the book series - which has reception references - which should satisfy the GNG. BOZ (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:SNOWFLAKE, has a reception section. The in-universe content should be trimmed per WP:PLOT, though. Diego (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AEDesign[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Audition (Janelle Monáe)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM - non-notable, unreleased/demo material with no sources. Article's title is also formatted wrong, although if deleted that won't matter much. A mention in Monae's main article is enough, if sourced properly. eo (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really want to argue in favor of this article staying, but I got nothing. Unfortunately, you're right. 70.52.77.66 (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David "Noodles" Aaronson[edit]

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

Marked unsourced since 2008. Entirely in universe plot minutiae which is already adequately covered in the parent article - Once Upon a Time in America. This is my first AFD nomination for absolutely years, but discussions at the Video games Wikiproject has shown that our standards of enforcement when it comes down to fictional characters is incredibly poor. Wikipedia is not a plot repository - WP:NOTPLOT, we should not be replicating the plot of a film split across multiple character centric narratives. If you agree, then I suggest you look through templates such as Template:The Chronicles of Prydain, Template:Godfather, Template:The Dark Tower and many others, and start clearing out the novel length cruft we have accumulated over the years. hahnchen 17:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: I found this AfD through the Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts) list, and just noticed that it's listed at the Rescue list. Diego (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's not character coverage but mentions of the character in a plot summary. The sources have to be about the character itself, not the movie.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's more than plot summary. This book mentions Robert de Niro preparing the character (thus not plot summary and direct coverage of the character); this (page 69) analyzes the implausibility of the characters situation and behavior and comments on the interpretation that it is a dream; and page 70 lists other actors originally considered for the character. All of this is critical commentary quite beyond a mere plot depiction, exactly what's required by WP:GNG ("address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content"). Diego (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In view of limited participation, this is a SOFTDELETE - as with a PROD, the article will be restored on request, though it may then be renominated. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TK-N-CASH[edit]

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

I believe it fails the notability requirement for a music group with no significant, non-trivial, reliable sources MacAddct1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 21:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Author believed it qualified under 4 and 5 for the WP:NMG. I left my reasoning on the talk page. -- MacAddct1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 22:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rider deaths in British motorcycle racing series[edit]

Rider deaths in British motorcycle racing series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Such list do exists, but these are for notable riders who fatally crashed or riders who have crashed in a notable meetings/championships. For lesser notable riders, entries only exist in lists for circuits that is notoriously dangerous or a race or series, supported by reliable third party sources.

The question is how many of these riders are really notable to have their own article here enough to meet Wikipedia guidelines, only a small percentage, which is why I am nominating this for deletion as only a tiny handful and do we need a memorial for people who will never be notable enough for their own article. Not forgetting that I do not see any reliable third party source to back these up apart from the one whose death had nothing to do with this entry (both died outside the UK) as well that they are poorly sourced. Plus drivers in club racing series does not qualify for notability unless they moved up to bigger things. It should be known that the majority of these listed are in club series. Donnie Park (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting comment We do not need a list of one event cases for that these people have never been notable before their accidents. Donnie Park (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 00:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is well established and notable topic because people die every year and these will only be covered only on Autosport and Motorsport News, not as major news. The question is are these amateur sportspeople ever likely to earn notability status because they fatally crashed, no, not under the WP:1E guidelines. and do we need a trivial list of club level sportspoeple who fatally crashed in club level sport and why do we need a list of non-notable people who fatally crashed in bottom level sport, which none of these will ever likely to meet notability guidelines.
The reason why lists for the Isle of Man TT, Indianapolis 500, Dakar Rally, Le Mans, Spa-Francorchamps, Monza, Nürburgring do exist is because these venues/events have a dangerous reputation attached to it and this nominated list only serve a purpose of being nothing but a memorial of those who died in club level sport, which will never meet notability. Donnie Park (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Islam and animals. I think a compromise is the best solution: merge, adding any content not already present in the main article. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and dogs[edit]

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

Aside from the 2st two paragrapsh, rest are all individual incidents from tabloids rather than the topic Islam and Dogs. Its more like taxi drivers and dogs, food stores and dogs, this can really be attributed to anything and nothing specific to Islam etc... some of which has been removed. However, the main content is already discussed in Islam_and_animals#Dogs and again in Dogs_in_religion#Islam . So it does not seem a separate page is required here. Asifkhanj (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More