Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 7

< 6 December 8 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delia Duca

Delia Duca (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)

Fails WP:ANYBIO - she needs to win Miss Universe otherwise WP:NN, so WP:TOOSOON MJH (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at the posting times above. We posted our comments on completely different days. I responded further to this nonsense at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Christela --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 19:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Hewitt

Josephine Hewitt (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)

Fails WP:ANYBIO, needs to win Miss Universe, otherwise WP:TOOSOON MJH (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our "reasonings" are valid. Just because we agree doesn't mean we're sockpuppets of each other. Perhaps you should remember to assume good faith, BabbaQ, and maybe visit the notability noticeboard where I started a discussion a few days ago. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Universe Denmark, and do the same for all beauty pageant contestant articles where the only justification is that they competed in a pageant and there are no other sources to indicate additional notability. I found absolutely nothing beyond Miss Universe for this lady. Mabalu (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed her name is correctly spelled "Josefine". Now I know this, I see she was a contestant in Denmark's Next Top Model and also something called Miss Dinamarca, whatever that is, but still not enough to support keeping.Mabalu (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have an established practice where winners of major national competitions are sufficiently notable for an individual article. Repeated common practice is a guideline. As far as my personal interests are concerned, and in consideration of the small amount of information, we might usefully combine some of these., but that should be a general discussion, not here, where it is obviously receiving little attention. (It might depend on the relative importance of the different competitions, a question about which I have no knowledge), So, keep for now. (since this particular individual has a little more information than some of the others, it might possibly be justified even if the others are combined. but we should decide that first. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to Josefine Hewitt as per FreeRangeFrog's statement on Alexia Viruez AFD. If there is precedent, that's good enough for me. Mabalu (talk) 20:08, 14 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,  Sandstein  10:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Courcelles 06:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie den Dekker

Nathalie den Dekker (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)

Fails WP:ANYBIO. No other Miss Nederland has an article either. WP:NN until she wins Miss Universe WP:TOOSOON! MJH (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't think this is a true ONEEVENT situation. Qualifying for the Miss Universe pageant involves winning a series of regional (and then national) preliminary pageants. I would look to WP:NSPORT for comparison... Winning the Miss Netherlands contest can be equated to winning a national/divisional title in an international sports league, a title that qualifying the winner to move on to the international championship. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: Both Habagat and user sue rangell has one thing in common they !voted on all these Miss Universe 2012 contestants AfDs within a few minutes time. And with the same reasonings on them all.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to this comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Christela --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually, while the other AFD nominations in this batch are all better off as redirects, this one may warrant a keep. The subject has been in several international contests since 2010, and I see Google News archive coverage (in various languages!) of those contests, so as BlueBoar points out, not strictly One Event. Not really an appropriate single redirect for this person. Mabalu (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have an established practice where winners of major national competitions are sufficiently notable for an individual article. Repeated common practice is a guideline. As far as my personal interests are concerned, and in consideration of the small amount of information, we might usefully combine some of these., but that should be a general discussion, not here, where it is obviously receiving little attention. (It might depend on the relative importance of the different competitions, a question about which I have no knowledge), So, keep for now. (since this individual has more information than some of the others, it might be justified even if the others are combined. but we should decide that first. Accepting Mabalu's evaluation, this group of nominations would seem indiscriminate; these articles are just as worthless to me as they are to the nominator, but that's no reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Some reference was made to a convention that all secondary schools are considered notable. I will put aside for the moment the debate over whether this institution is indeed a secondary school or not. Here is what policy actually says on schools,

A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.

There may well be a convention amongst some editors that secondary schools are to be considered notable. This does not mean that they are automatically notable. It only means that we all assume that sources could be found if searched for for any secondary school. If challenged, we then need to put that assumption to the test and actually find some sources. There are none in the article and none have been presented in this debate. My own searching found only one news article [1], but since WP:ORG (the only policy or guideline to specifically address notability of schools) further says,

A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.

and the source covers only the tangential matter of the college sports day, then this is not enough. Further,

Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead.

is positively implying that not all schools should have an article. As DGG implied, there may well be non-English and non-internet sources available. If these should come to light, the article can be restored. SpinningSpark 18:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KIPS College

KIPS 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)

Non-notable school Keri (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions--- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As with other types of articles, we do not delete an article because editors have not yet cited their sources, but only if there is no evidence that independent, reliable sources exist. In the isolated instances where such schools have been deleted at WP:AfD, editors were commonly unable to independently verify much more than the school's existence, and sometimes not even that much. The school's own website, information the school submits to other websites or organizations, and the school district or governing authority's publications are not considered independent sources, even though they may be reliable sources.

I did some Google searching myself and I couldn't find anything other than blogs and primary sources. If someone can find one secondary RS, my vote changes to Keep. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:13, 4 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 23:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • actually, the distinction is between offering a degree or not. A certificate of matriculation or graduation is the secondary school equivalent of a degree, at least in most countries. Whether it's commercial and run for profit or not is irrelevant. In my experience both have an equal likelihood of dubious existence (uncommon, but it happens) or hopeless spam (very much more likely) . DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The discussion is a no consensus, but Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 November 30 pushes us to a delete as copyvio. Courcelles 06:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Future Cut

Future Cut (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 topic appears to likely fail WP:BAND. Google news archives consist of passing mentions; the articles mention Future Cut, but are typically about the people that comprise it's duo, rather than about the duo itself. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:29, 16 November 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, —Theopolisme 15:55, 23 November 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, —cyberpower ChatLimited Access 18:41, 30 November 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 23:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The developing consensus is keep and rename ; I'll do the necessary move DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nasen

Nasen (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 has insufficient sources mostly affiliated with the association. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Mediran talk to me! 23:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:50, 16 November 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, —Theopolisme 15:43, 23 November 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,  Gongshow Talk 17:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- I have found the organisation on the Charity Commission website (with the name in full - as well as the acronym) and have amended the lead in consequence. Its governing instrument is described as a memo and articles, which implies that it is alos a company. Its revenue is stated to be £893000 (Charity Commission annual return). It looks like the leading organisation in its field. While the trunover is not enormous, it is clearly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rename -- The organization meets WP:GNG, but the use of the acronym instead of the full name is problematic. The article does, however, need to be expanded with third-party sources. I'll see if I can't add a few. Phoenixred (talk) 18:22, 3 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 23:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Charity Commission website clearly shows the correct full name is "National Association ...". Moving will leave a redirect from NASEN, which should be quite sufficient. WP dislikes acryonyms. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Large number of google Books hits on NASEN and "National Association for Special Educational Needs" ... many independent of the organization itself. I took the liberty of renaming the article from the acronym (NASEN) to the full name, since that seemed most consistent with WP naming policies, and because a few editors above recommended renaming. After re-naming, I noticed one editor (Presidentman) thought the acronym was better .... apologies for overlooking that. Feel free to move back if desired. --Noleander (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nukees

Nukees (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 webcomic series that appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (web). Several searches have not yielded results in reliable sources. Google News archive sources of the reliable variety consist of passing mentions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:27, 16 November 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, —Theopolisme 15:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible keep - It seems this is an indie webcomic so I haven't found much but I found two articles from University of Berkeley here and here which may indicate he is rather well-known among the science community for this comic. Google News archives found one passing mention here which may have been the article the nominator mentioned, Google Books found one mention here though I can't see all of the preview's content. Regarding the article mentioning his cameo where he is duplicated a million times, this blog supports that (although this may not be the most notable or reliable source). I lean towards keep because receiving recognition from the science community may suggest something of notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:19, 23 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:17, 30 November 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 23:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've looked at the two University of Berkeley newsletter articles. The creator of this comic was a student at that school, the student newspaper printed the comic, this just looks like typical WP:ROUTINE school newsletter stories, not a sign that the the comic is "rather well-known among the science community" as the above "possible keep" commenter thinks may be the case. So, I still say "delete." Rangoondispenser (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Looking at SwisterTwister's references, I don't think they are substantial coverage enough to base an article on, which means that WP:V#Notability applies.  Sandstein  10:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I don't think there's consensus & not enough new people to the discussion are interested that it is likely to develop here. I recommend continuing the discussion on the article talk p. about whether this should be a separate article, and if so, what to name it. DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Adrianople (1365)

Battle of Adrianople (1365) (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)

Clearly a case of mistaken interpretation of the sources, see here Constantine ✍ 11:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 13:25, 22 November 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, KTC (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Did some quick research, and it indeed looks like there was a battle there, fought by the Ottomomans, and they made the city their capital after the battle. Article needs work, but keep IMHO. I would be personally interested to know more about the event, so a page on it would be interesting to me ! Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where exactly did you find that there was a battle in Adrianople in 1365? A "quick research" is not enough, the issue is rather complex. Please see the link to my talk page above on the sources and dating of the events on the Ottoman conquest of the city. The battle of 1365 is simply the Battle of Maritsa according to the Turkish sources' chronology. Constantine ✍ 11:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete After looking at the source quoted by the nominator on his user page, together with other material available online, I am led to the conclusion that the nominator has somewhat overstated his grounds for nomination. The nominator's source is (unless I am much mistaken) this master's thesis from Bilkent University (interestingly, by a student with a Greek name). While I realise that this has little to do with the nominator's conclusion that the Ottoman capture of Adrianople took place in about 1369 (and I am tentatively inclined to agree with this), I note with slight confusion that, while the section of the thesis quoted by the nominator seems to incline to a date of 1371 or even later for the capture, the rest of the thesis seems rather vague on dates for anything after 1359 and the chronology at the end of the thesis gives a date of 1361 for "Adrianople" (which seems to be the conventional date in Turkish and some other older historiography). But I would also note that the thesis (which is mainly about the topography of the Ottoman conquest of Thrace) mentions no fewer than three sites for battles near Adrianople between 1361 and 1371, each of which can be cited in at least some other sources (though not always the same ones) and each of which seems to be referred to as the Battle of Adrianople: Sazlıdere (41°37′N 26°41′E / 41.61°N 26.68°E / 41.61; 26.68) to the south-east of Adrianople (probably sometime between 1361 and 1363); somewhere near Sarayakpinar 41°47′N 26°29′E / 41.78°N 26.48°E / 41.78; 26.48) to the north of Adrianople (the Battle of Sırp Sındığı in about 1364); and Tzernomianon, modern Ormenio (41°43′N 26°13′E / 41.72°N 26.22°E / 41.72; 26.22), to the west of Adrianople (the Battle of Maritsa in 1371). Of these, while three different battles in the same area within ten years seem by no means impossible, the only one that seems to be absolutely certain (and not possibly a result of confusion of primary sources) is the last one. And it is plausible, but not certain, that one or other of the three led to the Ottoman capture of Adrianople. Under the circumstances, it seems likely that the article is meant to be about (and thus a duplicate of) the Battle of Sırp Sındığı - but a redirect there is probably not sensible as it is by no means certain that this battle (which was probably not in 1365) resulted in the capture of Adrianople, and somewhat possible that the battle itself is a historical mirage caused by some Turkish chronicler misdating the Battle of Maritza. Finally, I would note that while in this case deletion is probably the least bad option, there will be a fair amount of cleanup to be done afterwards on other articles - this article has a number of inward links and at least some of them might lead to the recreation of something very close to the present article sometime in the future. PWilkinson (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Deathlibrarian. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Users who vote "keep" should provide a source that claims there was a so called "Battle of Adrianople in 1365". How can we have an article about a battle which is not referenced anywhere? --Phso2 (talk) 23:27, 6 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 23:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Na Gaeil Óga CLG

Na Gaeil Óga CLG (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)

Fails WP:N. Local team playing at the lowest level, without historical achievements that would make it notable. Only established in 2011. Fram (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to have general notability, arts in most national papers and the like. GAA is by definition local, and the club seems to ahev some achievments now, and that its an all-Irish club too. 137.43.182.149 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Local team!? Nominator clearly knows little about the working of Gaelic games. All clubs are local. What does being founded in 2011 have to do with anything? And I see sources from two different newspapers there. --86.40.192.252 (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, local team, playing at the lowest level, far removed from even the Dublin Senior Football Championship. And being recent means that this isn't a club with a history which just happens to have drifted to the lower leagues by now, but that there is no history to search for. Fram (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You insist there is no history ... well ... "history was made" [2] "first all-Irish-speaking GAA club in the capital" [3] Glenswilly didn't have much of a history until recently either - now they have an All-Ireland winning captain, an NFL-winning captain, two All Stars and a senior county championship. But apart from your chronic historical revisionism, these are reliable sources, independent of the subject, which were already in the article when you nominated it for deletion. --86.40.107.14 (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Trivia isn't history. I believe for most people, the difference between the historical achievements of Glenswilly, and the petite histoire of Na Gaeil, are quite clear. Fram (talk) 08:43, 19 November 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, —Theopolisme 02:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be kept, completeness and those pesky redlinks annoy me! 86.45.44.93 (talk) 19:39, 26 November 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, KTC (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be kept, I think it reaches the notability standard, and if it doesn't there is a lot of culling to do on similar level clubs around the 'pedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.44.93 (talk) 21:45, 2 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 23:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


came across this too; http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/na-gaeil-og-dublin-705390-Dec2012/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.182.225 (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Whether a subject is "legal" is no reason for deletion, however, the claim of non-notability stands, and is a reason to delete. Courcelles 06:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PassThePopcorn

PassThePopcorn (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:NN and illegal too. MJH (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 22:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Teens

The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Teens (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 no assertion of any notability. No independent refs at all. Written as an essay. Highly likely to be advertisement masquerading as an article.  Velella  Velella Talk   23:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Harrison

Duncan Harrison (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)

While the competition / TV Series The Speaker may be notable (albeit borderline), this individual is definitely not notable. Winning the show is his only claim to notability, he has done nothing else, so I propose that the article be deleted and any mention of him be restricted to the main TV show article. Bob Re-born (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Mizer

Philip Mizer (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 priest with no claim of notability (no significant life achievements, no significant post in the religious hierarchy). I've prodded this before, the creator, Roltz (talk · contribs), rm my prod notice in the article and on talk without any comment. He has created a number of similar bios, so I'd recommend a review of all of his recent new articles; I've just prodded another one: Andrew Ablameyko. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero notability, fails basic criteria for a bio. --Phazakerley (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco José Andrés Romero

Francisco José Andrés Romero (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn (non-admin closure). WWGB (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kirsch (musician)

Sarah Kirsch (musician) (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)

Fails WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC. — WylieCoyote 21:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted per CSD A1 & A7. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy On

Comedy On (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)
10 Cosins Entertainement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Company and planned film created by user with a likely COI. The company has supposedly two films planned "Comedy On" and Comedy On 2" for 2013 & 2014. The fact that the film is directed, produced, written by, music by, starring and distributed by a company owned by apparently not well known "Mustafa Farooqui" doesn't bode well. I'm certainly willing to re-consider if someone with more detailed knowledge of Pakistani film can provide sources, but at the moment this is raising too many red flags. Travelbird (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. It is an editorial decision whether to merge into an article on the prank and its consequences, which could certainly be split out from its current location. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christian

Mike Christian (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)

Small-time local disc jockey, tagged as possibly non-notable for three years. Subject isn't notable as a DJ - the article has had only one ref for most of its existence, which merely mentions his name in a list of other DJs. Recently-added refs only mention him within the context of a recent Kate Middleton-related hoaxing incident, which also fails to establish notability (WP:BLP1E). --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response -------

Disagree. This guy while somewhat notable in Australia before the hoaxing incident, the hoaxing incident is actually a rather massive-scale incident that people will be interested to read about. Unfortunately for this pair of hosts, they are now internationally infamous/notorious for the prank which was big enough to put a black mark on the pregnancy of the British Royal family. Regardless of his level of fame before the recent hoax, he is now infamous.

FURTHERMORE, I noticed your edit to the article removing the word "Controversial" and stating it was a pov term. In fact my previous addition to the article received a warning from Altered Walter: 

(Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Mike Christian. (TW))

So either it is controversial by moderator standard, or it isn't? 203.23.210.123 (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're getting at, but I think the word "controversial" was being used in two different ways: one refers to the information that you added (which was controversial, mostly due to being unsourced at first), while the other usage was referring to the prank itself. I removed that descriptor because I didn't think it added much, it's a bit of a loaded term, and it's generally a word to avoid. Your other edits, which were well-referenced, have been left mostly intact. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. 203.23.210.123 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable secondary sources? One of the sources was a video of the CEO of Hospital himself making an announcement about the issue. A quick search on google will provide a billion results for it. Do you expect to find something more reliable about the issue in a printed encyclopedia? 203.23.210.123 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are many reliable sources establishing notability of "the issue", but I cannot find anything showing the notability of Mike Christian outside of this. This article is not about "the issue" it is about Mr. Christian, and he isn't independently notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
given he is a DJ (or was...) for a top rating Australian radio station, with a track record in the Australian radio industry, he is very much notable. Btw, can't be arsed logging in, just pointing ou the absurdity of your assertion!). - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
isn't a WP:BLP concern to link the death with this individual? The event is notable but I don't see how he is for one event. LibStar (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I first heard about this from TV on in fast food joint midnight Friday US ET. I didn't know who the people involved were, and it seemed important enough (after the purported suicide by the victim) that there should be a listing about who these people were SOMEWHERE. I came to Wikipedia to look it up, and was surprised that it was being discussed for deletion. I would keep it for a week, just to see how it plays out, but really, it could be part of a sea change in how we see pranking as "a bit of harmless fun," or something potentially dangerour. I really think the article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.30.244 (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC) I should have signed in for this. Sorry. I'll try to do better in future. (User: FrRob)[reply]

— 64.134.30.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

  • Comment Notability has been established for the prank, but not for the pranksters. I can't see notability established here per WP:BIO or WP:ENTERTAINER, and can only find one mention of him online [5] in WP:Reliable sources apart from the current flurry of mentions of his name (and that of the other DJ involved) in connection with this prank. DGG and AutomaticStrikeout: Wouldn't it be better to create an article about the prank? Altered Walter (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think that there is any doubt as to the notability of the prank. But the prank itself is not what this article is about. It is about one of the pranksters, who is completely non-notable outside of the prank. Notability is not inherited. I hope that those with the opinion to keep will reconsider, or at the very least, consider a merge into the main article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "prank" may be notable, the perpetrator certainly is not (WP:ONEEVENT). WWGB (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of the prank, which absolutely makes him now notable (see this as an example of an article about him, not just the prank), he was hosting a major radio show on a major radio network, (so not BLP1E and not a "small-time local DJ". He broadcasts to the little town called "Sydney"!) which almost certainly would make him the subject of multiple significant coverage in independent reliable sources, if not now, but as the cycle of publicity and cross promotion works in the media. He'd been in that position for about a week before the prank call, so the previously applied notability tag may have been correct beforehand, but he is clearly notable now. The-Pope (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, The-Pope: he was possibly not notable before, but is definitely notable now for this WP:ONEEVENT? The article you cite above talks mainly about the prank, and that he annoyed someone on a plane by playing the harmonica. I agree that a DJ at a major station in a large cite should almost certainly be the subject of multiple significant coverage in independent reliable sources, but I've found almost nothing about him online apart from coverage of the prank. So shouldn't this be merged to 2Day FM#2Day FM hoax call resulting in recipient' suspected suicide, or both merged to a new article about the prank? If significant pre-prank coverage of him is there and I've simply missed it, then I'd vote to keep. Thanks, Altered Walter (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
pope "almost certainly would make him the subject of multiple significant coverage in independent reliable sources," please provide evidence of coverage about him not relating to this controversy. LibStar (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was in the job for only a week before the prank call so discounting any coverage post the call is illogical and missing the point. He has now been the subject of significant coverage, as per the link I provided above. The-Pope (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then WP:BLP1E applies, he is only notable because of this stunt. LibStar (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a first time a BLP1E has been claimed for a week old event for a three year old article. 2 years ago, when I added the first ref for the article, I made the comment "for a high rating dj, he's got virtually no coverage." I wonder if his lack of coverage (actually it's a lack of google coverage) is real or a function of his common/miscellaneous names? Do you search for Mike Christian, Michael Christian (but filter out the ex-Collingwood footballer who's now a TV/Radio sports commentator), Nollsy or MC (which is virtually impossible to search for online)? Why would you exclude detailed biographical articles in major newspapers, solely because they postdate the prank? (here's another one, by the way. The-Pope (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of a better time to nominate since it hadn't already been done. --Nouniquenames 02:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • except he was on the hot 30 countdown for only one week, for the previous few years, as per the reliable sources in the article from both before and after the prank call, he was on other radio shows in Melbourne and Perth. The-Pope (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Courcelles 06:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewalling

Stonewalling (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)

Dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Bazonka (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing as a Behavioral sciences wiki project, but I have notified the others. Bazonka (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 09:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Class Empire

Invisible Class Empire (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)

Page on NN term of NN book, created to coordinate a as a school project Travelbird (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is based upon a concept in two sociological textbooks, The New Class Society and Social Inequality and Social Stratification in US Society, with the former being the progenitor of the term and the latter dropping "Class" from "Invisible Class Empire." This is not slang that one would find in the Urban Dictionary, but is rather a technical scholastic term used in sociology and other social science fields. Asdimd (talk) 20:19, 5 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) 20:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need to show that this term is widely accepted in the scientific/historical community. So far it only seems to be used in the one book. The other book uses "Invisible Empire" which is a different term. From this sit seems that the term is not widely used and thus does not warrant its own Wikipedia page as it at this stage seems to be more of a proposed concept. Travelbird (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding, same term different wording. By what you stated above, then any interchangeable terms should have independent pages for each term. If redirect for Invisible Empire (Sociology) => Invisible Class Empire should be created. In response to the nomination: Term meets notability as it's in at least 2 sources (likely more if I cared to go look, but don't have the extra time during finals week. -_-), and book is notable as it is used as an academic text at several Universities. AndrewN talk 20:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Article covers a non-notable neologism that does not exist outside a couple of obscure and soon-to-be-forgotten books. This article appears to be part of some ill-conceived class project cooked up by an associate prof at Oklahoma State U., whose students would be better served if they were assigned to write normal papers. Belchfire-TALK 05:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a project conceived by my self, these students' instructor, but is part of projects for the Wikipedia Education Program. Asdimd (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you feel that the Wikipedia Education Project is ill-conceived and not beneficial to students, then you should direct your comments towards the responsible persons at the Wikimedia Foundation rather than take it out on the students who are working to create this article. As for your delete comment: How do you know the books cited are "obscure" and "soon-to-be-forgotten?" From a quick glance over your user page, it appears you are obsessed with motor sports which leads me to believe you don't have a background in Social Sciences. Furthermore, to the best of my understanding, this is not a Neologism, and is actually a term that has been in use in social sciences for several years now and is widely-enough used it's in at least 2 text books. In my opinion, this is far from a "newly-coined term" as WP:NEO describes. AndrewN talk 20:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is a student project as part of the Wikipedia United States Education Program. The article covers an academic term from the Sociology field and is referenced in AT LEAST 2 academic texts. The article is still undergoing development as part of a class project. AndrewN talk 20:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep C. Wright Mills' book came out in the 50's, Eisenhower's speech about the military-industrial complex was in 1961, and Kennedy's speech to The American Newspaper Publishers Association was made in the same year... This topic has been around for a long time though the term changes, and so the article needs to remain, only with some 'disambiguation.'Bsmith2012 (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there's sufficient sourcing, but it needs expansion; it's asserted it should be in more books--as it's a class project, the class should now go and find them. I note it is the responsibility of those running a school project to try to have the project's articles clearly notable, and sufficiently sourced, to fit our ordinary rules--and, to ensure a good experience for the students by making reasonably certain there will be no good faith challenge. And the Online Ambassadors should have enough understanding of WP both to do this, and to make an effective defense if the article is challenged after all. They should know that they must defend the article , and are no more entitled to rely on status than anyone else here, or blame another editor for not having an appropriate academic background. "on the basis of my understanding" is not an argument here--it has to be shown by sources. (as I said, I think it is shown by good sources to a fully sufficient degree, which is the necessary and appropriate argument.)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 06:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warcraft Classes: Warlock

World of Warcraft Classes: Warlock (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)

Some time ago, the community went through a painful process of removing many of these WoW fan articles. There are many, many, MANY sites, 2 of which are the only non-publisher sources for the article that are appropriate for providing how-to and class-detail about this very popular game. The PROD was removed without comment. User talk:Unfriend12 20:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sally McLean

Sally McLean (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)

Fails WP:CREATIVE, no independent citation to confirm notability. WWGB (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 4 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) 19:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - IMDb and her official website's credits show insufficient work. Although it seems she works more with plays and theatre productions, she hasn't had much recently and her TV roles are minor. Google News found a relevant result here and Google Books found a book she authored here. While searching Google News and Books with her recent work, fixNATION, P.S I Love You, Brigit & Benny Zoraide and Dowsabel but found nothing useful, however, I found an insufficient blog here for Dowsabel. Noticing the few awards listed at her website, I searched but found nothing reliable and third-party. I am not questioning the truthfulness of the information but reliable and third-party sources are required. A website for one of her plays, Till The Boys Come Home, lists some reviews but they wouldn't be helpful for this particular article. SwisterTwister talk 20:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per notability test failures listed in previous comments. This page was probably created a little prematurely... Unus Multorum (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Esoteric programming language. Courcelles 06:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chef (programming language)

Chef (programming language) (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 doesn't cite any references other than external links with dubious reliability. The article also appears to be original research, and in a somewhat non-encyclopaedic style. Topperfalkon (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is true. My intended merger would not include the extended example. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (NAC) Rotten regard 20:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clementine (The Walking Dead)

Clementine (The Walking Dead) (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)

Completely trivial and unnotable. No independent references. Barsoomian (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am making the article right now... Be patient... FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 18:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have referenced the article well for it to be verifiable and a well-recieved character of the The Walking Dead series... Now obviously, we will require something called "time" and occasional help from other members who are well-versed in The Walking Dead universe to develop this article into a stronger one... FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 19:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the references cited are about the game itself. They mention the character in passing. It remains a trivial and unnotable subject for a stand-alone article. Should be no more than a paragraph in the article about the game. Barsoomian (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't had that sort of intention... I mentioned above that "we will require occasional help from other members who are well-versed in The Walking Dead universe to develop this article into a stronger one..."... I had good intentions... I had put an Template:under construction before this was nominated for deletion... FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 07:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You also added it to the Walking Dead navbox. If you hadn't insisted on awarding it that importance I would not have cared. If it isn't ready then don't go linking it around. 90% of the article is in-universe, description of gameplay. The citations are all general reviews of the game, with a few words about the character. All of them duplicating the references in Lee Everett. And then you canvassed about 10 editors to try to stack the AfD. Barsoomian (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Character is notable and verifiable so it can't be deleted... If you can move this article into a "Characters in..." then I am okay with it... But you can't "delete" it because the character is notable and verifiable... FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 12:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notable is your opinion, not a fact. Lots of things are verifiable and trivial. Means nothing. Barsoomian (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- but disclaimer is that I was one of those FF canvassed, though I've never worked on this article (But did the main game and Lee Everett the game's protagonist). The game is extremely notable and while that doesn't mean notability extends to the character, Clementine is a significant element of the game. Additionally, just tonight, this role won for best female performs at the Spike Video Game awards ([10]). Between what's already here, this new information, and the existing analysis already in the main game article that can be reused here (such as a series of articles from Giant Bomb in discussions with the game developers about their writing choices and thus the importance of Clemenetine), I'm pretty confident the character is notable. --MASEM (t) 07:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clementine is a character in the game alone. She does not appear in any of the other WD media. She has no existence outside one game and no need for a separate article. A section of the game article is more appropriate. Further, now I've looked at Lee Everett, I see that every single reference cited in the Clementine aricle was used in that. So if not with the game, Clementine could me merged with Lee Everett to make a "Characters in ..." article. Barsoomian (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all of Ugly Betty character articles have no references at all and not even notable... And they don't appear outside TV series... Should we delete them all too...? At least this main character is award-winning, notable and properly referenced... However, I have two problems about the proposal to merge and make a "Characters in..." article... (1) we won't be able to stress on the positive critical reception they received... (2) the "characters in..." would be huge because there are all lot of secondary characters in game... We rather have two mid-length articles for the primary notable characters...? No? And also you should change your vote from "Delete" to "Merge" or "Move"... FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 12:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAP is not a valid reason to keep an article. And just saying over and over that it's "notable" without proof is just noise. A character in one game who has not one single reference that is primarily about it is not notable. Barsoomian (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever you think is best. I am out of this now and going to contribute in some other side of Wikipedia. FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 14:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm working in CRYSTAL territory, but there has been a second "season" announced for this game, and certainly will involve more Clementine. I would agree that probably in the long run it might be better to talk about Lee and Clementine in the current game article, but that's not due to the fact that these two characters are individually notable per the GNG. I suspect FF borrowed the sources from Lee to make this article (the synopsis is near the same), so of course the sourcing will be similar, but there's more that can be added. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, by the way, the claim that just being a character in only one game and thus not deserving of an article is patently false. Nor is the claim that we need a reliable source entirely about the character. All we need is significant coverage in secondary sources, and evidence for that is there - it just needs time to flesh out. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It just needs time to flesh out", which means this article is too soon and needs to begin as a "List of characters in..." — WylieCoyote 15:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"All we need is significant coverage in secondary sources." Come back when there is. Barsoomian (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should it have began in the main game article or a separate list of characters? Sure, I would have likely done that myself. But it was created before then, and so the immediate push to delete is quiet improper since some notability has been shown. AFD is not article improvement. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominating this for deletion the second it was created was very premature. The user is working on it, and already has very good sources in it. If they manage to find more, this could be a nice article. Let the user work on it and see what happens. When the time comes, bring it among yourselves whether or not it looks good and decide without bringing it to AfD. From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion:
"For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately."
Articles needing redirection do not need to be at AfD... Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominating an article for deletion within a few minutes of its creation when it has an under-construction template is disruption. Videogames are now a bigger business than movies and so the lead characters in major productions should be given some respect. The worst case would be merger into the main article about the game and so deletion is never a sensible option in such cases. Warden (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing me of "disruption" for not showing the proper "respect" to video games is highly offensive, and highly stupid, and you also harrassed me on my talk page. The ONLY reason I responded to this article was that that had been linked into a major template, by the creator two minutes after he began it. If it wasn't ready to be critiqued, he should have worked on it for a while before making a big splash and making it appear on dozens of pages that include the navbox. And an AFD runs for at least a week, it's still there now, but you act as if I had somehow actually already deleted the article stillborn. Barsoomian (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except it is disruptive to take newly created articles - under 20 minutes from creation - and AFD them when they don't otherwise fail the CSD criteria. Because there is no DEADLINE, there is no need to rush to remove material that is otherwise not patently false nor potentially a legal problem for WP. Maintenance tag it, sure, or come back after a few days and re-evaluate it, but not 20 minutes from creation. --MASEM (t) 04:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting pretty sick of you and other fans attacking me over and over here and on my talk page. Barsoomian (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was also canvassed, so I'm not going to !vote, but I will say that if this article is not kept, it could be merged into the video game article. BOZ (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see mentions of her a lot, and not just passively. People state her importance in the game and go into detail why. [11] Many sources found, many more out there, altogether I say that proves she is notable enough to have her own article. Dream Focus 22:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please note that I was canvassed on my talk page. That being said, however, I do believe this article should be kept. If it were a straight plot description with no outside sources I'd argue for a redirect, but this article has plenty of verifiable reliable outside sources, and the article goes into more detail than just plot, i.e. the conception, reception and awards sections. It also appears to be early in the life of this article, so it appears it will only improve from here. — Hunter Kahn 22:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with an advisory note that I was canvassed (please don't do that). The sources are adequate for both reception and creation, and likely the only reason why it uses the same sources is because it borrowed from the Lee article for referencing. In my search, Clementine has had plenty of coverage; I still have to cite an episode of Playing Dead that adds further information about her creation. Needless to say, there exists plenty of content on the character, which will likely grow with her voice actress' recent award. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she and Lee are the two stars of the game which became GOTY at the VGAs. Numerous websites praise her like IGN and Gamespot, and forums love her as well. She is known just as well as "T-Dog" for God's sakes and he has a page.Jokersflame (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Walking Dead, a "list of characters in...". Although it was prematurely nominated, it's now been two days and it still doesn't have any independent references that show evidence of notability. Sure, the existing references does mention her (as you'd expect when she appears to be a central part of the game), but that does not constitute notability by itself. Bjelleklang - talk 22:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does. Notability doesn't require that the references directly address the topic as their main subject, and there are many independent available sources that cover her with more than in-passing mentions. Diego (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a quick Google search ended up with this article: http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/clementine-gamings-cutest-shotgun-on-the-wall
Basically, I do consider this to have in this case some explicitly independent notability where this character is being singled out. As for if this one article is sufficient to notability, that can be defended separately, but "doesn't have any independent references" is simply a flat out false statement as this article I've dug up clearly establishes that kind of reference you claim doesn't exist. As for if it is wise to have this as a completely separate article, I'd call that a borderline case and not something clearly defined according to Wikipedia policy. There appears to be sufficient information to make something of an article, although making this a major section in the main article is mostly style over substance here. Another article like this would be nice to have in terms of establishing independent notability. I haven't really dug around that much either to see what else there might be. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a character in the game and is a part of a project to create character pages for characters in said game. If you are going to delete this one, then they should all be deleted/merged. MisterShiney ✉ 16:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And so if any one character has an article, every single one must? Notability is not inherited, it must be established for each article. And this "project" of character pages seems to have only one other member. Only the most significant should have a stand alone article. Normally, there would be a section the game article for characters. If that becomes large enough, it would be split to a "Characters in..." page. If an individual character section gets big enough, that is split in turn. This article just skipped all those stages and went from nothing to slightly more than nothing, but in a separate article. And immediately the author started linking his new article into lists when it was just a few lines long. Barsoomian (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue at hand is if this particular character has some sort of independent notability for this article to stand on its own. In other words, are reliable sources talking about this topic in a degree sufficient to actually write a reasonable article and to provide sufficient details to make it something worth reading? I would also argue that a more journalistic "2nd source" is useful for verifiability, as in multiple people talking about the items included into the article. As for if there is just one or multiple characters, that is completely separate as to the notability of the characters themselves as opposed to the game they came from... better yet if those characters are in multiple games and media forms (aka a movie, comic strip, etc.) There appear to be several people mentioning this character independently in what could be called reliable sources about video games. I think that matters a little bit in terms of this discussion about keeping or deleting this article. More importantly, this AfD really didn't need to happen as it really is ending up to be a keep/merge discussion and not a keep/delete. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When the AFD was proposed, there wasn't anything in it worth merging. Most of the content has been added since then. (Much copied from other articles on the game though.) Barsoomian (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not surprised when it would seem that you put the article up for deletion, what 15 minutes after it was created? Linking articles is standard practice to prevent them becoming an Orphan. MisterShiney ✉ 07:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, "standard practice" is to link to dozens of pages two minutes after an article is created as a stub. You learn something every day. Barsoomian (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. Reason: she's only in 1 game. I spent quite some effort building up Sheva Alomar (who's much more notable than Clementine - lots of reception, merchandise, etc.), but she was in only 1 game, so she's now in the list (as redirected there by me myself). Also, as for the claim of "The game is extremely notable and while that doesn't mean notability extends to the character" - nope, too ("This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale."). Merge wherever. --Niemti (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also: The award fro Melissa Hutchinson should rather belong to the article Melissa Hutchinson. --Niemti (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both points are patently untrue. Being in only one game does not entail that a character not have an article. Otherwise, GLaDOS would not have had an article back when she was only in one game. It's all about the substance and quality of what reliable secondary sources have to say about her, and what the creators say about her history. As for Hutchinson, she won the award for her portrayal of Clementine. Your argument that it shouldn't be on this article fails because the character was mentioned in the award, and is the reason she won the award. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it was still Melissa Hutchinson who won the award, for "Best Performance By a Human Female". Sheva was in one 1 game (and in no other media except some advertising stuff), so there was not much to write about the character other than plot-sperging about this 1 game - now compare with the other RE characters that have their articles, and where their roles in the games are often covered in just few sentence - or even 1 (for example, 3 different games are covered in just 1 sentence in Claire Redfield, and this is all OK). And it's relevant to the article because they're all from zombie games. And Clementine's "Appearances" (plural, about her single appearance) section is an example of what I talk about - this 1 game there is of the size of Claire's 2 big games plus 5 other games. And nothing else can't be possibly written about the character, instead of this, because there is nothing else - just like it was with Sheva Alomar (or actually even less, as Sheva had quite some promo & merch, and with Clementine there is literally NOTHING else). So: Merge Clementine (The Walking Dead) to The Walking Dead (2012 video game) (or to the list of characters, which is yet to be created), make an article Melissa Hutchinson[12]. --Niemti (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clementine was why she won. Additionally, Sheva is not a relevant subject. Additionally, merchandise is an indication of a character being ssold by its creators, not significant notability. The character has a lot of attention; your mistake is that reception and creation info is more important than merchandise and plot info. Literally nothing else is an obvious hyperbole because the character has a healthy amount of content in the two most important sections of the article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Absolutely not, Melissa Hutchinson's work "was why she won". If her work was worse, or someone else did the qually good work on the same character, Melissa Hutchinson would not receive this award (which was for her). Looking at the reception section of the character, I don't see this "a lot of attention" - only a praise for her the character as an element of the game in the reviews of the game (I didn't even bother using such stuff for Sheva), with the only exeption of an article "5 Reasons The Walking Dead Game Is Better Than The TV Show" (which is nothing outside of the franchise, and even the quote of "one of the most realistically drawn kids I've encountered in a video game in some time" is not much), plus the award for Melissa Hutchinson (in a separate setion, not less) - and that's all (but the whole article has only 8 refs). Also much of Sheva's merch was licensed, due to popularity. And I don't bring Sheva because someone merged her and now I'm bitter - I merged her (after writing most of content) and here's why. And I did so because the subject turned out to be so limited, precisely due to her single media appearance, with little other to write about it other than some plot sperging which would just duplicate the plot section of the article Resident Evil 5 and still leave the article awkward (and Clementine (The Walking Dead) is awkward as hell, with its "Appearances" about a single appearance, and the separate "Awards" section about a single award, and everything really). --Niemti (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are very wrong. Assuming this article is kept, we'd talk about the award in both places; in the actress' as it mostly her voice work that made the character, but also about the character (or if merged, about the game) since without the writing and direction, the actress wouldn't have had any lines. Praise as a character in a game is very valid reception information -- if the reviews expand on the character and don't just say something short or namedrop. And remember this article's just a week old, and the reception of the game is only just started to be built, but every reliable source I've seen on the game highlights Clementine as a major driver for the player. Now, I'm not against a merge (in fact, the more I think about it, a list may be better) but this is AFD, and the merge discussion can take place in a different venue. --MASEM (t) 04:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think I'm actually very correct. And we can't "talk about it" in Melissa Hutchinson because it doesn't exist (and nobody even commented on my pointing out that it probabably should be made), with KFM here apparently denying the award actually belongs to her and not to the character that she played. And you know what? NOW, I'm going to bitter about something, about "just a week old" - because I've seen my articles hrepeatedly reverted in a matter of hours even as they were clearly tagged as the work still in progress, with expansion tags and everything (this one isn't, so it's going to be treated as a complete article - and it's an article that is very poor and really awkward, and even so badly written that its only(!) internal link in this mis-named "Apparances" section now stands out as "Georgia[disambiguation needed]"). And what's so notable about being "a major driver for the player"? Like, uh... what? No, really, what? But anyway. I don't want it to be actually deleted, it should be redirected, at least for now, its content better used somewhere else. Very obviously so. Also a similar problem as with Sheva I've got with Heavenly Sword's Nariko - she's got TONS of reception, but only very recently she's appeared in any other game. --Niemti (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • That kind of statement makes it sound to me like you really need to not be invested in this, especially considering how bitter you are. You're so bitter about people did something that you did not like that you do exactly that to another article (or rather, encourage another user to)? Far too much of your argument is built only on "other stuff exists/doesn't exist". You may not like characters from only one game getting an article, but quite frankly, that is an opinion that has no basis. In video games, as I pointed out before, numerous characters had articles made for them with only a single game under their belt. The Big Daddy, from BioShock, received tons of attention. The titular Bayonetta (pun intended), Andrew Ryan of BioShock, GLaDOS of Portal, etc. The important thing for a character is that reliable sources took this character and discussed her in a non-trivial manner, regardless of whether or not the articles they wrote placed her as the subject of the articles, as well as the creators making an effort to fill readers in on the history and design of the character. Both are accomplished here; while they could both be better - I know for certain that both Creation and Reception sections are missing content that I have seen - they are enough to allow the article to be kept. At this stage you seem to be, in part, spiting the article. (PS: as each Episode in The Walking Dead is released separately, it constitutes "appearances".) - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Invalid proposal"? The sources, as they are, were added after the proposal. And they're mostly duplicated from other articles on the game; and the references are about the game, not the character supposedly the subject of this article. More importantly, it's still not appropriate as a subject for a stand alone article. Creation was way premature. The article should be deleted, and any text in it that wasn't cribbed from other articles could be merged into the main game article. Barsoomian (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can you tell that "Creation was way premature." after 1 edit and 16 minutes? Why did you put this to AFD if "any text in it that wasn't cribbed from other articles could be merged into the main game article"; merges do not require admin and ergo, you should have dropped merged tags on the page instead. I'm not saying that creator of this article is blameless because yes, there were other ways to start this content somewhere else in a better manner, but its here, and Wikipedia has much different ways of dealing with this type of content than outright deletion. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's premature for the reasons initially stated. As you yourself said initially. And after 4 days and 20 edits, by several people, it's no less premature. The closing admin can decide to merge if at that time the article has any substance worth it. Barsoomian (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge - With The Walking Dead (2012 video game). Not independently notable other than as a character from this one game. --Phazakerley (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - I've already voted Keep above, but I wanted to note that the recent issue of Game Informer donates six-page article to the character of Clementine herself. It's called "Creating Clementine" and has information about how her conception, how the entire game was basically designed around her, and other anecdotes like how the game's financial people were initially hesitant about basing a game so much on a child character. The article calls her "this year's most beloved protagonist" and says of her "Clementine isn't just a collection of polygons on a television screen. She's broken through the barrier, securing a place in the hearts of many, a feat most video game characters never accomplish." I think this helps further prove the article's notability, and the primary author should take a look at it and add the info to the article. — Hunter Kahn 03:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and move to Thanga Magan (2013 film). (non-admin closure) --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled A. L. Vijay Project

Untitled A. L. Vijay Project (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)

Notability issues on several levels: at the least, does not appear to adequately satisfy all of WP:NFF, even if filming has started. Notability on other, more common grounds is also questionable. besiegedtalk 18:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Go Phightins! 22:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death Before Dishonor (band)

Death Before Dishonor (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)

No evidence that the band passes WP:NBAND. Non-unique name doesn't make searching easy, but I didn't see significant coverage by reliable third party sources. I did see a one paragraph bio at Allmusic and one paragraph blurbs at Allmusic on two albums. Allmusic is a fine source, but one paragraph is tough to call "significant coverage". Nothing has ever charted. With no releases since 2009, it doesn't appear they're going to become notable anytime in the near future either. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, I see the Allmusic entries, but a single paragraph is hard to sell as "significant" coverage. Not too sure punknews would pass RS. Not really comfortable with a review by an anonymous staffer being significant either. It has a real pro/am feel to it. Has the source ever been discussed at RSN? As for the German one........I don't know what it says because I (and I suspect you) don't read German. Kind of tough to verify that as significant coverage until we get a translator. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I simply don't hold the same view. To me, a paragraph, or two, simply doesn't amount to significant coverage to me. If I considered that significant, I wouldn't have even nom'd this, since Allmusic did the obligatory single paragraph blurb. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 13:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Boldea

Cristian Boldea (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete: criteria WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Istream

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

Article is on a Indian website service. Notabaility anyone?–BuickCenturyDriver 14:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Collapse of the World Trade Center. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stairwell A

Stairwell A (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 is a WP:ONEEVENT kind of thing being that the staircase's only claim to fame was that it survived the initial impact of United Airlines Flight 175 hitting the South Tower on 9/11, thus allowing 18 people at or above the impact zone to escape the burning skyscraper before it collapsed, taking the staircase with it. As a result, the article has not been expanded since its creation more than four years ago and will likely not ever expand since it does not exist anymore. There is nothing else notable about this staircase as proven by the fact that it was not given a nickname like Survivors' Staircase (Stairwell A technically exists in every other skyscraper ever built). There have been bold attempts to merge and/or redirect to other 9/11 related articles (one of them, Collapse of the World Trade Center#Collapse of the South Tower, has the exact same information that exists in this article), but they have all been reverted and any subsequent discussions have fizzled out because this is a low-class article that is not monitored by many editors. Therefore, I feel that just deleting this article is the only way to stop any further issues that may pop up, but it is up to you as to what is the best thing to do with this article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 19:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WIRIS

WIRIS (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)

Content-free recreation of previously deleted and userfied article; prodded but prod removed, by SPA without valid rationale but now AfD is the only option.JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software product without the slightest indication of notability. If this was a company page, it would be A7 CSD worthy. But it's a product, not a company, so here we are. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing my Delete. Most of the sources given below are offline, making it hard to give them a proper evaluation, but I'll consider them to be enough to make me no longer certain enough of my "delete" to let it stand. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Angel A. Juan, ed. (2012). Teaching Mathematics Online: Emergent Technologies and Methodologies. IGI Global Snippet. pp. 335–338. ISBN 1609608763.
  • Fatos Xhafa; et al., eds. (2010). Computational Intelligence for Technology Enhanced Learning. Studies in Computational Intelligence. Vol. 273. Springer-Verlag. pp. 232–233. ISBN 3642112234.
  • Sebastián Xambó Descamps (2003). Block Error-Correcting Codes: A Computational Primer. Universitext. Springer-Verlag. pp. 221–235. ISBN 3540003959.
  • Contributions to Science. Vol. 2. Institut d'Estudis Catalans. 2001. pp. 269–275.
Why would these not establish notability? Deltahedron (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional, from the 744 hits on Google Scholar
  • Marquès, D., Eixarch, R., Casanellas, G., Martínez, B. and Smith, T.J. (2006) WIRIS OM Tools: a Semantic Formula Editor. Mathematical User Interfaces workshop, Oxford, UK, August 10th, 2006.
  • Estela, M.R. Teaching and Learning Calculus using WIRIS Technology in Moodle environment. International Congress of Mathematicians, Madrid, 2006
  • Camarero, B. Review of the teaching of geometry, EDULEARN06
Need I go on? Deltahedron (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of any reasons not to take the above as evidence of notability, I'm !voting Keep. Deltahedron (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks Deltahedron, I was about to quote a similar set of references. While the article itself is the barest stub, the WIRIS topic is notable in terms of peer-reviewed publications and secondary references, and the article should be kept. Mark viking (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Courcelles 06:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religious offense

Religious offense (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 topic appears ill-defined and thus inappropriate for an encylopedia article. PamD 12:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of Article PamD has previously slated this article for deletion on the vague grounds that it is "Unsourced, OR, not a global perspective, probably impossible to write a generalised article about "Religious offenc/se" in all the world's faiths".

Definition The definition of this topic is in the distinction that exists between religiously orthodox legal cultures and and those of secular democratic society.

As far as I know, the cultural clash between religious and secular society (crusade, jihad etc) does indeed count as a global view.

Religious offense (USA Spelling) is about offending people with religious sensitivities. It is not about religious crimes per se, except insofar as as they exist in most religions and deserve definition (plus links to detailed articles).

Appropriateness Essentially it is not logically possible to believe both in the supremacy of divine authority and in the supremacy of the will of the people in the governance of a society.

The various attempts to reconcile both - for example by Christian Democrats and popular political parties has resulted in considerable confusion about terms such as heresy and blasphemy.

If an encyclopaedia (encylopedia?) is not intended to dispel doubt, then what purpose does it properly serve? The term is linked to other articles precisely because there is bigoted obfuscation between 'sin' and 'crime' Timpo (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philemon Vanderbeck

Philemon Vanderbeck (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 this person meet Wikipedia's notability criteria? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - maybe speedy as a WP:COPYVIO - see [34]. Urgh, what a mess. The article is horrifically written and layed out, it makes some very iffy claims (reincarnated on 30 August 1965? I don't think so.) and is clearly written promotionally. It mentions a heck of a lot of awards, but there is not a single reference that is from a reliable source about this guy, much less proof he won any of these from a reliable source. Also, they all seem like very minor awards, or internal awards. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's possible the information was simply copied from the LinkedIn profile or the LinkedIn profile was also recently created. Google News archives found two relevant results here and here (minor mentions). Entirely promotional and it was a little worse before FisherQueen cleaned the article, providing "reviews" from customers. Both Google Books and additional searches of my own provided nothing useful but I found this which repeats that ridiculous "reincarnation". After a final search, I found this Northwest Ring of Fire press release that mentions he won the "Best Mental Effect" but it seems he is connected to the group so (1) this would be a primary source and (2) this award could have easily been bestowed upon himself. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG at least, ignoring the mess and the idiotic claims. §FreeRangeFrog 03:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I will change my opinion to "keep" on the condition that it be marked as fiction and given a humor banner. I will also point out that this Afd seems to have been created incorrectly, as a red link to the topic page appears on the banner. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. We gave this another week but we still have no cast iron reliable sources to rely on for this product. Keep arguments are mostly vague waves at sourcing or assertions and neither of these are sufficient to overcome the clear evidence from the delete side that reasonably thorough searches have failed to turn up anything substantial we can rely on. S.marshall has found a product comparison chart that he views as one source but has nothing more. Dreamfocus provides what they assert is a second source but this is debunked by Phil Bridger as an advertising supplement so this isn't enough. What else here? I can't accept DGG's argument that we can simkply fill the article with manufacturer sources product description as is skirts over the requirement to first show notability to keep the argument. With regard to a redirect, I don't think I need to find on that as its an editorial action not an adminstrative one but I am taken by DGG's argument that we should not merge to the main article as this material is too product specific for that. So, on balance, the consensus based on policy is that we do not host this material because there is not quite enough sourcing to meet GNG/N although V is met. I find no consensus on a redirect so will leave that for editorial judgement. Spartaz Humbug! 09:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Avaya Definity

Avaya Definity (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)

Disputed prod, difficulty in locating RS to establish GNG, written somewhat as an ad Nouniquenames 23:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A SET does not prove notability. Reliable, in-repth coverage is required. --Nouniquenames 20:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Highbeam articles appear to be nothing but press releases. These are not "historical products". They are not notable. These wiki articles appear to be created by ad agencies. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could point to a few such sources? --Nouniquenames 22:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notable based on what standard? Specific sources to pass notability guidelines have not been provided. --Nouniquenames 20:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that nobody in this discussion has addressed the potential sources found by the Google Books search linked in the nomination statement. Those links are there to inform the discussion, not to be ignored. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not equate to notability for a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying we should ignore all the specific notability guidelines and the WP "case law" that has been built up? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, which specific references did you see that were significant enough to meet WP:GNG? VQuakr (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read them, because this subject bores me. I was just pointing out that nobody can come to an informed opinion that this article should be deleted without first checking them. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you consider the possibility that those of us who did look at such results found nothing supporting a keep? --Nouniquenames 11:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a mind reader. If you don't explain where you have looked for sources then I can only assume that you have have looked nowhere beyond the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Instead attacking each other for sources both of you arguably haven't seen yet, why don't you both find any potential sources, link them here and then discuss/rebut the sources. This is just silly; both of you who should know better, this is going nowhere. Secret account 01:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Secret, I asked based on my previous experience seeing BEFORE thrown about with any hint that an editor didn't check for sources. I did check and did not find anything acceptable. When I ascertained that Mr. Bridger did not seem to mean anything unpleasant but simply did not know that I had checked, I did not feel it necessary to push the issue. Others are free to repeat my sources or any other, as I'm as capable of mistakes as anyone and may have overlooked something. --Nouniquenames 03:21, 8 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, Spartaz Humbug! 10:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting directions To establish consensus we need specific discussion of what sources are independent and reliable and how this pages meets the GNG. Assertions are worthless arguments and do not count to consensus. Evidence your opinion with reference to policy or the closing admin will ignore your vote. Please note that this has already been listed at DRV over an NAC close so this should be left to an admin to close. 'k? Spartaz Humbug! 10:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Avaya and Lucent are basically the same, this shouldn't be a reason for deletion or keeping. Someone with knowledge on this subject needs to find sources, because a quick Google search by me didn't show very much at all. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lots of WP:GHITS, but I am unable to locate any reliable, non-trivial, independent sources that would satisfy the general notability guideline. VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @:VQuakr, I am trying to understand the rationale for your Delete vote – are you saying that this article should be deleted because you have not found any online refs?
For those who think this is a reasonable approach, I dare you to look at the history of the IBM and check after how many edits the first online reference was introduced to the article. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IBM was notable - sources unquestionably existed whether or not they had been added to the article or not. However, looking at other stuff will not help achieve consensus for the notability of this article. The general notability guideline is the most basic standard we use to determine if a subject is notable enough to warrant an article; if you are aware of sources for this subject that meet the guideline, please share them so I can reassess my opinion. VQuakr (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Once the hype is removed, there is absolutely nothing here. It's all just ad-agency fluff. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been unimpressed by the quality of this debate so far. I find the view expressed by Alan Liefting significantly at odds with Wikipedian norms. Alan Liefting's statement that sources do not equate to notability for a WP article is bizarre, and it's not the first time I've seen him say this either. I'd be grateful if Alan Liefing could desist from saying this in future. Sources are the essence of notability, full stop.

    I also find little merit in the view expressed by Sue Rangell. Her comments focus on the current state of the article rather than its potential state, which is clearly the wrong approach. We don't delete material because it's bad. We delete material because it's bad and unfixable.

    Many of the google books results are passing mentions of no interest, and a significant number of them arise from full page ads in networking magazines that were taken out by Avaya. However, I see that on page 45 of Network World Magazine, Vol 19 No 8 dated 25 February 2002, there is a clear product comparison in tabular form; this is in large type on a coloured background and very clearly treats at least one variant of the Avaya Definity as a significant type of product. I also see that the independent reviewer scores it well against its competitors. If I'd found a second such thing, I would take that as clear evidence of notability. I have not.

    I also want to say that if we distilled everything from those sources into an encyclopaedia article, we'd have about four sentences. Tops. It's right that such things, even when they're notable, should be consolidated into another article that contains a more useful amount of information.

    From the fact that I can find one but only one source, I conclude that this article concerns a subject which is verifiable but not notable. It should not have a standalone article. The outcome of this debate cannot be "keep". However, per policy we should exhaust the alternatives to deletion before turning this title into a redlink, and I observe that there are good alternatives available, so the outcome of this debate cannot be "delete". I conclude that we should replace the content with a redirect to Avaya#Products.—S Marshall T/C 12:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't make something notable. In depth coverage in reliable sources makes a subject notable. Note that such is lacking for this product. --Nouniquenames 20:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is informative not promotional. Basically straightforward information can be supported by manufacturer's sources. Merging into ayala is excessive--they have so many products that the article could not possibly deal with it. The existing merges into Ayala are a one line listing for each product, giving only its name. With that sort of way of handling merge conclusions, a merge is inappropriate. A merge into the general type of product might be, for the detail is more extensive than we usually have. I cannot understand how any of this is "ad agency fluff " or "hype" -- it's simply product details, not claims for the product's excellence or reasons why someone should buy it. I ask Susan, above to indicate just what part of the material she thinks other than purely descriptive. (It's true a technical advertisement would contain a detailed product description, but it would contain much else--pricing, contact information, praise of the product. An overlap between encyclopedic articles of products and advertising is inevitable, & the overlap will be greater for technical products, which are normally advertised much more soberly; but eliminating a description of the product would make any article on a manufactured substance impossible and meaningless.) DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Implying that there is some sort of sinister conspiracy is hardly likely to help persuade other editors to take your arguments seriously. A perfectly clear explanation was provided above of why the "keep" close was reverted and the discussion relisted. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorting through all the Google book/magazine results, I came across this. [35] It talks about the "Avaya Definity" and also mentions: Nearly a million customers -- including 90% of the FORTUNE 500 -- rely on Avaya solutions. Page 15 of CIO magazine, Jun 15, 2002. It mentions what the Avaya Definity servers can do, in sufficient enough detail. Dream Focus 00:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, not probable but definite A7, no assertion to this club's notability, Wikipedia is not your webhost, etc. - filelakeshoe 13:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012–February 2013 The PFJ season

November 2012–February 2013 The PFJ 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)

This appears to be a Social sport (now there's an article that needs creation) football competition. Fails, well, any general or sports-related policy or guideline one might mention. Possible WP:A7. I sincerely hope all the participants do continue to enjoy their sport when this article is deleted. Shirt58 (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Regina Rams. Courcelles 06:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank McCrystal

Frank McCrystal (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 evidence of notability. Being coach of a university team is not enough, and the only other claim of significance is having received a not very prominent award. There does not seem to be any significant coverage in independent sources. PROD was contested by an editor who wrote on the article's talk page "I think that there may be significant coverage". However, simply saying "I think there may be coverage" without providing any is no evidence at all of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of SpongeBong HempPants episodes

List of SpongeBong HempPants episodes (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)

Unsourced, fails WP:GNG, unremarkable TV series, fails WP:EPISODE Mediran talk to me! 09:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd expect something from Trey Parker to get a lot of media attention, but I can find nothing about this show on reliable sources (Business 2.0 mentions it in a 5 year old article on heavy.com in Google books snippet view, but that's about it). Was Parker even involved in it? I guess it's not notable, but I'm unsure if a merge/redirect to Trey Parker is called for based on the question of whether he was in any way involved in it. The show exists but who made it and was it ever broadcast? Is this a hoax? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It does exist (much to my surprise, I expected the usual poor stoner 'fanart' and such), but as an unauthorized parody of three shorts meant for VH1's VH1 ILL-ustrated, which barely got any attention when it aired nine years ago besides derision (link to a Youtube video of the shorts here, and note the show aired in 2004, long before first 'shorts' within the article 'aired'); the shorts never aired on the show itself because Nick would've ceased and desisted their sister network if it made it to air. No way the creator of SBSP allows his character to be turned into a pothead, and usually Trey Parker and Matt Stone work together, not apart. And you'd think Comedy Cental would've put a lot of promotional effort into a show from a South Park creator, but I'm finding nothing at all, nor was TP involved with ILL-ustrated in any way, along with the fact of a simple schedule check should tell you other shows aired in the post South Park slot within the months it was claimed to have aired. No redirect; we're being hoaxed here at least with the 'episode guide' by someone who'd love this sketch to become a regular series eight years after this show was canceled, and the WLH numbers for ILL-ustrated are mostly about six "List of..." articles saying solely it existed. Also, the vast majority of 'episode titles' floated by the editor would've been slapped down right off by standards and practices for being offensive. Nate • (chatter) 13:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruft. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An IP address keeps removing the deletion template and making the article into a list of episodes of something called Roomates. The actual version of the article being considered is this one. I reverted their changes once already but they just make them again so rather than get into a pointless edit war I thought it best to flag the problem here. I'm otherwise neutral regarding deletion as I know nothing about that sort of show. Keresaspa (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  10:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of position (crash testing)

Out of position (crash testing) (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 is nothing more than a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A PROD on the same grounds was seconded by Rotten regard, but then contested by Cyclopia, with an edit summary that said "It has a book reference and it doesn't seem a mere dictionary definition." The reference is irrelevant, since the reason for proposing deletion is not the lack of a reference, and I really do not see how this single sentence statement of what the expression means can be regarded as more than a dictionary definition. (I see that the article has been tagged as probably not satisfying the notability guidelines for a year and nine months.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article brought to AfD on 7 December was moved 14 hours later to the title Out of position (crash testing), and what is now at Out of position is a disambiguation page. PamD 13:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Misguided deletion rationale. WP:DICDEF is a deletion reason if and only if the article cannot be anything more than a dictionary definition ever. If it can be improved from its DICDEF status by editing, then it is not a deletion rationale anymore. Now, the topic is notable per WP:GNG and sources allow it to be easily expanded from DICDEF status, as a quick look in Google Books shows: [36] , [37], [38], [39]. I recommend the nominator to apply WP:BEFORE next time, as mandated by our deletion procedure. --Cyclopiatalk 10:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete comment The sources Cyclopia listed mention passengers being out-of-position and seem not to mention the very specific definition given in the article. The meaning of "out-of-position" with specific regard to crash test dummies seems rather nebulous and trivial and I do not see that there has been significant coverage of this subject for it to meet the general notability guidelines and warrant a standalone article. At best a section on out-of position could be added to Crash test and this turned into a redirect. Rotten regard 16:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but four distinct book paragraphs dedicated to the subject definitely meet WP:GNG, regardless of what you "see". The concept applies to both crash testing and actual crashes, so merging in crash test doesn't seem valid -but I'm open to discuss this. --Cyclopiatalk 22:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Moved to Out of position (crash testing) to disambiguate. --Cyclopiatalk 23:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a disambiguation page. There's a way to have both meainings. Diego (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Cyclopiatalk 23:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclopia has now essentially created a brand new article from the one sentence that previously existed, though I still think it best merged into crash test. I'm now also thinking that Out of position could probably become a disambiguation page given what Clarityfiend said about the poker term. Rotten regard 00:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done. Diego (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable as an encyclopaedic concept - or even as a dictionary definition: 'out of position' could mean all sorts of things (I'm not going to bother using Google to prove the point), and creating articles for sequences of words with multiple meanings is just plain daft. Add an 'out of position' section to the Crash test article by all means - but don't try to kid our readers that this is anything more than simple phraseology, even there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have a look at the article now? Did you see I've moved it to Out of position (crash testing)? Did you see the references? --Cyclopiatalk 00:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two entries, no primary topic, disambiguation is needed. Possible paths to a fix: delete either article (one is also at AFD) first, and redirect this title to the other; redirect this title to the poker article with a hatnote there to the crash test article; return the crash test article to the base name and put a hatnote on it to the poker article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, it's a bit messy -the page has been moved to Out of position (crash testing), and that's the page we're talking about. Of course if the moved page is deleted, the DAB goes away too. --Cyclopiatalk 16:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There should be a notification for the Gambling project, on behalf of the poker term.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 06:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EduGate Foundation

EduGate Foundation (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 WIKI notability criteria, seems to be pretty new organisation , and the reference links are mostly dead, youtube, .tv and does not talk about notablitiy Shrikanthv (talk) Shrikanthv (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Anbu121 (talk me) 06:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indus University

Indus University (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)

unknown private university, lacks notabality criteria of WIKI Shrikanthv (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dubious accreditation at best. Looks like a diploma mill to me. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 08:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per Milowent's good work. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 03:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any evidence to support that statement? Simply asserting it without providing reliable sources does nothing to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article provides no sources, so I tried searching. I checked every one of first seventy Google hits for "Indus University". Many of the hits related to another university of the same name in Karachi. Of the hits which did refer to the subject of this Wikipedia article, the substantial majority were pages on the subject's own web site, using several domain names (e.g. www.indusuniversity.in, iate.indusuniversity.in, iite.indusuniversity.in). All of the other hits were Facebook, Wikipedia, Linkedin, Twitter, and possibly YouTube (I didn't check which "Indus University" the YouTube videos are about). I have found absolutely no coverage of any sort whatever in any reliable independent source anywhere. This is not the sort of result that one would expect for a notable university. (I also found no evidence that the other "Indus University" is notable either. I mention this just in case anyone may think of rewriting the article to refer to that one, rather than deleting it or keeping it in its present form.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I added two sources already to mainstream high-circulation Indian newspapers, it recently changed its name and got official university status under Indian law. I immediately suspected there was a name change, because I could tell it has a substantial physical plant and student population, and that's how I started to find sources. Its certainly at least as notable as a typical American high school.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the investigative work of Milowent. Carrite (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: agree that original version merited deletion, but new refs show it easily passes the bar of notability. Hairhorn (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blackie Whiteford

Blackie Whiteford (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 actor has a staggering number of credits, but a huge portion of them are uncredited. This is about all I could find about him. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zillur Uddin

Zillur Uddin (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. Unable to support claims in article. Appears to fail wp:bio reddogsix (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this article myself after a lot of research on zillur uddin. It would be easy for me to provide you with paper evidence off all the information I have added on this article, but unfortunately there is a very few references I could add in to this article as Mr Uddin doesnt have websites for his companies and has always kept a low profile for some reasons. However, he is now creating sites for his companies and I shall update this article with more references soon. I request that Wikipedia allows this article to remain live as this is a genuine article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolfizz (talk • contribs) 04:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can't keep articles simply because you consider them "genuine", a genuine Wikipedia article is supported by reliable third-party sources. Additionally, the article doesn't really list much of his work much worse unreferenced information. For the future, please visit Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners to learn how to cite references. Creating sites for his companies won't be sufficient either because this wouldn't establish notability, thousands of people can create websites. I respect his privacy but to be notable, you have to receive a reasonable amount of reliable third-party coverage because if not, you simply read like a promotional résumé. I also suggest visiting Wikipedia:Writing better articles or contact me at my talk page if you need additional help. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, references are not required to be available online. It's nice if they are available online, but references to print sources are worth including too, if they are independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Hannah Swensen Mysteries. MBisanz talk 19:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate Chip Cookie Murder (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 book lacking ghits and gnews or substance. reddogsix (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Amazon listing shows three independent reviews. The book was originally published in 1999, so that may be a little too early for much online coverage (at least outside of archives). If not kept as a standalone article, it should be redirected to the article on the book series. postdlf (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've linked to the reviews and found a mention of CCCM in a book about cooking in fiction, although it's relatively general in tone somewhat. The reviews are "just" trades, but there hasn't been any definitive argument yet that trades do not count towards notability. There have been people from both sides that argue for and against them, but not any official ruling that has been set in stone. So really, this could go either way at this point. Part of me thinks it might be better as a merge and redirect, though. Everything that is in here is pretty much in the main series article, which also suffers from a lack of sources or real world context (impact, reviews, etc). Assuming that there are other reviews out there that cannot be found before the AfD closes, we can always redirect and then un-redirect when/if they are found.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or redirect; book was on a minor best-seller chart (Independent Mystery Booksellers Association Bestseller), according to St. Paul Pioneer Press, and there is enough coverage of the series to support the article it has... but much of that coverage has an extra push toward this book (as the first in the series, as the source of her cookie recipe). (Hey, a brief review in Chicago Tribune... by a 13 year old!) --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Hannah Swensen Mysteries (and delete since it does not stand alone as an article). Shii (tock) 07:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be "merge and redirect", because at a minimum the titles of the books described in the article on that series of books are each valid search terms, and we must preserve the contributors' history of the original article if any content of substance is merged. postdlf (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NBOOK. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 17:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Merge and redirect, but leave the article with its history. The reason I suggest that is because it's entirely possible that sources exist that aren't on the internet or are otherwise hard to find. I'm certainly finding things that suggest that there was more coverage when this released, but I'm not finding the actual coverage. That's sort of par for the course for pre-Internet niche books, though. For right now the best course of action would be to merge the pertinent data and redirect to the main series page. Most of the stuff I'm finding talk about the series as a whole, although they do specifically mention this title.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Moritz of Hesse

Prince Moritz of Hesse (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)

Contested prod, not notable. PatGallacher (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the similar case of his relative Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Philipp of Hesse (b. 1970), another contested prod which was eventually deleted. This is a 5-year-old child whose only claim to notability is that he is the grandson of the current pretender to the throne of Hesse, a mini-state which was annexed by Prussia in 1866. PatGallacher (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically everything PatGallacher said. WP:NOTABILITY. --Tikuko 02:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Age notwithstanding, Moritz is second in line and a likely successor to the leadership of the House of Hesse, which was an important component of the Holy Roman Empire. I'm the first to admit this title in pretence business needs to be sorted out, but until then ... Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 04:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 06:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Unless theres a special rule that says everyone related to minor European royalty is automatically granted there own wiki entry. --Phazakerley (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Style Foundation

Sustainable Style Foundation (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:NOTABILITY WP:ORG - Nothing in Google News, Article has 1 ref, etc. Google search produces atypical "Web2.0" search padding - LinkedIN, Facebook, Myspace, and various blogs. PeterWesco (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please provide actual sources. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said I was going to add them to the article, and I did so on November 13, eight days before your request. A single article, like this is sufficient to keep this article. There are twelve such citations. This is a slam dunk according to the criteria at WP:N and WP:ORG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 14 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete while there are sources, I'm struggling to find significant coverage in the sources, [42] just talks about a blog, FT just says they give awards and have a definition of sustainability and New Yorker says they together with ID magazine and the treehugger website sponsored a prize for a design competition. All these a brief mentions in longer articles.--Salix (talk): 09:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
week delete The seattle-pi article this does count as significant coverage. However this is from 2005 and I can't see that they have really created much impact from there.--Salix (talk): 09:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
why aren't these citations incorporated into text? this is a one line mention. this is another one line mention that merely mentions they sponsored a contest. this is a short mention. this is a blatant self promotional piece.LibStar (talk) 07:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a stub? I contributed to the article by adding some references that demonstrate notability and aid future editors in improving the article. If this article were a higher priority for me, I'd expand it and incorporate the citations. If you think expanding it is a high priority, then be my guest. If not, leave it and let someone else take over. The only relevant issue here is that the notability criteria have been met. Dealing with fixable issues is outside the scope of AfD. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of the references are self promotion. Lifestyle sections of newspapers are paid publicity sections via PR firms. The other one liner mentions do not bring notability. Grist.org is the house organ for the "green economy" and the first stop for spammy PR... When an AfD discussion transcends into sentence counting to determine notability, then it should be clear there is no notability to be found. Especially in an article that has only 3 sentences. PeterWesco (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care that much about the Sustainable Style Foundation, but if you have any evidence to support the accusation of paid stories in the sources cited, such as the Seattle PI and The New Yorker, or your claims about Grist, that would be useful for future AfD discussions. I'm sure similar sources will be cited again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In PR, the deal is made with the reporters and editors rather than the advertising representatives from network and publications. Check out VerdePR's post: VerdePR and how about this: co-branded Skinny Dip beer promotion with the environmental website Grist.org. PeterWesco (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That source says nothing about the Seattle PI, the New Yorker, or any of the sources cited here. It's just a cynical take on how the media works. There's nothing in Wikipedia:Notability that suggests that we have to start throwing out entire sections of newspapers because somebody once said that they are influenced by PR. If you want to suggest a change along these lines at Wikipedia talk:Notability, you can do that, but this deletion discussion depends on the notability criteria as they are now, not as someone might wish them to be. The only evidence against Grist is that they accepted paid advertising on their web site, and had a promotion of some kind. Newspapers are supported by ads. Newspapers have promotions. So what? Sustainable Style Foundation is an environmental topic and it got covered in a newspaper that covers environmental topics. Because it's notable. You've offered no evidence that the Sustainable Style Foundation has been writing big checks to media outlets. They're not that rich, for one thing, making the whole conspiracy theory rather implausible.

And once again, the fact that the article is a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. See WP:NOTCLEANUP.

Also. Susan Orlean and Dorothy Parvaz are respected journalists. You're making a serious charge against them based on zero evidence. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you are a little too close to the subject of the article. 'I made no accusations as you claim. I merely stated that the lifestyle sections are the fodder for PR firms. I made no statement at anytime that this particular article was purchased.' PeterWesco (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did. You said "Lifestyle sections of newspapers are paid publicity sections via PR firms." Paid publicity fails WP:SPS, which is the whole issue here. Either you were saying the articles cited were paid advertising, or you came here to waste everyone's time.

What evidence do you have that I have any connection whatsoever with this subject?

At some point, repeatably making false statements like this is considered disruptive editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:24, 28 November 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 00:55, 29 November 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 01:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Delete After a little digging, the sourcing for this article seems 100% PR driven. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — The most significant press comment on the SSF is probably the mention in the New Yorker in 2008. It's a passing mention, but it counts for something. On the other hand, there is no coverage that shows that SSF is notable within the world of 'sustainability' provided there is such a thing. If you do Whatlinkshere in Wikipedia you find no mentions in articles except where the SSF has given one of their awards to some famous person like Pierce Brosnan. This is SSF recognizing the importance of Pierce Brosnan but not vice versa. Even that mention is sourced only to SSF's own web site. The website at sustainablestyle.org has a press page where they list some coverage. That page has no entries since 2008. From their web site you can't verify if they have any paid employees; the impression is that they don't. They seem to be a volunteer-based organization. They sponsor occasional meetings and they give out awards. If you do [links:sustainablestyle.org] on Google it finds 109 inbound links. This is tiny compared to a larger website like http://earth911.com which has some interests in common with SSF, but gets over 200,000 incoming links. The Earth911.com site does not even have a Wikipedia article, though I imagine one would be justified. Earth911.com gets 8,561 views per day according to Alexa; sustainablestyle.org gets 152 views per day. EdJohnston (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC). I struck out my web site analysis; may not have been done correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted CSD G11 - Once the promotional material was removed, the article no longer met the minimum criteria of CSD A7.. v/r - TP 13:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

24/7 Techies

24/7 Techies (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

Company already listed on http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/05/247-techies-remote-tech-support-startup-for-smbs-raises-600k-seed-round-led-by-500-startups/ So I guess, this will be enough to considered notable. The article's notability as per WP:CORP cannot be ascertained. Amartyabag TALK2ME 07:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing adminitrator: Obvious sock-puppetry in keep votes. SPAs tagged. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 23 November 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, —Theopolisme 00:59, 29 November 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 01:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatant self-promotion of non-notable start-up company. Google searches turned up nothing but local, trivial or tangential coverage, far too insignificant to establish notability in accordance with any of our guidelines. Both newpaper articles seem to be more armchair journalism based on press releases rather than actual investigative reporting, and the mention in TechCrunch is far from being substantial. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "SL IT startup 24/7 Techies raises Rs. 80 million in funding". The Sunday Times.
  2. ^ "The first Sri Lankan company to be featured in Tech Crunch". ft.lk November 12, 2012.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cross-dressing. There's consensus that this variant of cross-dressing doesn't need a separate article. The two "keep" opinions don't address the issue of content forking. Whether there's anything to merge is not clear from the discussion, but can be done editorially from the history.  Sandstein  10:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MTF cross-dressing

MTF cross-dressing (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)

Unnecessary fork of cross-dressing. All reliably sourced content has already been merged into the cross-dressing article. Pburka (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with a redirect page. According the the nominator sourced content is already merged. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 30 November 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 01:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to cross-dressing. It's reasonable to have articles on distinct cultural phenomena like drag queens and drag kings (and other cross-dressing subcultures or behaviours), but MTF cross-dressing can be done for many reasons, and therefore it's better dealt with in an article on cross-dressing in general. Since there are only 2 types of cross-dressing, there's no argument that a split is needed for length or comprehensibility. Additionally, for many people cross-dressing is synonymous with MTF cross-dressing (i.e. they don't think of women crossdressing) so covering the topic under cross-dressing is what would be expected. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP --게이큐읭 (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - filelakeshoe 18:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Iglesias India Tour

Enrique Iglesias India Tour (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)

Complete WP:OR. Enrique performed in three India cities, yes, but they weren't part of this so-called "Enrique Iglesias India Tour". That aside, this three-day tour in India fails WP:NCONCERT TOUR. Statυs (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree entirely that the subject is not notable, but supporting deletion on the basis that "it's not a tour" seems a little misplaced to me. All three sources describe the series of shows as a "tour". They seem pretty clear about that fact - he showed up and did three shows in the one country without a break or deviation. The promoters called it a "tour" and the media coverage calls it a "tour". Just not sure what all the "not a tour" stuff is based on. That aside, whatever you want to call it is not notable in its own right (even as a "tour") and should be deleted. It would seem to fail WP:NCONCERT TOUR regardless. Stalwart111 01:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was that Enrique Iglesias India Tour is not a tour, because it's WP:OR. He never embarked on a tour entitled Enrique Iglesias India Tour. He embarked on a tour of 3 cities in India. I've corrected my wording. Statυs (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, exactly right - I don't think the original author was trying to suggest there was an official tour called the Enrique Iglesias India Tour and that an article entitled Enrique Iglesias' 2012 tour of India would have ostensibly said the same thing while being a less WP:OR-style title. But anyway, your newly worded nomination is an improvement and I remain in favour of deletion regardless of title. Stalwart111 03:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zooko's triangle

Zooko's triangle (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)

Notability not established. I have searched for sources, and there is nothing RS. Lots of hits, yes, but I would expect hits to well-known security or tech sites, but everything is self-published blogs.. MSJapan (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC) (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I found the following RS references:
  • Ross J Anderson: *Security Engineering: A Guide to Building Dependable Distributed Systems, Second Edition*, page in Google Books - a reference in a book that weight alone should suffice
  • Franz, Elke, Katrin Borcea-Pfitzmann, and Andreas Pfitzmann. "Revisiting the Naming Problem from a Privacy Perspective." Communications in Information Science and Management Engineering.
  • Ferdous, Md. Identity Management with Petname Systems. Diss. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2009.
  • Yao, Guang, et al. "A pull model IPv6 Duplicate Address Detection." Local Computer Networks (LCN), 2010 IEEE 35th Conference on. IEEE, 2010.
  • Detti, Andrea, and Nicola Blefari-Melazzi. "Network layer solutions for a content-centric Internet." Trustworthy Internet (2011): 359-369.
There are many more - I don't have time to go through them all. ciphergoth (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Design and Implementation of a Censorship Resistant and Fully Decentralized Name System", Martin Schanzenbach, dissertation for Masterarbeit in Informatik, der Technoschen Universität München.
Tony Finch (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I used and referenced Zooko's Triangle in my PhD thesis:
Zooko is also the lead developer of Tahoe-LAFS which makes practical use of concepts in this area, and thus could be argued to have credibility as a result. David McBride (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin: The Return

Merlin: The Return (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)

Just because this movie had some notable people in its cast does not make it notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shahla Kareen

Shahla Kareen (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 references, notability tag since 2010, no claims supporting notability, no success with google search, except minor non speaking roles in short independent films. Fails WP:ANYBIO, does pass WP:HOTTIE Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
What is the minimum number of sources needed to establish notability? At least there are some sources. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 10:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is a justified use of oneevent; there is no other notability DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Stuart Brown

William Stuart Brown (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 don't think this person meets WP:CRIME or WP:DIPLOMAT. Though the article is well-sourced, he is not notable for his diplomatic duties, and his crime was not a "well-documented historical event" and has not made him a "renowned national or international figure". — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 01:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:19, 1 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goatboy

Goatboy (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 defunct band from Swansea, South Wales that appears to fail WP:BAND and WP:N. Not finding coverage other than this BBC source already in the article, which is rather brief: [46]. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:38, 3 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you consider Mighty Atom Records to be an "important" indie label, then we have WP:MUSBIO#5 here. A Peel session counts for a lot too, as that gave them significant coverage in the UK a la WP:MUSBIO#12. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 05:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lite (band)

Lite (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)

This Japanese instrumental rock band appears to fail WP:N and WP:BAND. Source searching in GNews archives and GBooks has only yielded this source, which appears to be primarily a commercial website for selling concert tickets. This source in the article is a blog, and is not qualified as a reliable source. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 4 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table of Choices

Table of Choices (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 topic about a soap opera that was only available online appears to fail WP:N. Not finding coverage in reliable sources after several searches, including customized searches such as [56] and [57]. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 4 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Harlow Town Park. Courcelles 06:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harlow skatepark

Harlow skatepark (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 topic about a skate park in Harlow, Essex district, England appears to fail WP:N. After several source searches, I found this one local article, but not finding coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (COI, sort of) - tough one. The local council lists the park as one of their top achievements of 2011 and continues that theme here. That said, I would imagine any council would say similar things about any new recreation infrastructure, and the reference obviously couldn't be considered "independent". This site from a group campaigning for their own park cites the subject as a "near-ideal skate park" but you'd have to question whether that could possible be considered a reliable source. Probably not. There's been plenty of coverage in local papers (note; they refer to it as the "Harlow Town Park" but it's the same thing) - here and here as examples. On balance, I think there's probably (just) enough to justify keeping it, but I won't lodge a "vote". It just so happens that I'm mid-way through an effort to "revive" WikiProject Skateboarding which may or may not be considered a conflict of interest. Maybe not, and other Projects actively encourage participation at AFD, but a "weak" vote wouldn't add much to consensus anyway. Regardless, I am happy to commit to re-writing the article if others think it's worth saving. Stalwart111 02:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson Village

Henderson Village (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)

Advert for non-notable subject. Contested speedy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 4 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - filelakeshoe 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya Communication Server 2100

Avaya Communication Server 2100 (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)

Unable to find sources to meet WP:GNG. Refs in article are both dead links. Article is primarily an ad / spec sheet Nouniquenames 00:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - filelakeshoe 18:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Cavalieri

Fatima Cavalieri (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 references and no statements to suggest notability, other than having a career. I could find nothing in google that was not her website or blog - nothing editorial. Since 2009 tagged for references, ad, notability, orphan and improvement, with none being done. Fails WP:ANYBIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk • contribs) 2012-12-07 00:03:47

  • Delete - Google News US and Brazil provided nothing but I found a magazine article here which appears to talk about her but the text is too small and not English and I found a photo here at an event so it's probably most definite sources are not English. If other users believe the magazine article is sufficient or other sources are provided, I'm willing to recall my vote. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not finding any sources, has barely any third-party representation on Web. I am with SwisterTwister here, if sources in other languages emerge, then willing to recall vote. Mabalu (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Paula

Jonathan Paula (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)

An IP simply added the name to the December 6 log and commented at the article's talk page so I finished the nomination myself. The article reads very much like a personal biography and a Google News search only provided this 2011 news article. All of the other results are either primary or unreliable. This Wikipedia article claims he owns a production company called Jogwheel but the news article says ideo Productions (not Jogwheel) but if both exist, they are probably indie companies. At best, it seems this is a case of too soon and he has only produced indie YouTube videos. What also concerns me is that he started his own Urban Dictionary entry and this article was probably also started by him or people connected to him. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm one of the subscribers to his channels on YouTube. Jogwheel Productions is, as far as I am aware, his YouTube production company - that is what the JPizzle1122 channel is named. "Is It a Good Idea To Microwave This?" is a VERY well known YouTube show - I don't have access to the number of views it had, but I'll fetch it when I get home. I've notified User:JPizzle1122, who appears to be Jon Paula (but never edited the article on himself) of this discussion. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[58] - says that it's the best part of 234 million views just on this channel alone. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:TOOSOON and don't see much in the way of independent coverage that would provide notability --4letheia (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just read what the IP wrote, sounds like bad-faith to me... anyone looking at the view count for any one of Paula's channels would see why someone would create an article about him. He probably doesn't fit any Wiki guidelines, but then Wiki guidelines don't factor in YouTube people generally. Is Jon Paula notable within YouTube? Yes. Does he fit Wikipedia at the moment? Not sure. Please note I've changed the link above as YouTube's view counters for individual shows are currently glitched, and show the number of views for the whole channel instead. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hi, Jon here. My production company changed names in 2011. It's a registered S-corporation with several full, and part-time employees. There have been at least four separate newspaper article write-ups on myself / my YouTube success in the past couple years, a few of which are still available online. I can try to hunt them down if the "credible, 3rd-party sources" is the issue here. I've worked at radio stations as on-air talent, edited TV commercials, done plenty of work outside the "indie YouTube" sphere, and I've performed at both VidCon and Playlist Live. Whether or not any of that is "notable" is certainly debatable. But I'd argue I am am just as "notable" as most other YouTubers who have articles on Wikipedia. I didn't write/start this article (neither did anyone I personally know), nor do I really care if it's deleted -- but at least do your due diligence (and not jump to conclusions, @SwisterTwister) before wiping it. What that stupid UrbanDictionary entry has to do with anything, is beyond my best guess.--Jonny Paula (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To prove your notability as a YouTube personality, there should be significant reliable and third-party sources, not anything primary or promotional such as press releases. It may not be fair to some but it helps sort through the most viable and informative articles. Regarding your "diligence" comment, I was simply concerned that you may be promoting yourself because it is certainly not the first time this would have happened. I should note that I take Articles for Deletion debates very seriously and I try to search thoroughly before commenting. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a good idea to dig up those sources (assuming they are write-ups, not press releases), that should pass WP:GNG if they're reliable enough. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles (please forgive my formatting, I don't post to Wikipedia often):

That's all I can remember right now. Hope this helps.--Jonathan Paula (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... but, I'd be notable with a group? The unequal logic applies to this article, verses all other YouTuber personalities doesn't seem consistent in the least.--Jonathan Paula (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. Fine Brothers, The Yogscast, Smosh etc. --Phazakerley (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so now TubeFilter articles count as "notable"? Well, then add this to the list to your nonsense requirements: http://www.tubefilter.com/2011/07/19/the-microwave-show/ --Jonathan Paula (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_December_7