The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 21:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tug (physics)[edit]

Tug (physics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The term "tug" seems to be a neologism / joke term. The source of the term seems to be the FAQ linked to in the Wikipedia article (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/jerk.html). It's mentioned in a self-published article on arxiv, but that article references the same FAQ and doesn't seem to use the term except in passing. IHateChoosingUsernames (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - no evidence of acceptance of the neologism. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename (to what?) and redirect - the concept is apparently used enough to have an article (unless we should create "general" articles such as "Higher-order time-derivatives of (physicists/mathematicians, please fill in the blank)". הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be fine with a general article or merging it with the article on momentum, but there is still the problem of references/verifiability. I would think that if tug (or yank) had practical use, the names would be standardized and it would be easier to find a source. IHateChoosingUsernames (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I do not see any notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The source says it all: "Needless to say, none of these are in any kind of standards, yet. We just made them up on usenet."TR 13:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. A made up term on USENET is not criteria for acceptance as an article on Wikipedia. Currently this term is not notable as it is not a topic of reliable sources. It is pretty much a neologism. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per WP:CRYSTAL -- not yet notable. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Neither the term nor the concept appears to be in widespread use, in the physics community or elsewhere. A Google search for (tug "third derivative") produces 3,040 results; by comparison, an analogous search for (force "second derivative") produces 327,000 results. The results of the "force" search ran to textbooks and serious-looking tutorial websites; the results of the "tug" search ran much more to blogs, wikis, and trivia compilations. A Google Books search for (tug "third derivative") produced a few hits, but the phrase "tug-of-war" occurred very early in the search results. The first result, Reza N. Jazar's Advanced Dynamics: Rigid Body, Multibody, and Aerospace Applications, includes "tug" in a list of derivatives going up to d^9 P/dt^9, which is downright absurd; at the end of this list, Jazar notes "None of these names are [sic] standard." Ammodramus (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Met various CSD reasons. SarahStierch (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Predrag Pupovac[edit]

Predrag Pupovac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:HOAX, possible autobio or attack page, CSD tags repeatedly removed by page creator, who has been sent to AIV by another editor, now CSD tags are being removed by IP. Recommend delete and salt. GregJackP Boomer! 23:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: this has gone from an unsourced 2 line biog of a Serbian footballer, for whom the Serbian FA website has no reference that I can find, neither do the websites of either club he's supposed to have played for, to an unsourced biog of a Serbian porn star. Again no trace. Hoax or attack page, it should go. NtheP (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no indication that he won the AVN awards listed, and in some cases it appears that the awards do not exist. GregJackP Boomer! 23:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can't this just be speedied under unremarkable person? If so, ping me, I'll take care of it. SarahStierch (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 20:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trending Topics[edit]

Trending Topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This appears to have been a planned TV show that never happened. It was due to air sometime in 2012, and received some media coverage early that year[1],[2],[3], but it apparently never made it to air; I can find no evidence that any episodes were ever broadcast. As a nonexistent series, it hardly seems notable enough to justify an article; it could be merged into the article on the host Jonathan Ross, but there's so little content here it may as well be deleted. (It can always be recreated if the show actually happens.) Robofish (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per the comprehensive nomination. --Bob Re-born (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Johnathon Ross article??? Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Plain delete -- Its non-appearance suggests that there was a pilot, but the ITV executives decided not to proceed: they clearly decided it was NN, and so should we! Peterkingiron (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 20:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marlene Lawston[edit]

Marlene Lawston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A PROD template that gave a clear rationale for deletion was removed without an explanation. With only two movie roles and two TV guest roles, no major fan base as she has no official website, Facebook, or Twitter pages, and no evidence of her having made any significant contributions to the entertainment industry (she has not won any awards or recognitions for her acting), she bluntly fails every criteria for WP:NACTOR. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It doesn't appear that independent sources are writing in any detail about this actor, which means there are no verifiable facts upon which to build an article at this time. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to fail GNG based on reliable sources (per FisherQueen and my own research). SarahStierch (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This individual does not appear to meet WP:BASIC for a Wikipedia article at this time. While they have a listing at IMDB, source searching has not yielded significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources found consist of passing mentions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The imdb roles don't particularly note anything that might suggest this person meets WP:NACTOR. No other reliable sources and expired PROD. Mkdw^talk 02:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bronco Pep Band[edit]

Bronco Pep Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't seem notable, no sources, none found, too little content to merge. Previous AFD speedy kept as it was made by a sockpuppet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to the University page, no third party coverage, nothing to merge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The athletics page is probably a better target for redirect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to Cal Poly Pomona Broncos. I copied the content over to that article as that seemed the most appropriate. References can be added there. 72Dino (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cal Poly Pomona Broncos, I guess. I was going to say 'delete,' since I don't see that the pep band meets Wikipedia's notability criteria in any way, but redirects are cheap and it seems to do more good than harm to leave a title in place, since it isn't entirely improbable that someone would search for the title. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. SarahStierch (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 20:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MobiControl[edit]

MobiControl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable product by non-notable company (note I also noted the software vendor SOTI for deletion). Ultimately all the article does is say "the software exists". Biker Biker (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:V requires that the information in every article be independently verifiable. If I remove the information in this article that is only available on the company's own web site, and the information that is only available in press releases, there is no information left with which to build an article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - as above Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like mainly press releases and unreliable sources. Appears to fail general notability guidelines at this time. SarahStierch (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly fails general notability criteria. I would also note that the creator of this article, User:Derrickv, only edits to promote MobiControl or SOTI, and uploaded an image claiming to speak for "MobiControl head office" concerning copyright. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Almost qualifies as spam considering the single purpose nature of the editor and the lack of independent coverage. Mkdw^talk 21:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While numerous press releases exist about this product, the topic appears to fail WP:N at this time. Source searches have not yielded significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Non-notable product by non-notable company. It is all... Samuel petan (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 20:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SOTI[edit]

SOTI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Promotional/peacock article about a non notable software company. All sources either primary, or based on the company's press releases. Biker Biker (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I likewise attempted to find sources; one from the Sacramento Bee seemed promising until it turned out to be a press release from SOTI. Quantumobserver (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• If it is deleted, redirect it to Seduction of the Innocent, like it was at the start. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GNG and nom. SarahStierch (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly fails general notability criteria. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)^{expanded my vote below}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reuter's source is only a copy of their press release. Reiterating my comments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MobiControl that this appears to be borderline spam from this single purpose account. Mkdw^talk 22:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This company appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH at this time to qualify it's inclusion in Wikipedia. Source searches are providing many press releases, such as this, but I'm not finding in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Notability? Clearly this artile fails general notability criteria. I think that it is is a non-notable company. Sources aren't independent! Samuel petan (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not only is there zero evidence of notability, I suspect that the company may be fictitious Winner of the 2010 Microsoft Worldwide Mobility Solution Partner of the Year Award"? Try finding a reference to this "award" anywhere other than those press releases. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 R. Keith McCormick. (Non-admin closure). Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keith McCormick[edit]

Keith McCormick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Sports Reference.com doesn't have this individual listed for the 1976 Olympics event that he apparently competed in. The US already had three modern pentathletes competing in 1976, which was the quota for each country in the team event. Further Google searches for the title of the book used as a reference bring back just 6 results, three of which go to either the Wiki article or mirrors of it. This and another article was created within minutes by the same user, who has not edited since. I'd like to assume good faith, but this looks hoax-like to me (at least in regards to the Olympic element). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for ((db-a10)) as explained at Articles for deletion/R. Keith McCormick. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This can be closed - it's already been redirected. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 20:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josey Greenwell[edit]

Josey Greenwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Sources are either unreliable (Queermeup.com, Josepvinaixa.com, homorazzi.com), make no mention of him (the Country Music Is Love source), or are personal sites (Tumblr, Eventful). A Google News search found no reliable non-passing mentions. Article smacks of weasel-wording, ref-bombing, and general puffery. Very little to no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as too soon. Too many of the sources seem to be unreliable such as blogs and he appears to be better known as a social network-based performer. Google News searches have provided little, searches for "Josey Greenwell singer" (including adding "gay") provided nothing but a search for Colgate Country Showdown provided this (an event listing). A different search adding "model" irrelevantly provided the event listing again but also provided a new result, this news article mentioning the 2009 Music City Madness. A search for Little Big Town also provided unreliable sources including suite101.com and minor results here (event press release) and here (allaccess.com) for opening for Little Big Town. Additional searches provided nothing substantial. He may be well known in the gay community at this time but he is not notable for Wikipedia yet. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. Too soon! SarahStierch (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete  Article was written by a spa.  There are details such as when the topic took trips to Nashville and when he locked himself in his dorm room that are unsourced and presumably WP:OR.  On the first page of Google hits for [Josey Greenwell], the only potential source I saw was from DNA (magazine), but the article itself is only a few paragraphs, all of which are primary material provided by the topic.  Article fails WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:N.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G7 by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isaric Christian Brotherhood[edit]

Isaric Christian Brotherhood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No assertion of notability per WP:ORG; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested without comment by article's creator, with comment at the article's talk page. Altered Walter (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no independent evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The group's notability is that it is one of the only Jewish Christian groups in the world's most populous Islamic nation. Its voice may be small, but it doesn't deserve to be snuffed out by Western editors looking for Western style sourcing/referencing and media/internet coverage. Judeo-Christian micro-minorities don't enjoy that kind of luxury in Indonesia. Isar101 (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: With apologies to the creator of the article, but if there are no "Western-style" sources, we can't be convinced that it really exists, so we can't have an article on it. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I didn't realize that creating the article would be so problematic. Perhaps it's best for it to be deleted afterall. Isar101 (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Checked sources and can't see any English reference to this new religion(?), apart from their own website. . If there is non English references, please feel free to post, but it would be unusual. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a new "religion", just a more recently started branch/denomination of the Christian religion. Isar101 (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I realize now that it's too soon to have a Wikipedia article about it. Thanks anyway to those who helped in editing it and giving advice to me on how to work with articles here on Wikipedia. Isar101 (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think this is a case of WP:SNOW by now, as the article's creator and sole content contributor (also the only "keep" voter) has voted for deletion. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 14:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominated for G7 per Isar101's delete request. Mkdw^talk 22:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Michel[edit]

Aaron Michel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Self-promotional piece by and about a non-notable person. Every one of the references falls under one or more of the following categories: page not mentioning Aaron Michel; page barely mentioning Aaron Michel; page written by Aaron Michel; page on promotional site or otherwise not independent of its subject. My searches have failed to produce a single reliable independent source. (A PROD was removed by the author.) JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There might be enough coverage to have an article on his Fantasy Politics organization, but Michel himself is not the primary focus of any articles cited or found by me or JBWatson.. Quantumobserver (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only claim of notability is a "rising star" award by a local business magazine - a nonnotable award. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, autobiography with borderline notability; references focus on businesses he is connected to, not Michel himself. Hairhorn (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have to agree that the award which is given out to 15 people annually is his only claim and seemingly not enough mixed with the other sources to solidly suggest notability. Mkdw^talk 02:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Cemetery gatehouse[edit]

Evergreen Cemetery gatehouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

sparsity Donaldecoho (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a contributing property to a major historic district. If this article is too sparse, it could be merged to the article about the historic district, but I think it's OK as a standalone article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't understand a lot about the article or the AfD nomination. "Sparsity" doesn't seem to be a reason given in our deletion policy. It could possibly be merged with Evergreen Cemetery (Adams County, Pennsylvania). Both these articles have some WP:Ownership issues, with the nominator heavily editing both. I've edited both a bit and tend to get reverted without any standard explanations given. My interest is in the gatehouse, which is one of the most photographed sites of the Civil War. It is also an early work of architect Stephen Decatur Button. In short, I'll just ask the nominator to just back off and let other folks edit the articles, even if the edits don't exactly reflect his particular interests. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sparsity is explained later. My earliest edits DE-EMPHASIZED the battle-related history and reiterated the basics: the Gatehouse is 1) architecturally-speaking, a ceremonial entrance ("flanking parts"), 2) home for the caretaker and 3) business office for the EC Association. At one point, I added a physical description, including dimensions and a description of the room arrangement, and it was cited. Knowing the value of such information to architecturally-minded types of individuals, I labored over a topic that was farther from my particular interests than a lot of other material. It would be a good idea to capture those sentences and citation from the archive because there is only one source for that information. My "particular interests" include creating a good article from the extremely sparse resources.--Donaldecoho (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep until and unless the nominator can offer an actual rationale for deletion. "Sparsity" isn't just vague, I literally have no idea what that's supposed to even mean in this context. Is it not full or complete enough? That's not even remotely close to a reason for deletion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sparse content is of questionable validity. Howard had a tent and headquarters 120 yards uphill from the gatehouse, but he ate one meal in the gatehouse with Elizabeth Thorn as hostess. Does eating one meal in the gatehouse make it his HQ, any more than every clod of grass upon which he trod? Likewise, the town telegraph was moved to Cemetery Hill, and ALL of Cemetery Hill is "near the gatehouse" but does this make the location of the town telegraph relevant to the gatehouse article?

The fact of the matter is, there is insufficient editing interest with this article, and the lack of interest is the origin of the ownership issue(s). Sources, other than the Evergreen Cemetery Association itself, are scarce, and that's another reason for lack of editing interest. Lack of editing interest and sparsity of sources is a good enough justification to roll the Gatehouse article into the Cemetery article. Then, there'll be one weak article instead of two very weak articles. If the Cemetery article 'overgrows' due to editing activity then the Gatehouse can be split off again in the future. After all, the Gatehouse is a feature of the Cemetery, and I have read criticism of having separate articles on third-party websites.

Amazon is asking $352 for Kennell's book as I type. Brian will ship it to you for $13.50-what's with this?

BTW, I'll ship my copy to anyone who will put 500 quality words into either article. My period of research into the Cemetery and Gatehouse is in the past--Donaldecoho (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to roll the Gatehouse article into the Cemetery article, you should open a discussion around a merge instead of a deletion discussion. If the content is indeed invalid, that's a whole 'nother can of worms. Bear in mind, I'm completely unfamiliar with the editorial history of the article (e.g. "ownership issue(s)"), but if rolling this article into another is your aim then this is the wrong forum. For what it's worth, taken at face value your response here is a pretty compelling argument in favor of a merge. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, merge it, or delte it. Those who have dumped +879 bytes onto this page in feigned offense have contributed 1 edit and +33 bytes to the article.--Donaldecoho (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being? The points being made are that short articles are not invalid articles, as you appear to be suggesting. One does not have to edit an article to comment on it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are hard to find, which you cannot understand until you try to find some. Since I've collected them into my personal possession I don't care whether the Wikipedia article is pathetic or not. As you please, remove the 'Nomination for deletion' tag straightaway. Most certainly, this is a topic deserving of a better article, but I'll be doing the long sleep in its shadow (plot 332-5A) before that happens.--Donaldecoho (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As already noted, "sparcity" is hardly the most convincing rationale for deletion. Because an article is "sparse" does not mean it must be deleted, as evidenced by the thousands of stub articles out there. The real issue is whether it meets the requirements for reliability and notability, which is clearly evidenced by the article itself, as well as the cited sources. Moreover, just because an article does not have a lengthy or frequent edit history means nothing. There is no policy that says that articles with few or infrequent edits have no notability. Interest or disinterest in an article are not relevant criteria. Agent 86 (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Nominator yields; those in favor of "Keeping" win the debate.--Donaldecoho (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 20:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 NBL season[edit]

2013–14 NBL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:CBALL. Too far into the future and the only referenced details are a) speculation and b) old news from previous seasons. --Falcadore (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I agree. We're about ten months away from the start of the 2013-14 season, which isn't that far in the scheme of things. Sure, there's some old news from previous seasons, but it's still relevant to the 2013-14 season, as they involve long term contracts. Being half way through the 2012-13 season, it shouldn't be too long until new information is available, so it makes sense to start with the page now. Danielfarrellnzl (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete the Brisbane Bullets stuff as its WP:Speculation then the article is all but blank. That is has no other information of value beyond standardised stuff in the infobox it effectively has no content and emphasises the premature creation. --Falcadore (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would question the Bullets stuff being speculation in itself. The way it's worded it is, but it can be reworded so that it's not. It's not speculation to say that a bid to bring them back in the 2013-14 season is correct. Even if the bid is not successful, that would be correct, and therefore is not speculation. 203.173.161.172 (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was coming from me - forgot I'd logged out danielfarrellnzl (t,c) 18:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems like a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. When a team lineup and fixture list is published would seem a more appropriate time to create the article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash ^[talk] 04:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artak Harutyunyan[edit]

Artak Harutyunyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG in that there is not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as well as failing WP:Athlete. There is just trivial and WP:ROUTINE coverage of the subject and the subject has never even qualified for the Olympics Holyfield1998 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep members of national teams are notable within their nations.Staszek Lem (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ATHLETE #1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Three appearances at the FILA world championships (including an 11th and a 13th place finish) appear notable to me. Jakejr (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep him being on a national team receiving a medal, in addition to competing in the world championships, is impressive and notable. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the stub article is not very impressive, he does seem to meet the criteria as in ranked with in a national competition, but the fact that he medalled in a world championship is a smoking gun. Mkdw^talk 02:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A well-written article with a lot of informations (but is is only a stub!). Sources are reliable and the article can keep on wikipedia. Samuel petan (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 11:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BitterDB[edit]

BitterDB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Apparent vanity Wikipedia article for a service that has not yet proved to be of adequate significance. May be deserving of an article in the future, but certainly not yet. (Published in journal with moderately high impact factor (eight) only this year. Has been cited only once according to ISI Web of Knowledge.) Bueller 007 (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Because science. There is no blatant promotion here. I'll use the "this is an encyclopedia and science articles should be more loved" equivalent to WP:VAGUEWAVE here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just because it is about science does not mean it must be kept. Even scientific articles must meet the thresholds of notability and encyclopedic value. The article is largely unsourced and lacks any indication as to its notability. In fact, it reads more like an article on "bitter" than about the database. Agent 86 (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – the primary citation describing this database (PMID 21940398) which was published January 2013 (after subtracting self-citations) has already been cited 5 times and hence its notability is supported by indepdent reliable sources. Boghog (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Seems to fall into the category of scientific reference works. Those usually have less available in the way of external references, since they are references. -- BenTels (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 20:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sathish Kumar Sivalingam[edit]

Sathish Kumar Sivalingam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance to support article. References are his own web page and fan page. Reads like a resume and lacks reliable references. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete a nonnotable functionary. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This was tagged for db-g12 (spam), but it's not blatant spam. Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.Nishadhi (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 20:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haykaz Samvelyan[edit]

Haykaz Samvelyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG in that there is not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as well as failing WP:Athlete. There is just trivial and WP:ROUTINE coverage of the subject. Additionally, it looks like the subject failed to qualify for the 2012 Olympics and winning a youth competition does not make an athlete notable. Holyfield1998 (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, primarily for reasons provided by the nominator. The article lacks any indication of notability and its single source does not appear to meet the standards for reliable sources. In addition, there is little, if any, indication that the single track meet that this person is said to have competed in is in any way notable. Agent 86 (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 20:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Vitória S.C. B season[edit]

2012–13 Vitória S.C. B season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

needs more Starship9000 (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to edit it, plus it needs sentences about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starship9000 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have re-opened the AfD per this. I believe that the article should be deleted as there is no meaningful content and no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Although the Vitoria SC B team plays in the second tier of Portuguese football, there is no content here to justify keeping an article about their season. – PeeJay 13:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable in its own right, unlikely search term. C679 21:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as there is no prose, the article fails WP:NSEASONS. Besides, I don't think there is need for a season article for a team that doesn't even have its own wiki-article. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cannot find anything to suggest they received beyond routine coverage of their season, nor does their record imply WP:NSEASONS is met. Mkdw^talk 05:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 20:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Markco media[edit]

Markco media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. No significant coverage. Refs are to corporate listings, a single negative review a website owned by the company, a single positive review by an obscure website and mentions of the website owned by this company in compilation lists of other discount websites. Skrelk (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I nominated as prod or rather I seconded the nomination, i agree that there is issues with notability and should be Deleted Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I've included the Mail Online - the most prominent online newspaper site - who've named the site as their website of the week. It was listed by The Sunday Times in their top list of 100 technology companies. The founder is a prominent, prestigious, award-winning entrepreneur, as his page suggests. I'm aware that you no doubt work to moderate many pages, but to succinctly describe a company like Markco Media as 'not notable' - and having achieved 'no significant coverage' seems churlish to me. The coverage achieved by companies MyVoucherCodes and CouponCodes4U every week, on high profile media outlets such as the New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, TechCrunch, The Next Web and more, denote notability and the fact the company is of public interest, to me. I'd very much like to improve the page, but wasn't sure which areas you felt weren't up to par. Please do advise. Goodandbadpr (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Goodandbadpr - you should be aware that paid editing is very much frowned upon here. Your username and edit history strongly suggests you have a close association with the company being paid to promote MyVoucherCodes and their parent company. Editing here on behalf of PR agency clients is an obvious conflict of interest and you should really cease doing so immidiately. Stalwart111 12:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodandbadpr-I looked it up myself, and I couldn't find anything about any o these sites on the NYT. Mail Online included what looked like more or less filler coverage, mentioned other websites and wasn't very prominent. Same for the sunday times. The other mentions were similar. It's not significant coverage.Skrelk (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodandbadpr is indefinitely blocked. There's a clear COI here with this editor's articles. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability and serious COI issues. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Inclusion in the Sunday Times list suggests that this is a company to watch. Since this is a london based company the lack of refernece in NYT (presumably New York Times) should be of no relevance. I nevertheless consider that the article lacks substance. It needs to be substantially improved before I could vote to keep; on the other hand I am reluctant to vote to delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - G3, blatant hoax. GiantSnowman 17:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lao FA Cup[edit]

Lao FA Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Potential hoax. This competition is not covered on RSSSF despite the article mentioning winners for 2006 and 2007. The main cup competition in Laos is Beerlao Prime Minister's Cup. A google search for Lao FA Cup produces only links to wiki mirrors. The RSSSF page covers more than just the Prime Minister's cup, so if there was a tournament called "FA Cup" I would expect to see it here. Looking at the supposed winners, I do not think this is an instance of confusion with the Prime Minister's cup as the winner's bear no resemblance to those recorded. Potentially a minor competition that has been misnamed, but even if it does exist, it is not the main cup and fails WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - the competition is not mentioned on the official Lao FA website either here. Fenix down (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article was created 4 October 2012 as a copy of Thai FA Cup as it was on the same date.[4][5] The creator User:Nuttawat did not edit the article again. Subsequent attempts were made to remove erroneous information without realising the entire subject was nonsense. The creator has had similar matters complained of at User talk:Nuttawat and is currently blocked for disruptive editing.[6] Thincat (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete under G3 as a hoax, per the evidence presented above. C679 14:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As this article is a hoax. Holyfield1998 (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per findings. Govvy (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Creation by a blocked user. Consensus seems to be that the subject isn't notable anyway and so any re-creation would fall under WP:CSD#G4. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lao Division 1 League[edit]

Lao Division 1 League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable league. While promotion to top division does exist, the league does not appear to provide competitors for the national cup as sources here show that the national cup is usually competed for by the top teams in the top league and top regional teams from outside Vientiane. As such, the league would fail WP:FOOTYN. Additionally, there is little published material on line regarding this division and it is not covered at all on RSSSF bar the occasioanl mention of a which team was promoted at the end of the season and so probably fails WP:GNG too. Fenix down (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Football in Laos as there is minimal independent notability. GiantSnowman 17:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - entire article is a copy and paste of the lead of Lao League. Does this league even exist.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The guy who created the article does seem to have a bit of a history of C&Ping and the article as it is conatins no useful information on the division. There are occasional and very brief mentions of a second tier on the relevant RSSSF pages, but these are restricted almost exclusively to which team/s were promoted. The division definitely did exist, but it is difficult to tell if it does now. There is no mention of it that I can find on the official Laos FA website and there is no mention on the most recent couple of seasons pages on RSSSF. A redirect seems plausible, although any information in the Football in Laos article would be sketchy at best. Fenix down (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - non-notable second-tier league. Redirecting to Football in Laos seems appropiate. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 20:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Memo Diriker[edit]

Memo Diriker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm not seeing much in the way of notability, either as an academic or university official (unless I missed the memo). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 27 December 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, Courcelles 00:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 2. Snotbot  t • c »  06:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A worldcat search shows no books at all, and Google Scholar shows no article with more than 7 citations DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The local awards listed don't rise to the level of criterion #2, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash ^[talk] 04:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Technology[edit]

Applied Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

All sources on the article currently are weak. Either not independent or not WP:RS. Web search turned up nothing for referencing this article. Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep I consider reference 3 from the theage.com.au an independent reliable source and is reasonably in-depth about the company and its products' impact on the Australian market. But unfortunately it is the only independent RS I have seen for this company. Unless more sources can be found, the article slips below the WP:GNG threshold and unfortunately should be deleted. Update: Thanks to a good find by The-Pope, we have a second independent RS that goes into enough depth to for the article to pass notability guidelines Mark viking (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why are people surprised that there aren't strong online sources for a company (with multiple names) that operated before the internet existed? There is a dedicated story on them from Your Computer magazine (now clearly listed as Ref 5), so coupled with the more recent Age article, that's enough for me. The-Pope (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep refs make GNG. Rich Farmbrough, 20:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Keep There are some fairly notable publications that cover them Reuters report, Boston Globe, San Jose Mercury, etc. Mkdw^talk 17:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 20:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karrin Rachelle[edit]

Karrin Rachelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• WP:Vanity (Possible COI with IP Editor)
• WP:GNG - Fails - Google produces Web 2.0 Fluff

PeterWesco (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree; fails WP:GNG to produce any hits other than promo/fluff/blogspots/personal .com sites/etc. Seriously runs into WP:BLOG, WP:QS and others too lazy to list. A desire for publicity/promotion is one thing, but using Wikipedia for it is the wrong venue.Яεñ99 (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable, fails WP:GNG among others and like the nominator stated, the article reeks of being a vanity page and there is not enough enclycopedic content based on reliable sources to save the article. Holyfield1998 (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Jimfbleak as G12: unambiguous copyright violation. (Non-admin technical closure). Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaali raatein:the 40 days[edit]

Kaali raatein:the 40 days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article about a film appears to be non-notable through reliable sources. No significant coverage can be found, so I propose deletion. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 06:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 20:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Backtract undo series[edit]

Backtract undo series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced neologism, as well as self-reference to Wikipedia. Biglulu (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, with offer to userfy. Pages on Wikipedia do not belong in the mainspace, unless they are on topics that have gained outside coverage (e.g. ArbCom, Essjay controversy, or, of course, Wikipedia neologism). Additionally, if Cotten134 (talk · contribs) is interested in the userfication option (layman's terms: it would be transferred to your userspace, Cotten, probably as User:Cotten134/Backtract undo series), I would urge him to say so, so that we can speedily wrap this up. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)}
• Delete per WP:NOTNEO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This almost seems like a candidate for speedy G6 as content in the wrong namespace; if it belongs anywhere its in Wikipedia: namespace. If the page creator or another editor disagrees, though, it wouldn't count as uncontroversial maintenance. In that case, I would say delete it as a neologism and something that is non-notable outside the world of wiki editors. Cnilep (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- This is a very important concept with widespread implications around the world.--Cotten134 (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy G3 Made up probably by the article creator, non notable neologism. Buggie111 (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and fast. United States Man (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, one of a bunch of inappropriate self-referential articles on Wikipedia created by this editor. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Uncyclopedia. Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Delete per WP:NOTNEO. After some searches, this term does not appear to have received any coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This probably could have been speedily deleted considering the almost non-sensical nature of this article. No sources whatsoever. Mkdw^talk 17:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE the vacuous article about making 1000 edits to the sandbox and perhaps also the user too. 212.139.99.231 (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• User warned for abusing editing privileges. I'll take it to AN/I if he keeps going. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel L. Barth. Amalthea 17:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Polytechnic Institute of New York University. Moved to Wireless Internet Center for Advanced Technology then redirected to Polytechnic Institute of New York University (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 17:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless Internet Center for Advanced Technology (WICAT)[edit]

Wireless Internet Center for Advanced Technology (WICAT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Only reference is a press release from NYU Poly through PR Newswire. Recommend merging with Polytechnic Institute of New York University article. 72Dino (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• move to Wireless Internet Center for Advanced Technology then redirect to Polytechnic Institute of New York University. with the initials on the end it is not a potential search term, but without them it might be, but it is a non notable subdepartment of a university, fails WP:N only source is a press release. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and redirect This subject fails GNG and TheRedPenOfDoom has the right idea on how to best deal with it. ElKevbo (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The World seen from the train[edit]

The World seen from the train (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Article fails WP:GNG because there is little to no coverage in reputable sources. Although there may be some in the future, it doesn't appear to exist now. LexisNexis search of major world news sources found no articles under the English title or the French title. Could not find good sources in French or English that would establish notability (Google hits are all to wikipedia pages). AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be correct. Maybe a mistake in the title of the program, in english version: the real translation is The World seen from a train (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and not The World seen from the train (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as precised by the channel Voyage, owned by Fow News and National Geographic Channel. Coverage in reputable sources: -the same three channels (Voyage, Fow News and National Geographic Channel) -articles in french (see the french version -the distributor: http://www.lukarn.fr/fiche.php?rub=1&id=247&lang=eng&PHPSESSID=25c318dfd25cf1f12c97a69ea6e6b19b Thanks. Paul Nemours

More: in french: see on Google and Wikipedia: Le Monde vu du train. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_monde_vu_du_train http://www.google.fr/search?q=le+monde+vu+du+train+%22le+monde+vu+du+train%22&hl=fr&biw=1058&bih=521&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your remarks. The World seen from the train (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a famous series in France and in the french-speaking countries, under the french title: Le Monde vu du train More: in french: see on Google and Wikipedia: Le Monde vu du train (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_monde_vu_du_train). The World seen from the train (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is the english version, sold in various countries, with new episodes to be broadcasted in the next coming weeks.

The article has been checked. New sources have been added by contributors. Sources checked (in french specially, and english). Program broadcasted by the channel Voyage (owned by National Geographic) in french-speaking countries, with an english version. No deletion required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongino2011 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that the article still lacks notability. In order for the article to be on the English wikipedia, it needs to have notability, which is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Right now the article has sources for: 1. from the distributor (which is not independent of the subject), 2. two laffont articles which do not talk about the show at all, and 3. An article with nothing more than the blurb from the distributor about the content of the show. None of these are significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. What is needed for the notability to be passed (from my perspective, and other editors may disagree) is: A discussion of the TV show in a key newspaper or magazine. If Le Monde or Sud-Ouest writes about it, then the show is notable. So please add a reputable article (in French or English) about the show and the notability will be clear. Right now, the show still gets zero hits in Lexis, Westlaw, and other news searches in either French or any English title, and the content looks like it may be simply Promotion, which is not good. Note: The French wikipedia page also appears to be non-notable (WP:NOTOIRE) right now and could use similar support. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the constructive remarks. New sources have been added (Le Figaro, one of the two main french newspapers, and Le Nouvel Observateur. Mongino2011 16:31, 23 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 06:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It appears notable enough of a television program for me, and the additional refs seal the deal. Jusdafax 10:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing to indicate the series is notable. As an aside, the current article is almost completely WP:PEACOCK or WP:ADVERT. 1292simon (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Agree to keep for me also. New sources have been added, with references to newspapers and channels. Notable enough of a television program, with both french and international -ie english- version. Peterino 17:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.61.49.85 (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The additional refs seal the deal for me too. Ruth Roberts 19:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.249.244.32 (talk)
• Keep I agree the new refs are enough for notability. Also agree it was peacocky and have toned down where text was just lifted from the production company's publicity. Mcewan (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - For those familiar with the works of Olivier Weber it makes no sense to remove this article. For a great number of viewers, the subject and the television series are as notable as the films based on the works of Paul Theroux. --Zananiri (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 anyone wants to merge, let me know and I'll restore the article temporarily for that purpose. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 20:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Boston College[edit]

Coat of arms of Boston College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

University coat of arms, without any legitimate distinction making it WP:Notable. Press releases from the University do not count toward WP:N. GrapedApe (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with possible merge to Boston College. Note that the first cited source, Sub Turri, appears to be the college's yearbook, so it should be fairly reliable, even though it certainly doesn't establish standalone notability for the coat of arms. Quantumobserver (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Boston College. Its notability is only inherited from the institution, and as such does not merit a separate article, but is definitely a notable aspect of the independently notable institution. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MERGEWHAT? Where in Boston College would it make sense to discuss it? --BDD (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 20:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benedicto S. Wong[edit]

Benedicto S. Wong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unnotable Filipino local politician elected to a barangay ("the smallest administrative division in the Philippines") council. No references. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: What a shame. A well-written article—but no references (the article's creator promised to search for refs in September 2007, but never provided any), and no notability. I'm not even bothering to search: the article is very detailed and nothing sounds notable. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - yes, a shame, because he clearly did more than most of the myriad local politicians for whom we have articles. One query - he was elected "Chairman" of that council. Would that be the equivalent of mayor? I'm conscious that he died in 1994 so I wonder whether local (offline) coverage would have been more significant at the time. Anyway, right now the subject would not seem to pass WP:GNG. Stalwart111 10:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being a chairman of the Barangay Council, the legislature of a fourth-level subdivision of which there are more than 40,000 in the country, won't cut it. –HTD 05:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unfortunately, despite his impressive works as a barangay chairman, barangay chairmen are not automatically notable. Such a shame too since his article is better than several articles on notable Filipino politicians. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by JamesBWatson. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Darrell le montre[edit]

Darrell le montre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete, considered csd but with the one tv appearance figure this is the safer way. Fails notability guidelines Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A single appearance on TV does not make one notable, especially when all there is to vet that is two sources that don't meet WP:RS. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It looks as if this article was moved to Darrell La Montre, and both pages were then deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was created by a blocked editor evading his block. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Idol (season 10)#Finalists. Rather than commenting, I thought about closing it and this is what I will do because a Google News search only provided two recent results here and here and this Spanish news article from March 2012, all are not substantial. Although it is likely she may have a future career, she is not notable at this time. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 19:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Rodriguez[edit]

Karen Rodriguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not fulfill criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (music). Babar Suhail (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It has been English Wikipedia's consensus regarding American Idol at least, that all 12 finalists of all seasons get their own pages regardless of what success they have later on. I don't know how fair this is, as this is not applied to other country Idol competitions, or to other reality TV competitions like X Factor, The Voice etc. but this is the way it is. I am ready for someone initiating a general discussion on all American Idol contestant articles. Once our present consensus is changed after a general discussion, individual articles deletions may be contemplated. But nominating just Karen Rodriguez out of all American Idol contestants seems unfair and unwaranted to me. Keep and initiate a general discussion if you will. werldwayd (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Werldwayd's explanations and suggestion of a general discussion. No hurry to delete the article. --E4024 (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to American Idol (season 10). Aside from notability concerns, this just duplicates content that's in that article. Until there's something to say outside of her appearance on the show there's no reason to have a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to American Idol (season 10)#Finalists. I see no indication of coverage that would establish notabililty independent of her appearance on American Idol. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An article about an American Idol finalist that has multiple, reliable sources passes WP:MUSICBIO #1 & 9 and passes WP:GNG. It find it sad that as the article's creator I was not notified of this AfD. Aspects (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The current edition of WP:MUSICBIO includes the admonsihment at the end: Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated they are independently notable. -- Whpq (talk) 23:15, 31 December 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, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Per WP:MUSICBIO; "Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated they are independently notable." Apparently "the artist" now has to prove themselves as notable outside the series to deserve a page of their own. Ms. Rodriguez has so far not established herself independently and should be redirected. Can't be more plainly in print. Яεñ99 (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says "may be redirected": this means that redirection is optional, a possibility, not that it must be redirected. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And should be interpreted in the same way as other criteria which also says "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria" -- Whpq (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Michig. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and this AfD may lead to deletion, etc.. However, in this instance, the admonishment referenced appears to have been added to eliminate the practice of a creating "ghetto" space of pages for persons who have appeared on reality tv but failed to establish a current notable context. That said, Ms. Rodriguez should be given a chance to develop a notable following/career/contribution, and at that point she can be considered for her own Wiki page. There is no need for it at this time, and there appears to be plenty of support for allowing this to happen over time, instead of RIGHT NOW, as some would so desire instead. Patience can make the difference, just ask Gn'R. Яεñ99 (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Nyttend under criterion G12 as a copyright infringement of this site. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 21:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Autodesk Composite[edit]

Autodesk Composite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete, appears to fail GNG. Search is coming up with [[7]] mostly just linking to their own website. SO basically an Advertisement in my opinion Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per A7 and G11, which is the notice I originally added. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 01:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Software is specifically exempt from A7 and its' not promotional to the point of needing immediate removal. This is the appropriate venue for this particular article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged as possible copyvio - While visiting Autodesk's page for this product, I noticed the content was copied word for word. Although there wasn't a copyright tag, the main autodesk.com website does have one so I assume that extends to all (or almost all) pages. While searching with Google News, I found results for Autodesk Maya which contained Composite but I'm assuming this was a different but related product. However, I found a press release here for AutoDesk Composite and Google Books also found relevant results. Although I'm not an expert with this product, if a rewrite can't be done then I would suggest merging and redirecting to one of the Autodesk articles, possibly the main article Autodesk. For now, it's better to delete it as a possible copy violation. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 20:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forum of Brazilian Vice-presidents for Graduate Studies[edit]

Forum of Brazilian Vice-presidents for Graduate Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Previously flagged as WP:PROD with the rationale "Lack of evidence that this forum has attention outside its immediate participants and therefore whether it meets the notability criteria.". The Prod was removed - along with the maintenance tags - by the article creator (who has edited only this article and the biography of organisation's current present). I am bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 21 December 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, Courcelles 03:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete According to my research, this org fails GNG, but, that is based specifically on English speaking sources. SarahStierch (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless significant Portuguese sources are provided. Like Sarah, I do not speak Portuguese but searches at Google News, Books and Scholar provided nothing and I was surprised at Google Scholar as it usually provides something. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect if desired. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 20:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Rock Action[edit]

Saturday Rock Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Early indi release from a band that later released notable music. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. per Walter Görlitz. Srsrox (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 21 December 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, Courcelles 04:07, 26 December 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, Courcelles 00:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hawk_Nelson#Albums - Google News and Books and other searches provided nothing else significant aside from that JesusFreakHideout review and this is probably because it was an earlier album. I found this which lists some reviews from users but that would not indicate notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect it somewhere if desired. ‑Scottywong| express _ 19:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riding Around the Park[edit]

Riding Around the Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable album. An indi release by members of a band who later changed members and became notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. per Walter Görlitz. Srsrox (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 21 December 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, Courcelles 04:08, 26 December 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, Courcelles 00:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - can't see how this album is individuallly notable with no sources and no other notability claims. Could be worth a mention in the band article as something particular members did before joining. Stalwart111 11:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hawk Nelson: that article mentions the recording, but it's not independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 11:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We Wish You a Metal Xmas and a Headbanging New Year[edit]

We Wish You a Metal Xmas and a Headbanging New Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Deprodded without comment by a new editor who added a "source" which turns out to be a 404. I can't find any reliable sources on this album at all — just "X recorded the song Y on We Wish You a Metal Xmas". No reviews. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After a very brief search, I found these reviews. It would also seem that the "source" I gave returns a 404 for users situated in USA, so you could try loading it through a proxy. I'm not entirely sure why this is nominated for deletion at all, given that it is available for sale in many reputable places and the original source is clear enough evidence that the album does exist. Though as you say, I am a "new editor" and so therefore not well-versed in what is deemed acceptable proof of existence. TurboMuffin™ (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In general, an article must have reliable, third party sources. This would mean for an album, things like reviews, a newspaper/magazine/reputable website article on the making of the album, etc. Those two reviews are the kind of coverage that are fine for an album article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems that this compilation CD is covered widely in the heavy metal community and it features some big names in heavy metal Seasider91 (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 21 December 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, Courcelles 04:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this page up! I own this album so know it exists! If that isn't proof enough that it exists then I can confirm it is widely available in physical and digital formats. I purchased my copy from Play.com (here: http://www.play.com/Search.html?searchstring=we+wish+you+a+metal+xmas&searchsource=0&searchtype=allproducts ) a few years back. It is also available on iTunes (here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/we-wish-you-metal-xmas.../id292660610 ) right now! I wonder if the reason why this page has been selected for deletion is because this is a Heavy Metal album and the Grinch don't like Metal in Christian Christmas conotation? If you haven't heard Dio's version of "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCJRq3Y9Seo ) recorded especially for this very album then you haven't lived! Trbp72 (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The album's existence isn't being questioned at all. Whether or not there are enough reviews on it is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:26, 28 December 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, Courcelles 00:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources located by TurboMuffin. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Wilson[edit]

Barrie Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The sources provided are not adequate to meet GNG so this content cannot be hosted. The article was originally created as a redirect to B.J. Wilson so I propose to delete this and restore the redirect. Specificially:-

• York University Newsletter Not a reliable source
• Book review from Canadian Jewish Tribune Mostly primary as quotes from author and lacks sufficient bio-data to count as a source
• [http://www.ucobserver.org/arts/books/2008/12/jesus_christian/ United Church Observer Book Review and not really detailed enough to count as a detailed secondary source for the subject.
• Publishers Blurb Clearly not independent and therefore does not count.

Polices in play: BLP One Event - only notable for one book, Author notability guideline - Not at all clear that he meets this standard, General Notability Guideline - clearly falls short here.

In summary we have an autobiography of a former academic who is only marginally notable at best and for one book at that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure, though, about all the characterisations in the final sentence of the nomination, and i think it quite possible that this academic may well meet notabiliity, on further research. As i cannot do that right now, though, the article fails on the evidence presented, so Delete. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 06:48, 28 December 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, Courcelles 00:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep How Jesus Became Christian has been reviewed in multiple publications[8][9][10][11][12], and he therefore meets WP:WRITER #4 (It is incorrect to say, as the proposal does, that if you've only written one book you're not notable - read the policy.) Being a professor emeritus at York University (one of Canada's largest) seems to meet WP:PROF "5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or 'Distinguished Professor' appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." (This guideline is admittedly vague but in non-US English-speaking countries a professor emeritus is a full professor which is generally considered a notable position.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Professor emeritus does not pass #5. It essentially means only "retired professor" and is not a step above a normal full professorship the way a distinguished or (typical) named chair are. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: More than just notable ... he is respected. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Although the sourcing certainly needs improvement here, it's not wholly invalid as it stands and there are better sources out there about him. Keep with cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 19:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Bjørn Hansen[edit]

Ask Bjørn Hansen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article presents no evidence of any notability, evidence of achievements beyond maintaining a website and creating an individual software program for email. A search for the author's name does not reveal any major achievements which justify a wikipedia biographical article. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepComment He is well-known in the Perl community. As evidence possibly contributing toward notability,

(1) Using Qpsmtpd is an in-depth secondary source describing the above mentioned email program, from O'Reilly, a reliable publisher.

(2) Fighting spam with qpsmtpd is another in-depth secondary source. I can't vouch for Search Enterprise Linux, but it looks journalistic.

(3) Ask Bjorn Hansen received a White Camel award at OSCON for Perl Community service in 2001

(4) He developed and maintains the NTP pool project, a notable open pool of NTP servers that is used by millions of computer systems to keep computer clocks synchronized.

I'm inclined to think he is notable for the NTP pool project and the White Camel award, but would be interested in what others think. Update: Given that the NTP pool project apparently doesn't contribute notability to its author, I am changing my keep recommendation to a simple comment on sources found. Mark viking (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Your top two sources appear to be reliable third-party sources, but they are not significant coverage of the article topic, which is "Ask Bjorn Hansen". The white camel award is already noted in the article, but it doesn't justify a wikipedia article about the person. Most of the recipients don't have freestanding wikipedia articles about them. Similarly, while the NTP pool project may have received significant coverage, that does not justify an article about "Ask Bjorn Hansen". Do you have any evidence that anyone has ever written an article about ABH or with the main topic being ABH? I couldn't find one. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation of your rationale. So the idea is that notability is not inherited from the NTP pool project, even if that person is the one who created and maintains it? I haven't found any interviews or biographical pages on the web about him. Mark viking (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the idea is that notability is not inherited from the NTP pool project, even if that person is the one who created and maintains it? - Yes, please refer to WP:INHERIT.

I haven't found any interviews or biographical pages on the web about him. - so no luck with passing through WP:BIO? JoshuSasori (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG--Nixie9 (talk) 19:22, 18 December 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, Courcelles 08:14, 19 December 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, Courcelles 05:46, 26 December 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, Courcelles 00:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage. -—Kvng 04:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 anyone believes there is something worth merging somewhere, let me know and I'll restore the article temporarily for that purpose. Otherwise, it's tough to close an AfD as "merge" without a merge target specified. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 19:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Dudley Portman[edit]

Jane Dudley Portman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, and nothing worth merging beyond what is already in Rob Portman's article. Article written by editor bearing the name of Portman's PAC, " Ohio's Future" DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - does not appear notable in her own right. Deb (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:19, 21 December 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, Courcelles 05:52, 26 December 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, Courcelles 00:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 19:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith Staybrite[edit]

Zenith Staybrite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable company -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:11, 21 December 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, Courcelles 05:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The firm appear as one of "four major companies" in the UK double-glazing industry criticised in a Which? report in 2010: [13]. And earlier, there is this BBC report on the impact on workers of the previous firm going into administration. AllyD (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This firm appears to be several layers down in corporate structures: taken over in 2008 by Weatherseal (no article) and now part of My House Group (no article). AllyD (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient evidence that the company/brand is notable in its own right. AllyD (talk) 10:09, 26 December 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, Courcelles 00:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No standalone notability. I'd go for a redirect but there's no article for the parent company. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Weatherseal needs to be created so that this article can be moreged into to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 19:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soundings Program[edit]

Soundings Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Declined prod. GregJackP Boomer! 02:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]