< 26 March	28 March >

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JMCAD[edit]

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

non notable unsourced software, not to mention terribly translated to the point of being almost unintelligible, prod declined without explanation by editor with likely COI based on username and developers name Jac16888 ^Talk 21:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Latest edits by a user with a clear conflict of interest have turned the page into a headache-inducing read. Previously the article was well written but relied on a single primary source and had no indication of notability. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to an earlier version. OSborn^arf_contribs. 15:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per notability Fayedizard (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable per WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:59, 29 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. If anybody wants to merge anything let me know. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flyswatter (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A recreation of a deleted article, and technically fits G4. However, with possible additional sourcing turned up since three years ago, I find it prudent to run a new AfD. A google book search turns up this for example. It's not much, but there is quite a lot of different sources that provide of more-than-trival yet less-than-in-depth coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with maybe a bit of Merge. Doesn't merit a standalone article. It appears to be covered adequately in the article on the band. The only thing we would really lose by deleting this is the tracklisting, and this could be included in Blink-182 discography if need be.--Michig (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS because there isn't significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I've looked for such coverage several times over the years and never found anything that gives more than a passing mention, other than fansites. The book Martijn mentions above gives only 1 sentence's worth of coverage. The most coverage I've seen is in the book Tales from Beneath Your Mom by Anne Hoppus, sister of Blink-182 bassist Mark Hoppus, but that's a primary source and it only gives maybe a short paragraph's worth of coverage, nothing that isn't already covered in Blink-182#Formation (1992–93) or couldn't be added there. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient secondary sources for a self-released work. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move information to Blink-182 discography page, but be willing to put the same level of information for all the Blink-182 albums. When researching popular music, track listings are important. Re: sufficient coverage: when one is looking for information about an album, one doesn't care how popular it is with secondary sources. Note: I'm saying this as a fan of popular music generally, and I have no specific attachment to Blink-182 specifically. Listmeister (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mbayi Kafwemb[edit]

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

I can't find reliable sources for this. Dougweller (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable. But I'm willing to change my opinion if someone finds a source for this. The name may be poorly transcribed. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think Vejvančický is right when they say the name may be poorly transcribed. I will try to find some reliable sources. I believe the article has been here since 2007. With it being poorly transcribed (if it is), it would be difficult to find sources especially if one is unfamiliar with the subject, however it is not impossible. At present, I do not support delete. Tamsier (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is written anecdotally and unverifiable at present. Writers should bear in mind that at least one or two points of verifiable evidence should be presented when the article is started. I suggest that content be retained within the Bakwa Dishi tribe article rather than a separate article ... then some references could turn up. My knowledge base is in Lingala and the Mongo related tribes - so I don't know how much the name fits the pattern of the Luba language. If I understand what has been presented here and elsewhere, "Mbayi" is a title and so "Kafwemb" is the name. - Oh, here's something: There are several generations of Mwato Kazembe mentioned as part of the Lunda kingdom ... it could be the same name, or not. ref Francis Hannaway (talk) Francis Hannaway 08:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... just a little note more, which might tie that name in a little more, here Francis Hannaway 08:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment. For the purposes of transperency, I invited Francis and other members of the project Congo who may be more familiar with the subject to shed some light as to whether the name is transcribed in error or not. That was after I tried to find reliable sources but failed. Thank you so much Francis for your contribution. Your links make sense. Totally agree, it is the writers responsibility to cite atleast one reliable source.Tamsier (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like Moths To Flames[edit]

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

Very questionable notability for this band. Got a few albums out. Some sources include http://www.smnnews.com/2011/08/19/like-moths-to-flames-recording-new-album/ and http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=2509252 but there isn't enough here to really speak of significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indications of notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MikeWazowski. Appears to fail WP:BAND on every point. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 11:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with this picture?[edit]

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

Not notable. Though everybody knows about screamers and all that stuff, we've seen no reliable sources of Internet Prank. Otherwise just games and screamers post all over the Internet. Also, the first part of the article before the "Internet Prank" should be merged with Highlights for Children. New Living Wiki Editor (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure OR, unsourced article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge and redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, possibly, but it is unsourced, and I see the target is flying virtually source-free as well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are you nominating the most popular kid's magazine for deletion? Bearian (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't dream of it, but it might be an idea if you felt it worth it to add a few sources over there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:50, 28 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 17:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added one ref which sources it as a well known Youtube or video prank. Edison (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced essay on an unremarkable topic RadioFan (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnotable, and original research. The only reference that the article provides isn't even talking about the subject at hand, and is about the most trivial mention of the concept possible. Rorshacma (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, since the 2 previous relisting administrators did not find the participation/arguments sufficient for a "keep" close, I'm going to close it NC. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pastel Accounting[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This should actually be judged against NSOFT, not CORP, as mentioned below by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff below. --Slashme (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think there's a reasonable assertion of notability in the article. It's been around for more than two decades, is frequently required for job placements in South Africa, and is taught in many third party courses. There is a link to the Cape Town University of Technology short course in Pastel in the article, but many other such courses are available (e.g. this one). A quick look at Google Books shows that it's mentioned in many published books, with full textbooks solely devoted to Pastel. I am not an accountant, but pretty much anyone who has browsed job ads in south africa knows Pastel. (examples: financial accountant job ad salesperson job ad bookkeeper job ad --Slashme (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you linked appear to be job advertisement websites, and the reliability of these sources is questionable. The Google books link above has a very large number of irrelevant links. This narrowed Google books search has more relevant hits, but the coverage appears to be trivial mentions. (i.e. the program is on several lists of software) There still doesn't appear to be anything substantial though. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this would be a better "restricted" search, and you'll see that many of the books here list it as a typical example of accounting software. That shows that it's widely covered. As for the job ads, they might not be reliable sources for some claims, but they clearly show that it's often a requirement for accounting and other jobs, a claim that's also well supported by many of the books, and the university course linked. --Slashme (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: though most sources give little to no description of this software, several imply notability (see the Google Books search links above), which makes me believe it passes WP:NSOFT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:38, 13 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, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:30, 19 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 17:48, 27 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. Both of the keep votes in this discussion were textbook WP:OTHERSTUFF votes. No one refutes the claim that this episode does not meet WP:GNG. If you believe thet "Alex (Skins)" is a plausible search term such that it should be a redirect, feel free to re-create the article as a redirect. —SW— ^confess 22:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex (Skins)[edit]

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

non notable individual episode, all plot, using promo websites as sources. Using this delete as a trial balloon to see what action should be on many related and similarly unsource, non-notable individual episodes. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your view then you might as well delete more than half of Wikipedia. Unreal7 (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skins (series 6) - the episode is not notable in itself; a redirect would be the most useful. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty other articles have very little, if any, references. And it IS a notable episode because it's the episode that first introduces Alex Henley. Unreal7 (talk 21:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of Other articles should also be deleted. I also think you need to double check what WP:NOTABILITY means in the context of a wikipedia article. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the talk page for the user JDDJS, you'll see that that user redirected over 100 episodes of South Park, which had no more than one reference, to their respective season pages and ALL of those redirects were reverted. Why's it different here? Unreal7 (talk 16:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a few reasons. First off, working with WP:Notability requires a more complex approach than just creating blanket standards for all articles of a given type (in this case, t.v. episodes). You seem to be arguing that people are not applying a consistent approach, but the thing is that not all shows are of equal stature when it comes to notability. In particular, the comparison you've provided is as unequal as they come in that South Park is a massively more well-known show, and one that is famous for making a cultural splash and exciting controversy. Also, you will note in the page which you referenced that the editors who called that guy out mostly went out of their way to point out that they weren't necessarily defending the content of those articles, which may or may not warrant deletion anyway, but apparently rather that they were simply irritated that he wiped out all of that content en-masse without consulting anyone and then entered into revert wars to defend the change.67.121.238.159 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Wikipedia doesn't need an article for every episode of every show, certainly if they contain only a retelling of the plot. RadioFan (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Unreal7 there are a thousands of episode articles on wikipedia with little of sources and most of plot and summary why should be this article be any different and non-notable to the other thousands of episode articles on wikipedia? TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing about this episode, or any other single episode of the show, that garnered any significant coverage, as noted in WP:SIGCOV. Not every episode of every show needs an individual article. I could see a show episode that garnered significant ratings or explored a controversial subject that that particular show wouldn't normally approach having its own article. A simple plot synopsis though does not warrant an article. Citing that other shows have insignificant episodes with articles is not justification for keeping. If anything, they should also be reviewed and deleted if the same applies to them. NJZombie (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case then you might as well delete half of Wikipedia, cause there are thousands of unsourced articles. Unreal7 (talk 18:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might want to take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. We need to focus on the article at hand, some consensus on that is accomplishable, boiling the ocean is not.--RadioFan (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appears to be some confusion in this discussion as to the meaning of 'notability'. Notability means that the subject recieved significant non-routine coverage in reliable sources; I suspect the reason that South Park episodes frequently get articles is because they frequently offend people and/or make controvertial statemtments about politics/the media/etc., which attracts media attention. When considering whether or not to delete this article, look for media coverage and nothing else. 143.92.1.32 (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's really no arguing for WP:Notability on this one and the argument that Wikipedia is full of episode articles which fail to meet this standard is not an argument for keeping this one -- it's an argument for getting rid of the others and against further unnecessary entries. What's more, the article lacks encyclopedic tone, doing little more than relaying each minute detail of the plot to what seems to be an utterly unremarkable episode of a teen drama. I'm sure there's a Skins wiki or some fan project out there where this might find a home, but it's clearly not appropriate here.67.121.238.159 (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if I cut down the plot? Will that help? Or should we just redirect all the Skins episodes? Unreal7 (talk 22:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women's History Museum and Educational Center[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Women's History Museum and Educational Center

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

Non-notable; local museum which lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources. It is also known as The Women's Museum of California, but despite its sweeping choices of names it is actually the San Diego Women's Museum, focused entirely on the women of San Diego County. I found very little Reliable Source coverage under any of these names. The only significant news coverage I could find was in January 2011 when they announced a name change, and in fairness I added that reference to the article; otherwise the article is entirely self-referential. All other news hits I found were passing references, calendar items, and occasional local coverage when they announced their Hall of Fame nominees. Not enough to meet WP:ORG in my opinion. (Note: there is some news coverage under the name California Women's History Museum which was not about this museum; it was about a proposed museum in Sacramento that was never actually created.) MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing administrator please note: there are redirect pages at Women's Museum of California and Women’s History Museum and Educational Center (the difference there is the apostrophe). --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. It has been mentioned in some news sources, but only in passing or in community calendar type listings. Not even finding mentions of this museum in guide books for the city. RadioFan (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was surprised when this article was drawn to my attention over a copyright problem. Mostly by the date of creation - December 2011. I remember another article on this subject, or articles on the inductees containing copyright text like that I've deleted from this article - or even both. I can't remember what it or they were, but there was a lot of copyright stuff involved from the same website then. I've nothing against this museum, but the referencing doesn't do much (under WP:RS) to show notability. I'm commenting for now rather than !voting as I removed quite a bit of the article as copyvio. I've suggested to the original author that the referencing should be improved, but if Melanie can't find anything I don't hold out much hope. Peridon (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; although it does exist, I have not found sufficient reliable sources that have significantly written about the subject in a manor that shows that the subject passes WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Perhaps it is too soon and the content can be userfied if requested by the primary editor, but until then it should be deleted from articlespace. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:04, 27 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. Even after discounting the spas, there is a weak consensus to keep this article. However, if the sources are translated and it's not felt that they represent significant coverage, then no prejudice against a quick (but not speedy) renomination. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saleem Dabbour[edit]

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

Promotional article for a writer/filmmaker of questionable notability. Google news search shows zero results. Standard search shows a lot of primary sources, along with trivial mentions and unreliable sources, but little significant coverage. Claim of being voted one of the "Top 5 Cultural Personalities" shows zero results outside this article. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon Mike, but searching Gooogle Archives show something more than simply "zero results". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious delete - I can find no reliable sources which would suggest notability. However, as he is Palestinian, we should be careful to ensure there are no non-English sources that we may have missed. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the "Top 5 Cultural Personalities in Palestine, public poll Ma'an, 2009-2010" statement is based on the Ma'an News Agency source here that is included in the references. I've added his name in Arabic and a link to Arabic Wikipedia just in case it helps to more accurately assess non-English coverage. I see that an editor added many Arabic sources to the article and another editor deleted them here without providing a policy based reason. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. He may not have English coverage, but he has plenty of Arabic coverage and he is indeed popular in the Middle East. I'm taking a look at the Arabic sources on سليم دبور and the ones that Sean said were reverted in the article itself right now. ~dee^(talk?) 16:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the External Links are actually references to various media where he is covered. The article needs a lot of work...but that's a copyedit issue and his notability isn't in dispute. I'll try to do some work on this... ~dee^(talk?) 16:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP: I don't see the Article which talks about Mr. Saleem as a promotin one, it actually tells little facts about his great work and all of it are FACTS, I'm a palestinian and I know this very well. He is always in TV and news. Yes there are not to many external links in English about him, and that is because he is A palestinian writer, google him in Arabic then you will find out too many external links or references, such as al jazerra net, Alquds news, Middle East, Ma'an and so on, I added some for your convenience.

This writer is a well known person, and very popular, Arabic google support my point of view, There for I'm against the idea of deleting the article which gives the none arabic reader a hint about such a man who revived the Palestinian Cinema and Theater, and used this Art to raise awarness and to envoice his people. trust me guys he is a very popular writer and a general manager of a well known civil society organization: www.awcsw.org view this please. Best, Ahmad Basha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad Basha (talk • contribs) 17:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — Ahmad Basha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep: Mr. Dabbour has too many reliable Arabic sources, for he is a well known and influential writer in M.E. I hope the issue of deletion has nothing to do with him being a Palestinian!

PS: I would like to draw your attention that the name of this writer appears almost daily in the national Newspapers and has numerous television and radio interviews. It is not his fault that the Western press is not interested in Arabic literature or Drama, although he was interviewed by many Dutch Newspapers such as NRC,RDB, and interviewed by NBC, Spanish TVs, and Dutch TVs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.60.50.23 (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — 46.60.50.23 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Nor his fault that google itself is not as comprehensive for non-English topics as we'd like to pretend. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am rewriting the article in my sandbox and should be finished either today or tomorrow. ~dee^(talk?) 10:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts dee. click here please if you are interested to add his picture [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad Basha (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep It is ridiculous to delete this Article for several reasons, Firstly; Mr. Dabbour is a well-known influential and eminent writer in the Middle East. Secondly; This article requires a better editing and has nothing to do with his notability and so on. Thirdly, Wikipedia is strongly advised to keep this article and remove it from the deletion list. Thanks, A Palestinian Director. RA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.205.58.39 (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. RA, Mr. Dee is working on eiditing. Ahmad Basha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad Basha (talk • contribs) 16:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue work on translation of sources. His receiving significant coverage in multiple non-English sources is a "issue", but an addressable one that does not call for deletion. Sourcable notability outside the The West is notability none the less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SW— ^converse 21:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Pineda (soccer)[edit]

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

PROD contested by User:Khvmty with the explanation of "the player was prominent on the US National U-17 and U-18 teams and has been in good status with an MLS team for two years". However, the article fails WP:GNG as having not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and WP:NFOOTY as the subject has not appeared in a fully professional league. The article can always be userfied in the creator's namespace until the subject becomes notable, if/when it does. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Until he makes a professional appearance, he does not meet WP:NFOOTY and should be deleted as non-notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to representing the country on international level with U-17 and U-18 teams and scoring two international goals with the latter, the player is now selected to the US national U-20 team as one of its two leaders. For notability the MLSSoccer.com article specifically highlights his name out of many in its headline: MLSers Salgado, Pineda called into US U-20 camp. It particularly states the team is led by Pineda. According to the Chicago Fire game log [2], to date Pineda was an unused substitute in fourty-nine regular season MLS matches with Chicago Fire since signing, including both games the Fire played this season so far. Chicago Fire's coach Frank Klopas stated in a newspaper article Pineda "will get opportunities this season to play." Khvmty (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. As for the comments following the keep !vote above, WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth internationals and unused substitutes. Seculation about future notability is not a valid claim either per WP:CRYSTAL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sir Sputnik has put it perfectly. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. WE can easily recreate if & when he makes his pro debut. Giant Snowman 11:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sir Sputnik, more or less. WP:NFOOTY says that signing without actually playing in a game is not considered competition participation. It also says that "officially sanctioned senior international competition" are notable, but youth players are not automatically notable. For meeting WP:BIO/WP:GNG, I only see coverage in one article from an independent source: "Fire’s Klopas likes what he sees in Pineda" from the Daily Herald in the Chicago suburbs (by Orrin Schwarz, 2/16/2012 9:16 PM), and Pineda only gets 5 sentences making up about a thrid of the article, plus the title. The other sources are soccer organizations' self-published "news" for generating interest about anyone related to the organization. --Closeapple (talk) 17:53, 30 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. —SW— ^talk 21:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Bailey (American football)[edit]

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

Mess of an article which seems to contain information on two different players (see history). GNews searches show that there was a player but no sources are significant. It seems clear that neither player ever played professional American football. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Tassedethe (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Al E. ^(talk) 17:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A college football player passes WP:GNG if there is significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. My searches aren't coming up with anything to satisfy that standard. His nephew, Sean Bailey (who played college football in the SEC as a starter for Georgia), seems to have received a lot more coverage, but he's not the subject of the article. My "delete" vote applies to this article about Sean Bailey of Virginia Tech. I express no opinion for now as to whether the nephew meets WP:GNG, and we don't have to decide that now, because the article is about the uncle. Cbl62 (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note Please be aware that the current article is in main about a Sean Bailey born 1973 who played for Virginia Tech, with mention of a cousin who played for Georgia. The article history shows that the original article was about a Sean Bailey born 1984 who played for Georgia. Tassedethe (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. That's an odd history. I still vote to "delete" the article which, as it currently stands, is about the Va. Tech player. Since the current article is not about the former Ga. player, I do not think we can or should preemptively judge his notability. If and when a current article about the Ga. player is presented (which may be never), we can decide at that time if it should be deleted or kept. Cbl62 (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Have it? Let me now, I can flip-flop!--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with extreme prejudice. Never appeared in a regular season NFL game per NFL.com, Pro-Football-Reference.com and databaseFootball.com, therefore there is no presumption of notability per WP:NGRIDIRON. My search of Google News Archive revealed no non-trivial coverage of his college career in reliable secondary sources, therefore he fails general notability standards per WP:GNG. We active editors of WP:NFL and WP:CFB really should seriously consider setting up a committee to work through existing American football player articles to purge non-notable players such as this one, and stop relying on others to randomly trip over them. I would be surprised if there were not hundreds of FB player articles whose subjects also fail any of the applicable notability standards. Ironically, we do not have stubs for dozens of consensus first-team All-Americans . . . we need to give some careful consideration to the present notability standards for American college and professional football players. IMHO, he "one appearance, one play" presumption of notability for NFL players is extremely problematic in the absence of any meaningful coverage in reliable secondary sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Sloan[edit]

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

Clear case of WP:BLP1E: this runner is famous only because he allegedly cheated during a marathon – one so unnotable it doesn't even have an article, at that. I'm honestly surprised this article lasted so long... $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E- no external notability. A412 (Talk • C) 02:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BLP1E describe it well -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete single event WP:BLP1E Widefox (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:RHaworth under criterionn G12 as an unambiguous copyright infringement of [3]. Non admin closure. "Pepper" @ 10:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PragmaDev RTDS[edit]

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

Does not assert notability and does not provide any references, most notably third-party references, to support notability. Only 140 Google matches as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PragmaDev and RTDS has 1,180 matches on Google. 140 matches is for the exact phrase "PragmaDev RTDS". RTDS is the most active tool based on SDL technology standardized by ITU-T. I added this entry because all other tools on the UML Tools page had a dedicated page. I made a first shoot but I am planning to improve it in the coming weeks if the page is maintained. Would that be ok ? --Manu31415 (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of these Google hits appear to be WP:reliable sources. The only ones with any depth appear to be press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree, for example PragmaDev RTDS is used by Airbus to design the Air Traffic Control software on board the plane as described on CS web site(unfortunately it is only in French). PragmaDev RTDS is integrated in the European Space Agency framework called TASTE. PragmaDev RTDS is also used by researcher such as in the University of Berlin. And PragmaDev RTDS is used by teachers such as at the INSA in Lyon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manu31415 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G12. I have left a template on the page to show the similarities. Please note that I have not assessed the notability of the subject of this article but in its current form, the article must go. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: no indication of notability, even the subject isn't properly described, making the article at best close to satisfying WP:CSD#A1. ~~Of three paragraphs only two were infringing, so the article doesn't qualify for WP:CSD#G12.~~ — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I probably missed something, all of the text was copyvio; thus speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:45, 28 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. I'm going to AGF and say that this school likely exists and it's also true that in the past "high schools" kinda got a free pass but it can't be verified that this is an accredited high school and whatever kind of school it is, it fails WP:GNG. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Riverdale High School, (riverdalekolkata)[edit]

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

This article appears to have been largely copied from Riverdale Country School. Searches fail to indicate the presence of any facility in Kolkata with the name "Riverdale High School". The school's "official" website is a Blogspot page. In sum, I believe this article to be a hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure this is a hoax, exactly, but it isn't what it appears to be. There are buildings visible at this address via Google Maps that seem to match the description of the facility. I suspect that something either claiming to be an education facility or hoping to become one might actually exist at that address. But, critically, there's no evidence that any Riverdale High School in Kolkata holds any sort of accredited status, and I've found nothing even approaching coverage in a secondary source. Regarding that first issue, however, the article claims CBSE affiliation for this school; if true, that would probably warrant inclusion. Happily, the CBSE has a searchable database of affiliated schools. Searching for any part of the address is unproductive. Searching for "Riverdale" returns two records, including a "Riverdale High School"; however, both are on the opposite side of the country from Kolkata. In fact, assuming the documents pictured at the blogspot site are produced by the institution in question, it is perhaps important to note that they operate "under the CBSE curriculum" rather than with CBSE affiliation. This may still be a pure hoax, but it is equally likely to be an unaccredited school with no third-party attention. In either case, it fails our inclusion standards, although perhaps not to the level to qualify for the G3 speedy deletion that TenPoundHammer has tagged the article with. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - the article fails WP:GNG and is completely unsourced, but it seems that practice here is to assume that all schools, except for small private/home schools, are notable. Also, the article has no reliable references - it is just a self-shrine. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 00:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- High schools (and up) are considered notable. Middle schools and down are only notable in significant cases; most often they get redirected to the education district or locality's location. Not in play here of course, but just wanted to clarify that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This should NOT be speedied, no matter what. I doubt it's a hoax and that would be the only cause for that. Carrite (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Official Website seems to indicate that this is a new school, with the first class 2010-2011. This may or may not have anything to do with the difficulty finding it in this or that listing of Kolkata schools. While this SO FAR remains unverifiable, this does NOT look like a hoax to me. Somebody with unlimited international phone minutes should give the number a call and see if someone answers... Obviously not a "high school" per se, including kids of many ages, and it may or may not pass muster on those grounds, even if its existence can be documented. BUT this should NOT be speedied as a hoax unless some sort of proof can be found that it is a hoax, which I'm not seeing. Carrite (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once I cleaned out the copyvio sections, nothing worth keeping was left. If a school has been around almost a decade (the article says the school was established in 2003), there should be some sources. And if it hasn't been around since 2003, well, maybe it is a hoax. While WP keeps articles on high schools, this article (despite its name) isn't about a high school as such. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Riverdale Kolkata is not a hoax school, its exists in its own right WP is done weakly. WP should be properly edited compliance to Wiki rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.36.226 (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a website for Riverdale High School in Kolkata here which I've added to the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahliarose (talk • contribs)
- Comment The website Dahliarose has provided is for a school in Aurangabad, Maharashtra. The institution in question in this AFD is in Kolkata -- different places. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That school, in Aurangabad, is one of the two "Riverdale" schools that does have affiliation with CBSE. Unlike the Kolkata school, I suspect the one in Aurangabad might meet our inclusion criteria. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol and Avon League[edit]

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

Following on from a discussion at WT:FOOTY the consensus about this and other English leagues below level 11 is that they do not appear to have inherent notability. This article also looks like it fails WP:GNG so should be deleted. Adam4267 (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Non-League football - I contested the PROD as I felt this required further discussion. I agree that the league is not notable enough for an standalone article, but could well form a section on Non-League football, or perhaps on a new article specifically about lower level non-league leagues. Non-League football system or Non-League football pyramid perhaps? Giant Snowman 15:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - given the 100 or so leagues being considered for deletion, an article on lower level non-league leagues would unfortunately probably end up as little more than a list with a few brief notes. I have suggested an alternative approach on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Bristol and Avon League linked to the relevant County Football Association.League Octopus (League Octopus 18:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

A good idea, but this league is affiliated to two county FAs. Giant Snowman 19:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - accords with WP:GNG in a historical context as well as being a unique source. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Keep One person making a comment about leagues below level 11 on WP:FOOTY does not make for a consensus. The current clubs are clearly not notable, but I don't see why the league itself shouldn't be, particularly as it included teams from Bristol City and Bristol Rovers in the past. Number 5 7 11:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion may be the victim of some off-Wiki canvassing, so better watch out for SPA !votes. Number 5 7 14:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article seems to be peppered with original research, e.g. "A careful appraisal of the league records indicates", which suggests the information cannot be attributed to a reliable source, and "There were also a few clubs from South Gloucestershire such as Henfield Youth and Pilning Athletic", which reads to me like not only is a reader not sure which clubs are involved, but I cannot check, and I get the feeling that the writer himself isn't even sure. I also had problems finding a working link for one of the citations, which should support at least four points made in the article. Regarding the references in general, I feel, due to this "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.", there are two references which are of limited interest, one which is a primary source and the other one is a local newspaper. It looks like it is not enough at the moment but I am willing to wait for more information before voting. Cloudz 679 15:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the dead link: googling the article's headline produced a live link as first search result. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for giving me the opportunity to develop this article further and respond to the points raised by Cloudz679 - this I will undertake shortly. At the moment I am able to confirm that thisisbristol.co.uk is the website of the Bristol Evening Post (and also serves its sister paper the Western Daily Press). An article in the Guardian confims that the Bristol Evening Post is a regional evening paper and of course the Western Daily Press is widely acknowledged as a regional daily. League Octopus (League Octopus 21:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the link Struway, read the story, which looked quite familiar - this needs to be addressed, too. Cloudz 679 04:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing the copypasting, which I've now rephrased. If you still think it's too close a paraphrase, which it might well be, please feel free to improve it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additions made and references added to the history section.League Octopus (League Octopus 11:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keep as all my concerns have been addressed, the article is looking good and is now worthy of inclusion in my opinion. Cloudz 679 21:30, 31 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 delete. Speedy deletion criteria G11 (Unambiguous promotion) and A10 (Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic). For G11 the first sentence of the article says it all: "This is a personal and philanthropic project started by Dakotta .J.K. Alex to educate and bring awareness to more people on the diversity of the Jewish diaspora." For A10, we already have History of the Jews in India. It is not acceptable to create a new article on a subject of an existing one in order to promote a particular point of view, or to "bring awareness" to an aspect of the subject one wants to publicise. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jews of India[edit]

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

Reposted in the correct namespace as the nominator took this to TfD by mistake. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is similar to History of the Jews in India. This can be deleted as detailed article is already present Madhuric (talk) 12:58, 27 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 delete. CSD G3 Hoax Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CFMX-FM (Kokoya)[edit]

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

There does not appear to be a radio station of this call sign in Kokoya, because there does not appear to be a place called Kokoya. Given the editor's history, I am led to believe that this article is a hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Hoax: I have to agree, this is definitely a hoax. The real radio station in this case is CFMX-FM, broadcasting from a suburb of Toronto. That station is licensed through the CRTC, Canada's version of the FCC. As for the "town" of Kokoya, I found one, ironically, in Toronto. Only this wasn't a town, but a Korean restaurant called "Kokoya" on Yonge Street in Downtown Toronto. Still a hoax though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:58, 28 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 delete. CSD G3 Hoax Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MKOV-TV Cima[edit]

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

I can find no sources of information about a television station called MKOV. The article is not clear enough (nor written in anything close enough to actual English) to decipher where this television station might be located in order to narrow a search for sources. The website listed (mmedia.com) appears to have nothing to do with a television station of any kind. Given all this, and the editor's history, I believe this article may well be a hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 28 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 decker ^{talk to me} 20:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Kee Ann[edit]

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

There seems to be no claims of notability except for running 2 martial arts schools, which clearly fails WP:MANOTE. In addition there appear to be no reliable sources--2 of the sources are from his schools, while the third one (mindef Singapore) reads like an ad. It has links to the school, tells how to contact them to set up lessons, and makes comments like "find yourself as nimble and quick as Jackie Chan!" Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE, while article fails WP:V. Astudent0 (talk) 17:32, 21 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, BusterD (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article makes no assertion of notability (being ranked 5th Dan, or ranked Level 6, or co-founding a martial art school do not inherently imply notability). Janggeom (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found nothing to show the subject is notable or has significant independent coverage. Mdtemp (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable in the extreme.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus (including apparently now by the nominator) that the sources added establish notability.Rlendog (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Been Down So Long[edit]

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

Song fails WP:Music. I could not find any sources to establish notability. No mentions of charting, either. Tinton5 (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would stubbing it Help?--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It already is a stub. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is because i stubbed it. And no chart info may be known yet either.--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the info is not known, then why are you making an article? There's no hurry. What you need is a third-party source discussing the song in depth. If nothing can be found, then it can be deleted or redirected. Should the song become notable in the future, the article can always be re-made. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

maybe replace the deletion tag with a speedy deletion tag?--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you want, you can just be bold and redirect it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, originally written by J. B. Lenoir; should probably be reformatted. Been covered by [{Randy Newman]] as well; Inspired by Richard Fariña's novel Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up to Me; and like most songs of famous bands (especially older ones), there's plenty to go around about it musically, lyrically, etc. I've added some references for now. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, I usually don't do this, but after seeing those edits, I appreciate what you've done to improve the page. So having said that, I feel as to possibly withdraw this nomination, but let us see what others will say now. Thanks. Tinton5 (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Was this song released as a single? Tinton5 (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure, changed it to song for now until I find otherwise. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:36, 17 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) 00:10, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after improvements made by Theornamentalist. ~dee^(talk?) 15:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after impressive revision by Theornamentalist The Steve 10:44, 29 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 06:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misu Ilie[edit]

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

I see no indication the subject passes WP:MUSIC. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 13 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) 00:10, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first reference is the only one that has a bit of relevant content but it's way too thin to establish notability on its own. Pichpich (talk) 22:53, 30 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 06:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12 Apostles (record label)[edit]

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

Contested PROD, plus 2 of the 3 artists that actually have an article listed aren't even notable plus Girl Talk has released only one thing under this label which is Stop Cleveland Hate and I'm not sure if that is notable either. JayJay^{Talk to me} 00:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sources for verification Shii (tock) 14:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Definitely known in dance music circles about six years ago, they had a distribution deal and released a number of records - http://www.discogs.com/label/12%20Apostles - and ROC (now that the link points to the right artist!) are notable - but as Shii notes, there aren't many sources, and their current status is unclear the way the article's written now. Fosse8 (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a prime example of an article that could be improved by adding the relevant sources. Give it a chance! 98.28.12.216 (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find squat JayJay^{Talk to me} 19:30, 18 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:10, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 12:00, 27 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, and create Category:Chinese Tea Ceremony schools. The arguments against this article on notability grounds are compelling, and would apply equally to a list. However the same notability criteria do not as strongly apply to categories, and this suggestion by The Bushranger seems to satisfy the requirements of all parties; no non-notable article or list, but the articles in question are linked together and accessible via a common page.

The notability of the articles that now belong to the category was not a matter for discussion in this nomination. Should they subsequently be deleted and the category rendered empty, clearly it can be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#C1. waggers (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schools of Chinese Tea Ceremony[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This organization does not seem notable. I can't find any good sources for it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BURDEN. As far as I can tell, this is not an organization in existence. The article refers to three schools that already have their own articles. Whether those three schools are notable is another question. Here, I don't see any notability for an article re-describing these three schools. What is the added value? This article is more a year old. Since it was AfD'd and tagged a year ago, there has been no improvement in establishing notability. The "references" do not actually say anything about these "schools of Chinese tea ceremony." Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Chinese tea culture. Doesn't warrant an independent article, and should be treated in main article or articles on individual schools. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Chinese Tea Ceremony schools or similar. A notable topic for a list, and a useful one in countering English Wikipedia's systemic bias--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A small change in title does not change notability. Why is this notable? Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:58, 18 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) 00:09, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As long as the three articles on the schools exist, this list article is useful. If the nominator's wish is to delete the articles on the schools, it's those articles that need to be nominated, not this one, because deleting this one won't do anything about those. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Pontificalibus. As long as the listed institutions are notable enough for articles, this article is a valid list article per WP:LIST. Rlendog (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks but WP:LIST does not say which lists are notable. I question the notion that any list of three notable articles will itself be notable. We would then have a LOT of list articles. See also WP:NOTCATALOG. No one has actually made a case for why this list is notable. So no one has actually addressed the basis for the nomination. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to category Category:Chinese Tea Ceremony schools - a category would allow for grouping the schools per Roscelese's comment, while avoiding any notability concerns for the list itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, per additional sources. Rlendog (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lu-Yu Tea Culture Institute[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This organization does not seem notable. I can't find any good sources for it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For searches also try trad. Ch.: "陸羽茶藝中心" and also "lu yu tea art center". icetea8 (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I improved the referencing. Appears to meet WP:GNG.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:15, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current references are sufficient to establish notability. Pichpich (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now sufficiently referenced to pass the GNG. Pol430 talk to me 23:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Research and Extension Station[edit]

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

This organization does not seem notable. I can't find any good sources for it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For searches also try "行政院農業委員會茶業改良場" or "茶業改良場" and "Tea Manufacture Experiment Station". icetea8 (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ORG. I found a number of sources by simply searching for "Tea Research and Extension Station" and have added them to the article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 21:42, 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) 00:08, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 11:57, 27 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. —SW— ^spout 21:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agile Networks[edit]

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

Declined CSD. References are trivial mentions that don't support notability. One possible non-trivial coverage (behind registration-wall) but one reference is not enough to support notability. Written in a promotional tone and not possible to be re-written in an acceptable manner due to lack of sourcing. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the original criticism there are now 6 references included, all from external third party sources. The publications include industry publications in the UK (CRN) and Ireland (silicon republic) as well as the online version of Ireland's main evening daily newspaper - the Evening Herald. Additional details of the 100MB Schools Broadband project can be added to indicate the national importance of this project which is part of the Irish Government's "Programme for Government". I am the original author of this entry, my first on Wikipedia, so apologies for getting it published in an incomplete manner.

Darraghonline (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references still aren't very good:

[4] May or may not establish notability; can't read without registration/subscription.

[5] Fingal County Enterprise Board isn't a reliable independent third-party source: this is just a press release. Can be included in references, but doesn't establish notability.

[6] Very short (3 sentences).

[7] The article doesn't mention Agile till near the end, and the source isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, but may still be ok.

[8] Doesn't mention Agile.

Final link appears to be wrong. Google can't find correct article.

It's debatable whether this establishes notability - is insideireland.ie a reliable source? Are any of the other sources substantial enough? Are the missing link or the channelweb.co.uk link useful? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* References

1 - CRN is the main channel publication for UK and Ireland with a sister US publication; it would be considered a mainstream publication for anyone working in IT

5 - As per the article description this was released when Agile was Telindus Ireland; ie under its pre MBO name

6 - corrected now, link should work and silicon republic would be considered the main source of news on IT within Ireland

I'm not qualified to say what makes a source substantial but all are external, unconnected, and with the exeption of Fingal CEB professional media organisations. I have also updated links within Wikipedia to Agile's customers as seven of the nine have their own entries within Wikipedia. Darraghonline (talk) 13:57, 14 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) 00:07, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All trivial mentions or non-mentions. This is standard press-release stuff. EEng (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's an additional article, which doesn't appear to be sourced from a press release:

Corcoran, Sorcha (February 16, 2012). "Agile Networks gets €80k grant from Fingal CEB". Business and Leadership Ltd. Retrieved March 28, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you Google the opening sentence, A start-up company specialising in network integration, Agile Networks, is getting grant assistance of €80,000 from Fingal County Enterprise Board you'll find a score or more "newspapers" carrying exactly the same story. It's a press release. EEng (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while more references are added Comment - Found apparent references in Lightreading, a venue that is (IHO) THE publication of record for the telecom services and equipment industries but has the unfortunate problem for Wiki references that all tis content is behind a registration wall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdc wms (talk • contribs) 01:56, 30 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. —SW— ^yak 21:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Babayele Sodade[edit]

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

PROD contested by User:Aokegible with no explanation given. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't appeared in a fully-pro league, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has never played above the PDL and has not received significant coverage. As such, the article fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 28 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Display Campaign[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "This campaign was established in 2004 and has 336 participating cities/ regions with over 9275 buildings displaying their energy rating", [9]. More sources are needed, but clearly notable article in the important area of energy conservation. Johnfos (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the participation (9,275 buildings in 336 cities) in the project is fairly substantial, there isn't a significant amount of coverage in reliable third party sources. Until sourcing is found, notability can't be established. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should never have come to AfD. The notability issue should have been discussed on the article Talk page, and a merge done with Energie-Cités, if there was consensus for that. Johnfos (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the primary purposes of Articles for Deletion is to establish whether or not a subject meets the notability guidelines. I fail to see how this nomination is inappropriate. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:11, 20 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, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 11:50, 27 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Morris (soccer)[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP with no explanation given. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has only played in amateur leagues, no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has never played above the PDL and has not received significant coverage. As such, the article fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 28 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. Withdrawn by nominator. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dallin D. Oaks[edit]

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

I'm no expert on linguistics (and I don't know how to do that publication citation rating thing), but this BYU associate professor's achievements look a mite weak to my inexperienced eyes. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oaks has authored or co-authored three major books and has also written many articles in this subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Concur with JPL. Dallin's books are widely held, 3 examples being: The Wall... ~1100, Carthage Conspiracy... ~800, Criminal Justice... ~600, etc. These stats conclusively establish impact according to WP:PROF #1. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:39, 30 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 delete. Virtually certain hoax, no indication of significance, and no response from author when asked to provide evidence. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alif Hilmi Azmir[edit]

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

Contested PROD - PROD reason was "None of the "references" cited even mentions Alif Hilmi Azmir, nor can I find any mention in any reliable sources. Likely hoax, and if not then no evidence of notability" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: it's an autobiography of a student, and while his record sounds very nice, even if it's true it wouldn't make him notable enough for inclusion under WP:BIO. Scopecreep (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am confident that the article is a hoax, and should be speedily deleted. I am being very generous to the author, by giving him one more chance to provide a source, but if he doesn't do so soon then I will be willing to speedily delete it, unless someone else thinks there is a good reason for waiting the full week. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really see no credible claim of importance, so I'd be happy to support an A7 speedy deletion if the author can't provide anything. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I couldn't even find anything in Malay sources. Further, I find it very dubious that the author would translate the name (Alif Hilmi Azmir) into Arabic. :-s ~dee^(talk?) 11:45, 27 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 Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. meco (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aker American Shipping[edit]

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

Though it claims a large financial turnover I can find no coverage online in reliable general news sources about Aker American Shipping or its alternative(?) name, American Shipping Company ASA. Generally it is listed on various financial websites and dirtectories. Possibly its shipyard may be a notable landmark, but that shouldn't contribute to the notability of the holding company, should it? Judged by Wikipedia's WP:NCORP notability guidelines, this company doesn't seem to tick the boxes. Sionk (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large and notable shipping corporation, listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange (though now apparently operating under the name 'American Shipping Company' rather than Aker American Shipping). Contrary to the nomination, is covered in a wide range of reliable news sources ([10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]). Reuters also lists several news reports (eg [16]). Its harder to find results for 'American Shipping Company' because of the generic nature of the name, but Highbeam results returns a good number of reports. For example 'Norwegian-controlled Aker American Shipping ASA on Tuesday said it signed a deal with its Philadelphia shipyard unit to build up to 13 tankers worth $1.3 billion.' gives a good idea of the scale and scope of this company and its operations, and showing that it is far from non-notable. Benea (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic passes WP:GNG; sources include:

"Aker American Shipping Launches". Project Finance Magazine. November 27, 2006. Retrieved March 27, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help) (subscription required)
"Aker American Shipping ASA to split its operations in the US". Nordic Business Report. November 26, 2007. Retrieved March 27, 2012. (subscription required)
"UPDATE 1-Aker American Shipping places up to $1.3 bln order". Reuters. November 27, 2007. Retrieved March 27, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
"Aker American Shipping to build 13 tankers at Philly shipyard.(Business)". The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA). November 28, 2007. Retrieved March 27, 2012. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required)
"Aker cuts stake in Aker American Shipping". Reuters. June 6, 2008. Retrieved March 27, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
"American Shipping says lacks financing for 2 ships". Reuters. October 15, 2008. Retrieved March 27, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - can't argue with the above sources, sufficiently newsworthy for me, not sure why I didn't spot them myself! Hopefully the article can be updated and improved. Sionk (talk) 22:50, 27 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prostki, Podlaskie Voivodeship[edit]

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

Reference is bogus, there is no entry for this settlement in the TERYT (nominated for deletion on plwiki) Bulwersator (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Settlement is not mentioned in Geographical Dictionary of the Kingdom of Poland, maps provided by geoportal, zumi, google and targeo, maps from 1941 etc Bulwersator (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted on plwiki Bulwersator (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted on ltwiki Bulwersator (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obviously a mistake by bot operator. --Teukros (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the above evidence of this place's nonexistence, it's worth noting that the coordinates are in the middle of a forest. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can we have a link to the pl wiki deletion discussion? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure - Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2012:03:27:Prostki (województwo podlaskie). --Teukros (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to re-create it as a redirect to an appropriate target. —SW— ^confer 21:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Veilig Rijen[edit]

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

I couldn't find any indication that the film was notable (or that much more information was available than was already listed in the article.) I propose this article to be deleted for lack of notability. Mgm|^(talk) 07:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A very small article on a short film without any verifiable third party sources and references. Does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Appears non-notable as there has actually been no article expansion and information edit history since it was created 10 months ago. Plus no article of this name exists on any other Wikipedia including the Dutch Wikipedia where it actually should have been made if this short film was notable. TheGeneralUser (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only found this on the site of the Netherlands Film Festival. Doesn't seem to be a notable film to me, can't find any other sources. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since it lacks sourcing to be a separate article, why not redirect Wikipedia readers to the one place where it might be at least mentioned... the article on the filmmaker? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello MichaelQSchmidt, while i agree with your point, there isn't anything beneficial in redirecting or merging the article to Rob Das. This article does not contain any inside information other than just saying that it is a short film and starring people which don't have a page except for Ramsey Nasr whose filmograhy doesn't even mention Veilig Rijen. TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not suggesting a merge... but redirects are cheap and sending readers to Rob Das#Filmography is the one place where it can be listed as part of his filmography. And such a redirect might actually encourage Dutch-reading Wikipedians to review available sources on the filmmaker[17] and perhaps expand the redirect target. Wkipeidia's coverage of non-English films and filmmakers is always worth expanding... and that would be for the good. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I can't find any Dutch reliable sources. If this were an American short film no-one would think twice about deleting it. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 01:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all opposed to a deletion. You did find and offer a source showing it has screened, so thank you. But as it failed to receive any coverage, I agree it does not merit a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per my comments above. When a topic lacks the sourcable notability to merit a separate article, it serves our readers to at the least send them to the one place where even a non-notable film might be listed within the director's filmography. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transformational Quality (TQ) Theory[edit]

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

Non-notable theory of education. I can't find much on it. I can't even find the books that are supposed references for the article. A search for "Living theory press" brings up this very Wikipedia article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "Transformational Quality Theory" brings up two pages, both non-academic pages by "WJ Barry". "Barry, W" is also the author of two of the supposed references for the article. This appears to be just someone's pet social science theory that is not mainstream or accepted by the social science community. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable theory, no independent coverage found. May perhaps become notable in the future, but currently isn't. Atkins and Wallace might be a valid source, but has not yet been published.Yunshui 雲‍水 07:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking sufficient evidence of notability. As always, I would be happy to reconsider if new or additional evidence is provided. ElKevbo (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very vague definition - not even enough to warrant a Stub classification much less indicate notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 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. I am willing to userfy per the request. Rlendog (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BAMMA 8[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMAEVENT, WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT, the coverage that this "event" received was totally routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, and the results) the article does not attempt to demonstrate the event's lasting effect and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event. Mt king ^(edits) 06:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 06:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep par WP:GNG. Fellow editors keep in mind that such 'policies' such as WP:MMANOT and WP:MMAEVENT are purely guidelines and not an excuss nor a reason why this page should be deleted. BigzMMA (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is policy and it says Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. and this event is a clear example of such an event. Mt king ^(edits) 19:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into List of BAMMA events or similar article with the other BAMMA events. My reasoning is the same as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9: the article contains only WP:ROUTINE fight announcements and results and lacks "well sourced prose" as required by WP:SPORTSEVENT. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm somewhat altering my !vote. I think established Wikipedia editors and admins are open to the idea of omnibus articles such as 2012 in mixed martial arts events and 2012 in UFC events. I'd like to ask for the contents of this article to be userfied at User:TreyGeek/BAMMA 8 to aid in the creation of a 2011 in mixed martial arts article. It would serve as a reminder to me to include the result of this event, in particular the "British Middleweight Title" and other possibly significant fights, in an omnibus article. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no indication that this event has long term significance or is anything but routine sports coverage. Astudent0 (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:ROUTINE. There's nothing to show this event has had long term significance. Mdtemp (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. I note that the only Keep proponent was just indef blocked for trolling and grotesque personal attacks, something of an unfortunate hallmark of several MMA edit warriors of late, and that despite his claim that the GNG supports his case, all the sources in the article are either primary, come from MMA blogs or are not about the subject. Ravenswing 10:26, 30 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True Capitalist Radio[edit]

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

Nothing other than a minor award nomination. →Σ τ c. 05:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even with the award nomination (most nominated for shorties are not notable), show does not meet WP:GNG.Karl 334 ^{☞Talk ☜} 21:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable internet radio program that fails to cross the verifiability or notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As User:Dravecky points out, this is likely a notable topic, but the article here is best dealt with using the good old WP:TNT. If userification is desired, ping me. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Texas sentiment[edit]

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

Only source is an opinion column. Article is essentially a short POV statement. PROD declined without explanation by IP that is likely the article creator. Safiel (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's nothing here beyond "some people don't like Texas." Hairhorn (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neither of the sources are even about the ostensible topic. (one is about a sports team, which indicates nothing, and the other is more like "criticism of the Texas state government.") –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having one publication, "Why I Hate Texas" does not justify the article. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This source in the article ([18]) is about the Dallas Cowboys, not Texas in general. This source ([19]) is an opinion piece, and the reliability of the source is questionable. After other searches, just not finding coverage in reliable sources about this topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've done a small but of much-needed cleanup to the article so it meets certain minimum standards (article categorized, formatted references, proper formatting) and I believe that an article on this topic can be created. As a longtime resident (but not native) of Texas, there does exist an anti-Texas sentiment in places whether due to politics, sports, or the general braggadocio of Texans and there are bound to be reliable sources that cover this in depth. However, the article would be far better served if it were developed in userspace, expanded and sourced beyond its current stub state, before re-introduction to the live encyclopedia. - Dravecky (talk) 16:50, 28 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 deleted as obvious vandalism. Mgm|^(talk) 08:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Troy StanHolm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Troy StanHolm

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

Biography of a non-existent person. Page is a copy of Doug Stanhope. Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and apology to Hirolovesswords (talk · contribs). I thought the article was not a hoax because it was adequately supported by reliable sources. (Until I saw the article's name and the article in which it was copied from) Speedy delete as pure vandalism. B music ian 05:13, 27 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Austin[edit]

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

~~Subject doesn't seem notable, and the article does not have any RS~~ Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe Hooters magazine IS a RS after all? I thought it was a joke, but apparently it is a real publication.Fasttimes68 (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - Google news search reveals several RS covering her life as the first hooters girl and her marriage to Daulton. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on the exhausting/ive debates over Playmate notability a while back, she merits an individual entry by a narrow margin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Unless one is questioning whether a particular individual merits a separate article (like this one) or whether the content should be put in the corresponding year article, another round playmate AfDs is really not an efficient use of our time.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Komatsu[edit]

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

No independent RS on the notability of what seems to be just a person with a couple of YouTube channels. Sources are all related to the subject. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. The name of the user who created the page also seems to suggest the article violates WP:SPIP. Michitaro (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. YouTube non-entity with no third-party coverage or reliable sourcing to demonstrate any notability. --DAJF (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly non-notable, no indication of notability, no independent sources. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 11:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under G5. — ξ ^xplicit 22:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Khan (singer)[edit]

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

non notable musician. All refs are self published. I believe this was previously deleted, as it popped up new on my watchlist, but am unable to find the previous delete, perhaps an admin can weigh in on the history. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responce - The previous article of this singer was deleted because that article was created by a banned user.--- Angel from PAKISTAN ^{Let's talk about it!} 02:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Obviously Keep - The article about the pop singer from Pakistan have its own importance and Bilal Khan is a notable musician in Pakistan. You may the see the evidence of his notability on youtube (Bilal Khan on youtube). Hence, it should not be deleted as the article have reliable sources and external links. --- Angel from PAKISTAN ^{Let's talk about it!} 02:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is not a reliable source. Especially not the musician's own channel (again see WP:SPS) are there any WP:RS discussing this artist? I was unable to find any in my WP:BEFORE. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am from Pakistan & i know him that Bilal Khan is a great musician and notable musician and loved by youth and his music album 'Umeed' realeased on itunes (Bilal Khan Releases Debut Album ‘Umeed’ on iTunes).--Amir Mumtaz Ansari (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bilal Khan is a singer from Pakistan and i love his all albums.Printing Parlor (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bilal Khan is a Pakistani Pop singer and this article should exist on wikipedia.Rai Sajjad (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment to keep !votes Please read WP:MUSICBIO and indicate which specific criteria you think this artist meets, and show WP:RS that can be used for WP:VERIFIABILITY. "I like this guys music". "because". are not valid reasons to keep the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Safiel (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I get the feeling there is sockpuppetry afoot here. Safiel (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

already reported. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable per WP:MUSICBIO. All the sources in the article are of blogs and thus not independent and reliable source. --SMS ^Talk 03:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note to admin i have striked the above keep !votes per the sockpuppet investigation here : ~~Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cool_Angel~~. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sabeeel43/Archive Gaijin42 (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment to Delete !votes I want to ask that may non-notable person exist on iTunes ?
If not then why Bilal Khan?(Umeed by Bilal Khan) --- Angel from PAKISTAN ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many non-notable people are on itunes. Anyone can put their music their in about 5 min. Additionally, you are a confirmed sockpuppet, you just havent gotten blocked yet. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not exactly a brilliant showing in the article, and a miserable one here. Rampant sockpuppets are always damning to a cause. Peridon (talk) 20:23, 28 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 drained. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ballard Pool[edit]

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

Non-notable public accommodation. No significant coverage in news or book. ^Bongo_matic 01:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not needed, could be merged with the recreation park article if there is one. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 18:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a public facility that has never made much of a splash. If delete is objectionable, then it could be redirected to Seattle Parks and Recreation. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unremarkable public swimming pool operated by the City of Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:43, 30 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. No prejudice against recreation if and when he makes his debut for Army United The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kert Kütt[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested procedurally as the article had been previously deleted by PROD. The delete rationale remains valid nonetheless. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cloudz 679 08:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:02, 27 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allelon Ruggiero[edit]

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

Actor BLP unsourced since creation in 2006, except for IMDB. A Google and Google News search reveals several apparently passing mentions of him in his first role, which is mentioned in the article, and nothing since. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Sandstein 10:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 21 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) 00:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete no way meets WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has mentions in RS for a few other roles, and for the short film Lost, his single directorial effort. However, he has certainly not caught the eye of the media in any great sense, and that's this article's downfall. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of programming blocks by Cartoon Network (Latin America)[edit]

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

Honestly, I have no idea what this is. As far as I can tell, it's not a list of notable programs aired by some channel, which maybe is acceptable. This is unverified, and directory information at best. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm wondering how similar it is to List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Latin America). At a glance it looks to be the same thing, only with the show times listed. Since we're WP:NOTTVGUIDE, I'm not sure that this would pass any notability guideline.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And the entities listed are not programs, are they? Drmies (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like it is unclear to you what a programming block is. If that is the case, the article Block programming might provide an explanation. Basically, they are groups of programs that the station thinks will appeal to the same people. The station gives a name to the block so that they can advertise the block as a whole. However, the block consists of separate individual programs, and the programs shown in a block might change over time. It looks like the list that Tokyogirl79 links to shows both the names of the individual programs and the programming blocks into which those programs are grouped, which would make the separate list of just the block names redundant. Calathan (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 21 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, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Terribly sourced, as in not at all. As in the noms for equal articles (both resulting in deletion) about this like this same article, but for the American version and Nickelodeon blocks, the only sources are generally fansites with contributors with way too much time on their hands cataloging everything possible about the channel, packing articles rife with WP:OR, and are usually wrapped around gimmicks that peter out within weeks (the Toon Cup for instance was only connected by some inane promotion involving soccer players). Generally the vast majority of children and parents just look at the EPG listing and could care less what the block is called as long as Ben 10 and Regular Show air where they say. Nate • (chatter) 00:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mrschimpf. Poorly sourced, and not enough to prove it. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 05:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for all the reasons listed above. Trivialist (talk) 16:43, 28 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 redirect to Independence Public School District. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Ridge[edit]

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

Middle school that does not seem to meet our notability guidelines. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment About Malformed Nomination: The note on the article is malformed and does not direct here. It takes some searching for anybody interested in the article to find this discussion.Americasroof (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template on the article appears to be in working condition, it's just redlinking for whatever reason. Clicking on said link will lead to here. Unless you mean on the log? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD link being redlinked on Article for deletion tags is typically remedied by purging the page, after which the link becomes functional. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:30, 27 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) 00:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Independence Public School District per usual procedure for schools below high school level, this one being a middle school. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, per longstanding precedent. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:01, 28 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/Userify.. Consensus is to delete. As the creator has expressed a desire to have the page userified, I have done so; redirecting the original location and/or creating Earless rabbit can be done through the usual channels. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Til (rabbit)[edit]

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

There was a rabbit without any ears. A cameraman stepped on it and the poor animal died. It will now be stuffed and exhibited. Sources confirm this happened. PRODded with reason "Not notable. Just a minor single event". DePRODded without explanation. However, PROD reason still stands, and WP is not a newspaper. Hence: delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was warned that this might happen. A bit was added to Keinohrhasen. Would Earless rabbit or German celebrity animals be ok? CallawayRox (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bit added to Keinohrhasen seems fine to me and completely sufficient to cover this nonevent. An article on earless rabbits in general would also be fine and this animal could be a footnote in such an article, too. Whether there is enough material for an article on "German celebrity animals" I don't know, but if there are sources, go ahead! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on it. Basically all the Til sources talked about Knut (polar bear) and how celebrity animals are big in Germany. CallawayRox (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some individual animal articles out there which do survive AfD, but honestly they aren't that useful unless you are trying to remember a particular incident. One such article was morphed into the much-celebrated List of animals with fraudulent diplomas, which is well sourced and a good compilation. I love the idea of an earless rabbit article (which can include mentions of notable earless rabbits), assuming we can source it well. I wouldn't go with German celebrity animals, because I see news stories out there about earless rabbits from other countries too.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before nominating this one for deletion, I had a look at some of those individual-animal articles and, frankly, they all looked quite more notable than this one. Not hugely perhaps (like the two about rabbits on websites collecting money for not eating them), but they looked like having received more sustained coverage than is the case here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was 1 in Japan and 3 in China after Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. CallawayRox (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; celebrity is not notability. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I work on Earless rabbit? I don't want to get yelled at. CallawayRox (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to work on an article without worrying about anyone else's interference you can always start it off on a user subpage. For example, you could work on User:CallawayRox/Earless rabbit until you felt it was of a high enough quality to be moved into the main encyclopedia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I userfied the article. CallawayRox (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that because we can't redirect from mainspace into userspace, I'm going to have to mark Til (rabbit) for deletion. This will not prevent you moving the article back into mainspace when you choose. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the move. An article under discussion at AfD should not be blanked or removed. The proper procedure is to wait until the AfD closes and then, if appropriate, to userfy the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to work in peace? CallawayRox (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just copy and paste into a new userspace article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with that suggestion is that you will have to be careful about including any other editor's contribution without attribution. Using other people's contribution without attribution is copyright infringement. A surprising number of people think that somehow copyright infringement doesn't count if it's from another Wikipedia page, but that is not so. Attribution is normally in the editing history, but that is lost if you copy and paste. In this case, almost everything is from one person, but not all. Really, it would be better to either (1) edit the existing article (2) wait until the AfD is over or (3) write a new article from scratch, so that it doesn't include anyone else's edits. Also, I think it is only fair to warn you that, before putting a significant amount of work into the new article, you should decide whether the subject really does meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. It would be a pity to put in a lot of work, only to see both articles deleted one after the other. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will just wait since you won't let me do any work. CallawayRox (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The trouble with that suggestion is that you will have to be careful about including any other editor's contribution without attribution." Maybe so, but it happens all the time beyond the notice of almost everyone. AfD shouldn't delay people's desire to create, if they wish to do so.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:53, 2 April 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, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable bunny/event. Slow news day. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed. Might be worth a line in some rabbit-related article though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:18, 28 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Varsity Trip[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has no secondary sources to establish notability outside of the confines of those groups closely affiliated with this organisation. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The previous AFD asserted reliable sources that covered a particular prank, not the organisation itself. As the organisation was not the primary focus, these sources do not qualify as indicators of notability. All other sources are self-published or closely affiliated with the subject. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 21 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, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that the races held on this trip make up the oldest team skiing competition in the world (that is still running), and are therefore notable. There are plenty of sources confirming that it has run since 1922 (including coverage in The Times newspaper from the 2nd year until the 1980s) - however, it's less easy to prove that there are no other older competitions still running. Arguably the article should be expanded based on the newspaper articles to include more details of the format/notable participants/... over the years. If there is a consensus that this would make the article worthy of not being deleted, I could spend some time doing this next week. The size of the trip also seems significant (especially given that it is run by full-time students), although the claim that it is the largest student snowsport event is again hard to backup (3200 people is certainly more than a similar trip organised by BUSC). --SnowAddict (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the independent sources to verify these claims? It isn't a question about clean-up or expansion -- it's about providing some solid third-party, independent references where the club is the main focus of the piece. Things aren't notable by association, so a 'notable participants' won't establish notability here. See WP:GNG. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest article that I've found is from The Times, 29th December 1923 and, whilst short, is dedicated to the races. Later articles are longer, and go beyond simply reporting the results. For example, on 11th December 1930, there was an article (again in The Times) discussing the status of the competitions within the universities, and weighing up the two teams in anticipation of the races. The Times is a major, independent publication, which covered the races more or less every year until 1975 -- and it may well have been covered in other papers, but I don't have access to those archives. There is also archive footage from both British Pathe (1924, 1933) and ITN (1964).--SnowAddict (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SnowAddict The Steve 11:27, 29 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 to delete. Only one participant in the discussion has characterized their opinion as "Keep" but the sources and arguments presented by the nomination and previous comment do not argue strongly for deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Baird[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable outside of the connection with the LFW house. This is the best I could find, but I don't think it's enough. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To me, Baird seems to have (or have had, which is meant to the same thing here,) some degree of notability beyond the house. Looking through the standard GScholar hits (mostly entirely unrelated to him), there is at least one decently-cited paper by him [20] and several others with a few citations - if one assumes that the citation counts are accurate, not enough to meet WP:PROF#1, but the papers all seem to be at least fifty years old and I suspect that GScholar is missing at least some of the older citations. What looks potentially more notable is his teaching activities, and especially the freshman composition course, at Amherst. Courses don't routinely have entire books written about them a generation after they were last taught but this one did - "Fencing with words: a history of writing instruction at Amherst College during the era of Theodore Baird, 1938-1966" by Robin Varnum (it's the book referred to in the NYT obituary linked to in the nomination). I haven't managed to look at the book itself but on the basis of this review of it, there seems to be at least a plausible case that Baird meets WP:PROF#4. And there's more around, even if most of it is either reviews or citations of Varnum's book, reminiscences of former students or, as in this case, both. PWilkinson (talk) 14:26, 24 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, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GBooks search turns up a truckload of substantive hits, and GScholar indicates that the book about him (mentioned in the NYTimes obit cited by the nominator) is probably notable itself, and amounts to the substantial coverage required. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:43, 27 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ECOBOND lbp[edit]

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

No reliable third-party coverage to establish notability per WP:CORP. Kelly ^hi! 22:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 21 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, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company information is wrapped in general discussion about lead in paint, but basically nothing here (including the EPA directory listing) is enough to mmeet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 27 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. WP:TOOSOON. "do not delete" !votes are obviously all the same user; there is no information provided beyond a release date - not even a track listing. No prejudice against recreation after the album is relased and has proven notable. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Believers Never Die (A Gerald Walker album)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL based on a blog-like website that give no relevant information. Can be userfied until there is a mixtape AND relevant information Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Contested. Added more credible website instead of sole music website. He Is He Who Is Them _talk 20:55, 20 March 2012 (CST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.209.73 (talk) — 65.30.209.73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - I see no significant coverage about this forthcoming album that would establish notability at this time. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 21 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, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

""Delete"" - At this time, with the album not yet out, there is no notable information worth having a page on. ⌯⌯☲☲Zenith042☲☲⌯⌯ (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with any properly sourced info on the new album merged into the Gerald Walker (rapper) page. ~dee^(talk?) 11:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No relevant information, and it's unlikely there will be any before the album's release. Huon (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Added official release date (4/16) from notable music website www.2DOPEBOYZ.com - a part of the Complex Media (Print Magazine) network. Apears to have production from noteworthy producers (Kanye West, D-Dot. All claims verified and added to article. • iKnowMoreThanYouCreditMeFor (talk) 14:41 28 March 2012 (PST) — iKnowMoreThanYouCreditMeFor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Deletion Contested XXL Magazine reports as of today 3/28/12 that the artist will release this album on 4/16/2012. XXL Magazine is the urban music industry's leader in print media. This is a very credible and noteworthy source that has been added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.114.114 (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — 184.77.114.114 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do Not Delete After more research I've found that the more pertinent information was added to the validity of this article AFTER the nomination for deletion. An official release date has been verified by credible sources. I will add sources to article as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.221.239.3 (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — 108.221.239.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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