Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 28

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 27 December 29 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 merge to

snow close (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Exclusion of women in Israel

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

Merge and redirect to

WP:NOTSOAPBOX that reveals an almost exclusive obsession and focus on the attitudes of Orthodox Jews. Much of this material as well as the Hebrew "citations" are from the Hebrew WP where this is a hot social issue but does not have the same dramatic interest for outsiders as it does for Israelis caught up in this drama. IZAK (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2011 (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carishma

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

Non-notable musical artist that is currently the subject of a wide-scale advertising blitz but who has little or no press coverage. Fails to satisfy

WP:MUSIC. Mgcsinc (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Insufficient coverage to establish notability. She might "go big", but in the meantime, she hasn't. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vistagy

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

Non-notable corporation. Previously deleted by my prod back in Jan 2010. News mentions seem to be entirely press releases regarding being purchased by

Siemens AG. Perhaps just redirect to Siemens? Syrthiss (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Weak Keep – National U.S. news coverage confers notability. This article could use more sourcing.
—Northamerica1000(talk) 01:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
but not multiple non-trivial news mentions. If all we can say is that it was purchased by Siemens, we might as well redirect it to Siemens. Syrthiss (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They cover their activities, making them notable. There are ambulant results from Google news archive search to weed through. [1] February 17, 2004 - Vistagy Inc. of Waltham, Mass., said it sold more FiberSim software and services to Northrop Grumman Corporation for automating design and manufacturing processes for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. Value of the sale was $1.95 million. Dream Focus 20:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has reliable sources and coverage, and two inline citations. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pachinko Sexy Reaction 2

Pachinko Sexy Reaction 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found zero significant coverage for this erotic video game. Fails

WP:N SL93 (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2011 (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) 20:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even the external links provided within the article point to a distinct lack of notability. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pachinko Sexy Reaction

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

I found zero significant coverage for this erotic video game. Fails

WP:N SL93 (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2011 (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) 20:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even the external links provided within the article point to a distinct lack of notability. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:25, 29 December 2011 (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. Combination of WP:IAR, WP:SNOW, and general principles of BLP1E and the general guidelines of BLP policy mean I'm deleting this early. Further, not one policy-based reason has been cited to keep this article, and no evidence of actual notability, not internet flash-in-the-pan notability has been presented. While we might be able to justudy a mention in

Penny Arcade (webcomic) or even at a stretch an article on the drama, we cannot justify this biography. If you disagree, feel free to proceed directly to DRV. Courcelles 19:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Paul Christoforo

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

Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria at

WP:BIO. This article doesn't meet the criteria for a significant person. It instead uses wikipedia as a platform in a PR war. Leondz (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

— Note to closing admin:
XfD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. The above vote is mine. I had forgotten to log in. Alyeska (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who regularly participates in AfD discussions knows exactly what I meant.
talk) 20:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I have to admit that I'm not entirely clear on what your stance is that you would be backing down from. However, I don't feel that this is a person notable for a single event, because I don't feel that the event is notable. What's the event? A man who sell joysticks is a jerk, people who are interested are flabbergasted. Eh. ViniTheHat (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note however that
WP:BLP1E
provides an exception: "In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event." (emphasis added).
Although this event is not sports related, the exception still applies. The
basic criteria for the exception is that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe this subject meets that criteria in abundance, notwithstanding the fact that there are also some non-independent sources. MrX 20:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep and Rename - The event is notable, even if the key players are not. Dwcarless (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete. This person/event has become part of the internet cultural zeitgeist and is vital to understanding a large event that took place therein. - Bagel7T's 22:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Penny Arcade, which appears to be the main notable company associated with this situation. It could be added to the
    "Legal issues and controversy" section. --George100 (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 11:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Elaine

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

Non-notable person, article created by a PR agency (and dePRODed by a sockpuppet). Brief, routine coverage in one reliable source and only slightly more in-depth coverage in a possibly unreliable source don't pass

WP:BIO. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


ATTN: I am a third party, not the PR Agency list above. I have fixed the referencing problems for this article, as well as cited proper newsworthy articles as found online, relating to the subject, from verifiable sources, including Women's Wear Daily and CA Apparel News- not cited/mentioned by the PR Agency above. I will continue to add/correct referencing problems, as I find them. I am a knowledgeable "fashion fan", and advocate of this page, as a member of the Los Angeles fashion community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FashionFanCA (talk • contribs) 21:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — FashionFanCA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Weak Delete. Cleaned up article is better. I still slightly struggle to see how it passes WP:BIO, but I know we are usually very forgiving in relation to articles on photogenic Fashion Designer/Actress/Models, so I won't protest violently if a decision is taken to keep. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:30, 29 December 2011 (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. Could even have arguably met A7 Qwyrxian (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vanthali Memon Association

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for notability for over 2 years. Also tagged as an orphan. Epeefleche (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sufficiently notable on so many different levels... --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:34, 29 December 2011 (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. Whatever this is, it's an unreferenced article with so little substance that it fails

WP:DICDEF. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

IBA United

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for notability for over 3 years. Also tagged as an orphan. Epeefleche (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not sure where the line is for sports programmes affiliated with institutions of higher learning, but pretty confident that the soccer team of a business school in Karachi doesn't make the grade.
    Notre Dame football it 'aint. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk | contribs) 14:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dusanka

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for notability for over 3 years. Also tagged as an orphan. Epeefleche (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2011 (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. Tiptoety talk 06:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Dancearts Academy

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

Exists, but lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for notability for over 2 years. Also tagged as an orphan. Epeefleche (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage of significance in reliable sources. I found an advert in a local paper, and a passing mention in a photo caption. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A pre=professional program, of the sort we delete unless there are really strong sources for notability -- and there seem to be none that I can find. A notable school of this sort would have coverage that could be found through the googles. This doesn't. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC) .[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete - complete copyvio. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pathak trust

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

Exists, but lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for notability for over 3 years. Also tagged as an orphan. Epeefleche (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only thing this organisation has going for it is age, but pedigree alone does not make a not-for-profit charitable. It otherwise appears demonstrably non-notable and time to put it out of its misery after 3 years. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a copyvio. The foundation section is copied from [4] and the lede is taken from [5]. Looking through the history, the entire thing is copied. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I suggest evaluating all of the sources listed, seeing if there's sufficient info that can be added to the article, and, if not, renom in a few months. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Technology

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

I'm struggling to find the notability of this company, the article certainly does not assert it. Also written like an advertisement, among other issues. Since the article has existed since 2006 I chose AfD.    Thorncrag  16:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by
    WP:GNG and I unable to find any among the Google results. Msnicki (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Hence, weak keep. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep – Per sources:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 10:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denton E. Rebok

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

This person does not seem to be notable, or at least the sources are not there which establish that he is. I checked out Google Books and he does get a few mentions, but mainly in books on the history of his church. (Most often for his role as in leading a college in China, which is not even mentioned in the article.) I was not able to find any substantial coverage in secondary sources which is required by WP standards to establish notability. Of course it may well be out there in books, but until that is provided I don't think there is a basis for an article. BigJim707 (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Probably meets #6 of
    WP:ACADEMIC as president of Southern Adventist University. However, this isn't sourced in the article. 78.26 (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2011 (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. Michig (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina Tayler

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

Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria at

WP:BIO. The only claim to notability is that her husband—a real estate developer—named a street after her. Jeremy (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete not
WP:FOUR) 19:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not inherited. Nor is the fact that a person died a long time ago notable in itself. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No notability.Vincelord (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - having a street named after her isn't the only claim to notability. Being a leading citizen of the city is also a claim. However, I cannot find any reliable sources writing about her that would indicate that she is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BuildMaster

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

Seems to be a non-notable software platform. Can not find much discussion outside of primary sources on Google. Only trivial or incidental coverage on StackOverflow.com. Does not meet the

talk to me 15:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

---

As mentioned on

Comparison of revision control software, Comparison of project management software, etc) should be deleted too.Atpapa (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)— Atpapa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

The fact that
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is irrelevant at AfD. Msnicki (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found no significant coverage for this software. SL93 (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree, there's nothing to be found in the Google results and nothing offered by the article itself. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by
    WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 11:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Nicholls

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

Living subject does not appear to meet

talk) 14:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep - As I pointed out on the Talk:Graham_Nicholls page I found 3 books by other authors with references to Graham Nicholls, as well as two books by Nicholls himself. He has also appeared in articles in The Times, The Independent, The Telegraph, The Daily Express and on BBC radio and online. He has been a speaker or exhibitor at the Science Museum and The Cambridge Union Society, as well as other places. As far as I can see his inclusion is fair, as User:Ragesoss pointed out in 2009, stating "seems notable based on substantial coverage in linked interviews". There are some references to the subjects website (which is normal and not against policy) but the article does not seem overly promotional, could Yworo point out which elements he finds problematic and maybe we can remove or improve them? - Solar (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I think this fits under the category "slightly weird people who we would rather delete the article because otherwise people might be tempted to take them or their discipline seriously". But I think if they are sufficiently prominent in their field (even if is not exactly academically rigorous) they comply with WP:BIO. Having said that, it still looks like a borderline case. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets
    WP:GNG. -- Ϫ 09:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD A7 for web content v/r - TP 15:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pofex

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

non-notable web site. Probably falls under CSD:A7 (no assertion of importance in the article) and CSD:G11 (clearly promotional), but CSD tag was removed and subsequent Prod was contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2011 (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. There is no evidence presented of a gene with such a name, and apparently no viable target for a redirect. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grim Reaper (gene)

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

Much as we may debate about whether all genes in all organisms are notable, this article is misleading. There is (as far as I know), no gene called Grim Reaper, but there is a gene called grim, a gene called reaper, and a gene called hid, all of which are closely linked and are involved in apoptosis in Drosophila.[6] Whichever gene this article is about, calling it Grim Reaper is misleading and confusing. Quasihuman | Talk 12:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Quasihuman | Talk 18:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect?. This has to be the most informative comment I have ever read on an AfD - thanks, User:Quasihuman (good name for talking about genes as well...). The article clearly ought not to stand in current form. However, would it be more productive to replace it with a redirect (not sufficiently familiar with subject to suggest a destination)? --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the compliment! I can't think of a suitable target for the article to be redirected to. Possibly Apoptosis, but I'm not sure of the usefulness of that. If there were articles, Genetics of apoptosis or Apoptosis in Drosophila, they might be better targets, as far as I know, none of the genes I mentioned above have articles. Furthermore, while redirects are cheap, I'm not sure how useful any redirect would be given that the source first cited in this article [7] (this revision) does not mention the gene as Grim Reaper, but mentions reaper and hid, genes which I listed above. This article seems to be based on a misunderstanding by the creator, and is not really a plausible redirect. Quasihuman | Talk 12:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A redirect seems reasonable per the above comments but what are the chances of anyone actually typing "Grim Reaper (gene)" in the search box. The lack of reliable sources, however, supports Quasihuman's analysis suggesting this article is either original research or at least, not very good research. ClaretAsh 03:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drama (2012 film)

Drama (2012 film) (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 about a film which does not meet Wikipedia's

reliable source. Prod removed, so bringing here for discussion. If proper sources that demonstrate the film's notability can be provided, I'd be happy to see the article kept, but unless they are added in the duration of this discussion, it should be deleted. Sparthorse (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

    • Adding the duplicate article Drama(film) which is about the same subject with the same sources. If the result of the debate is to keep Drama (2012 film), then Drama(film) should be deleted under CSD:A10. If the result is delete, both should be deleted. Sparthorse (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Youtube video is that of a news channel and I'm still searching for today's paper where it has been published. The newspaper citation will also be added soon enough.11:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbblr0803 (talk • contribs)
As per the guidelines, the sources I have added are not connected with either the producer or any film crew but its a press release and hence I think they are reliable and not to fool around for Wikipedia.Abhiram (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taizhou high school

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

WP:ARTSPAM ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Weak Keep If it is verifiably a high school, then it should get the general assumption of notability per general outcomes of previous hundreds (or thousands) of AFDs over the past several years. My concern is that editors able to read Chinese verify that reliable sources support it being or having once been a high school. The Google translation linked above by Yoenit is mostly gibberish, but in some places seems to say it is ""Taizhou Middle School." but in other places that its graduates go to university. A middle school would not get the assumption of notability. Reliable sources are helpful, especially to avoid multiple articles about the same foreign school under various transliterations. Edison (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Seems to be somewhat notable in its own right. Ranked among the top 100 schools in China.[9] President Hu Jintao is apparently an alumni. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should this AFD be closed? The reason it went to AFD was because of the spam-like content, not because of notability. The article has been converted into a proper stub now, and notability doesn't appear to be in doubt.
    Coming... 13:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD G3 v/r - TP 14:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daragonism

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

Original research. As the article says: "Daragonism has only been recently brought in the eyes of the public being mentioned the forenamed politician and Beppe Grillo(2011), but still only prevails as an underground Subculture and is not yet a subject of public debate". At least one of the sources don't mention Daragonism. The content is pseudo-science nonsense about consciousness and quantum mechanics. Prod contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Please do some research yourself before claiming such things. Calling De Broglie wavelengths and cymatics pseudo-science is intolerable. Moreover the two politicians DO talk about it. Do you speak Italian? Let people who know more than you judge please instead of making assumptions based on nothing. I agree Daragonians take scientific research out of context but this does not mean they do not exist. Far more senseless movements exist. XmoroX (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call either de Broglie wavelengths or cymatics pseudo-science. I called Daragonism pseudo-science. It clearly is. As I said above, at least one of the sources don't mention Daragonism, this one: [10]. Just because there are more senseless movements (there are) doesn't mean Wikipedia has to cover this senseless movement. Sparthorse (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is essentially pure pseudo-science (
    WP:NPOV). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

it would be pseudo science if it claimed to be a science. it is a cult not a science. and if you had checked the in text citations you'd see that the link you refer to is connected to de broglie, not the movement. It is clear you are both people that jump straight to conclusions and get in the way of progress — Preceding unsigned comment added by XmoroX (talk • contribs) 10:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Approve. The author is right, I took the time to listen to the interview and the monologue and they both DO mention it.

Luxoculi (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC) And you should stop interlinking to random guidelines to try and look more professional. The author was neutral in his article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxoculi (talk • contribs) 10:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/XmoroX - this contribution is highly suspicious. Sparthorse (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed, I was about to post the same thing. Both Xmorox (talk · contribs) and Luxoculi (talk · contribs) have been editing for less than two days, each of them has contributed almost exclusively to this discussion, and they are taking a similar stance. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domenicism, created by User:Luxoculi. Filing Flunky (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2011 (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. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colette Aboulker-Muscat

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

This biography is supposed to be about a Jewish mystic who started a therapeutic technique which has "been the foundation for the work of many Doctors, Psychologists, Psychotherapists, Artists and Healers around the world".

One fairly major problem: I can't find any decent sources to establish notability.

The sources that exist don't come anywhere near reliable: what exists on Google is of the self-published GeoCities variety. The article cites a book called "The Davidic Families and the Genealogy of Colette Aboulker-Muscat". After a bit of searching, I found out that it is a

self-published source. According to the listing on the National Library of Israel
catalogue, the publisher is one "Aliza Yehezkiel", who also happens to be the author.

As for other books? Google Books brings up a few things, but I can't find any significant coverage, just passing mentions of the fact that she existed, was some form of mystic and was based in Jerusalem. The aforementioned National Library of Israel list only the self-published 'Davidic Families' book as the only source in their catalogue on the subject. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After coming across the article through
    notability appear to be passing mentions only. --Mrmatiko (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep A search finds multiple published works by the subject and additional foreign language sources. A search in Google Books finds not only her works, but a network of references in books written and published by other authors that make notable mentions of the subject. The current article makes weak, but borderline credible, claims of notability and there is adequate material available to flesh out this article with additional sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references means NN and not worthy of separate article. Stub and merge into Gerald Epstein for his discovery. if someone wants to work on this article quickly, it might make a difference. --Shuki (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If anyone finds any references, please let me know and I'll userfy a copy for you. Without reliable verification, though, the article has to be deleted for now. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Elhariri

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

This dancer appears to be non-notable, as measured by the paucity of RS coverage of him. The article has zero refs, and is an orphan. Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Just doesn't seem notable from my research but if insinuations made in the article can be substantiated then it should be kept.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No sources, no assertion it passes any of the specific notability standards = gots-to-go
    89≈≈≈≈ 02:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 09:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The scrappy hints on the web suggest that El Hariri did exist and was a notable dancer. Since the pages in English are poor I think we should get a proper search in Arabic - given the number of performances and awards there must be good sources. Help please! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2011 (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. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFFAIR Magazine

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

The article about this magazine has zero refs, and I can't find sufficient independent substantial RS coverage of the magazine to support a finding of notability. Tagged for notability and zero refs since May. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral if verified it should be kept as all magazines and newspapers are notable, if not then delete and recreate when that is the case. No significant edit history would need to be preserved.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 09:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not agree that "all magazines and newspapers are notable". Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2011 (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. Deautomatization is "a disturbance of the spatial, temporal, speed, and power parameters of movement in man". Ooooo-kay. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deautomatization

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

In dispute to the proposed deletion, the writer of the article requested to "check Google Books". Having done so (before prod, as standard practice), I still do not see a future for this article. While Google Books provides an initially impressive-looking number of hits ([11]), the term is generally mentioned very briefly and in passing by those books which use it, and those tend to disagree on what it means (one finds everything from New Age-style "mystical" use to what appears to be a term of convenience to describe a postulated psychological phenomenon). I can find nothing to indicate that this term has any particular significance in either the New Age/neopagan movements or in psychology, but rather stems from a 1959 fringe-ish psychological hypothesis that never gained much traction. Brief blurbs and passing mentions, even a lot of them, are not sufficient to sustain an article, and I can find no in-depth studies of the hypothesis. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 09:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The paper by Arthur J Deikman, "De-automatization and the mystic experience", where deautomatization is defined as "reinvesting actions and percepts with attention," has been cited in 333 articles indexed by Google scholar, including works by prominent researchers worldwide, rather than just by the original author and his students as one typically finds in some walled-garden niche concept in psychology. Edison (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to be original research and thus the term has no relevance outside the context of one piece of writing, no need for Wikipedia to define it; seems only promotional here. kashmiri (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hawatmeh

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

Zero refs; appears to be OR. An orphan. Tagged for zero refs and as an orphan for well over a year. Created by a 1-edit-ever-only SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 09:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per op. Cloudz679 10:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Per such geneology websites as: [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16], I am lead to believe that this surname definately exists and is therefore not OR. However, I do not know what the criteria is regardiing articles on surnames. I for one have found it highly suspect that many more obscure surnames have their own Wikipedia articles. Whether or not they deserve an article is beyond my knowledge. I have simply brought new information to light. P.S. Nayef Hawatmeh uses the surname, so do Randa Hawatmeh and Iehab J. Hawatmeh.--Coin945 (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. FWIW, a fact may exist and may still be OR. I'm not sure those geneology sites, btw, are RSs. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow... can you explain the view that "a fact may exist and may still be OR"? Also FWIW, the first geneology website i linked to (MUNDIA) appears to be an offshoot of ancestry.com, which (I'm pretty sure) is the largest ancestry website on the internet. On first glance, I am unsure as to the reliability of the other ones... Also, out of interest, what does the fact that a few notable people have that surname mean for it's notability?--Coin945 (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A search of the surname at ancestry.com yields 3,289,749 results. The actual number of results on the page is only around 700. After page 14 (if you view 50 at a time), there doesn't seem to be anyone named Hawatmeh.--Coin945 (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material such as facts for which we have no reliable, published sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented. Thus, even if something is a "fact" -- if you lack RS support for it, it is OR.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outback Redemption

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

Fails

WP:N and lacks references other than a youtube clip and own website. Promotional in nature. Cloudz679 08:41, 28 December 2011 (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) 20:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfur (programming language)

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

Contested

WP:MADEUP. Msnicki (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: May be it could find its way to Wikipedia one day, but it should become
    notable before. Currently I see no evidence of at least some coverage in secondary or third-party sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to New Windsor, New York. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph's School (New Windsor, New York)

St. Joseph's School (New Windsor, New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

School through grade 8; convention with such schools is to delete and or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to the parish or authority which operated it, per common outcomes for AFDs of elementary schools, when we do not have refs to satisfy
    WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to school district, Catholic parish, or locality (New Windsor, New York). Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, according to long established precedent demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Girard, Ohio. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Rose School

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

School through grade 8; convention with such schools is to delete and or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as no refs are presented to satisfy
    WP:ORG. No objection to redirecting if a suitable redirect target is identified. This is consistent with the consensus shown in hundreds of school AFDs for schools which do not go through grade 12. Edison (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Girard, Ohio per convention for primary schools with no indication of notability. RadioFan (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to school district, or locality (Girard, Ohio). Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, according to long established precedent demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Youngstown City School District. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Christine School

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

School through grade 8; convention with such schools is to delete and or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as no refs are presented to satisfy
    WP:ORG. No objection to redirecting if a suitable redirect target is identified (The Daughters of Charity mentioned as the organizing body is a disambiguation page). This is consistent with the consensus shown in hundreds of school AFDs for schools which do not go through grade 12. Edison (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect either to Youngstown City School District, or the localiity. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, according to long established precedent demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Layton, Utah#Education. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Davis Preparatory Academy

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

School through grade 9; convention with such schools is to delete and or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as no refs are presented to satisfy
    WP:ORG. No objection to redirecting if a suitable redirect target is identified. This is consistent with the consensus shown in hundreds of school AFDs for schools which do not go through grade 12. Edison (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even after an active search for potential references to this school, I am unable to find anything that could be considered a reliable source. Deletion due to lack of notability certainly seems reasonable in this situation. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Layton, Utah#Education where it is already listed. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Moncton#Education. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest School (Moncton)

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

School through grade 8; convention with such schools is to delete and or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:56, 28 , December 2011 (UTC)

  • Redirect to an appropriate target, if one can be found. Otherwise, delete. Consensus has been reached, in my opinion, that such primary schools are rarely notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no refs are presented to satisfy
    WP:ORG. No objection to redirecting if a suitable redirect target is identified. This is consistent with the consensus shown in hundreds of school AFDs for schools which do not go through grade 12. Edison (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to

"it's information" is considered a weak argument. Hut 8.5 19:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

École Beaubassin

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

School through grade 5; convention with such schools is to delete and or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see
WP:AADD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I know, but the convention is just so stupid it's incredible. Also, if this happens, why don't we just get A7 to cover this? ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 14:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's just an essay that I decided to not follow, like
WP:DTTR. Get consensus to make them policy. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 14:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
AfD is not the venue to debate the vallidity of policy, guidelines, practiced precedent, or what you decide to ignore. It's a place to implement what is generally recognised and accepted by the community.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no refs are presented to satisfy
    WP:ORG. No objection to redirecting if a suitable redirect target is identified. This is consistent with the consensus shown in hundreds of school AFDs for schools which do not go through grade 12. Edison (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Edison
    89≈≈≈≈ 17:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to York Region District School Board. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King City Public School

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

School through grade 8; convention with such schools is to delete and or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to York Region District School Board, per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to article identified by Carrite, per established consensus on how to deal with articles about primary schools. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no refs are presented to satisfy
    WP:ORG. No objection to redirecting to the target article listed by Carrite. This is consistent with the consensus shown in hundreds of school AFDs for schools which do not go through grade 12. Edison (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn and no outstanding !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge School, Doha, Qatar

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

School through year 9; absent unusual circumstances, we tend to delete and/or redirect such articles. Many of its refs are to its own publications, and many others are non-substantial. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as this is a school going up to year 13: it follows the National Curriculum up to Year 9 and then has a sixth form. Schools which cover the entire age range up to 18 are normally considered notable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it appears to educate past grade 12, although the lede states it only goes to grade 9. That is consistent with the de facto notability standard for schools established in hundreds of previous AFDs, but which we have never quite managed to explicitly add to
    WP:ORG. Maybe it is time to do so. Some cleanup is needed. Edison (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2011 (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  11:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Luke's Primary School

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

Primary school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine of any new material that is rs ref supported) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect or delete if no appropriate target can be found. Zero refs is not a good thing. Consensus is that primary schools are rarely notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There must be dozens, if not hundreds of primary schools called St Luke's. It would be wrong to redirect it to the list of schools for this ones local authority, as I don't believe it is the primary topic. The only other St Luke's with a Wiki article is
    this one, but this suffers from the same probelms as the one in this nomination. Lugnuts (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Update - these are the search results for St Luke's primary schools. Lugnuts (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article no longer has zero refs. When one actually takes the trouble to search for and read the sources, one finds that this has been quite a troubled school - an interesting example of one that was found to have failed but is now being turned around. Because of this, it has been the subject of close scrutiny and so there are plenty of detailed independent sources to be found such as this. Warden (talk) 09:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • England and Wales have over 16,000 maintained Primary schools. Every one of them has an Ofsted report. Cannot be used as evidence of notability.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim of notability. Unable to find any reason to grant notability. As per other AfD in terms of establishing notability, I maintain that an Ofsted inspection report only confirms the school' existence. By all accounts being graded "unsatisfactory" (one of four grades awarded by Ofsted) isn't a point of note either. Reports suggest as many as a third of schools fall into this category. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to school district or locali. Non notable primary schools are generally neither deleted nor kept; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). By the same token, references do not assert de facto notability unless the school is especialy notable. Disambiguate as necessary. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have multiple ways of addressing such issues here at Wikipedia. Deletion is nether an argument nor a solution for articles that might potentially have the same name. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So redirect to a newly created dab page then rather than just one of the obvious multiple possibilities for the name. A redirect to any specific location in this case makes no sense at all. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is 1) that dab is not a reason for deletion, 2) Redirect to school district or locality; so where is the problem? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's saying that it could reasonably be redirected to any number of localities or school districts, so a disambiguation page should be substituted for the usual redirect
89≈≈≈≈ 20:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Exactly what I'm saying. Redirects need to go to a sensible place. This page either needs renaming first (to "XXX Primary Schoo1, LOCATION") or needs to go to a dab page (in fact, it probably needs the content replacing with a dab page) which lists all the known possible St Lukes Primary Schools. If that's the best way of going about it then go ahead and do it - the page is going to be either deleted or redirected anyway. But the worst possible solution in this case (and cases like it) is redirecting to a single location. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet
    Wanderer 22:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Koduvila. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis Upper Primary School

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

Primary school. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine, though it has zero ref-supported information) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect since no-one has offered an argument against the idea. No target has been suggested and

List of primary schools in Belfast for the time being. It can be retargeted at editorial discretion. Hut 8.5 19:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

St. Michael's Primary School, Belfast

St. Michael's Primary School, Belfast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No assertion of why this school is notable. Couldn't find anything to grant notability Pit-yacker (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Fmph (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2011 (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. Keep-arguments amount to "it's relevant" and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mothers News

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

I think it is probably

WP:ORG requires), and the other, the Comics Journal piece, is largely written by the Mothers News publishers. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

List of Middle-earth weapons and armour. Merging and redirect target may be further discussed on the article's talk page. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Red Arrow (Middle-earth)

Red Arrow (Middle-earth) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Someone prodded it as "There is no need for an article on such an obscure topic in a fictional universe.", but it needs proper discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't need it's own article. There is a list of middle-earth artefacts floating about somewhere, that's good enough. GimliDotNet (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone can add it to a list if they feel like it, but this doesn't need its own article - it's totally non-notable even in its own universe. Compare Glamdring, Sting, and Angrist, which are much more important and don't have articles - we just don't cover fictional stuff in this amount of detail. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is clearly notable being documented in detail in numerous sources such as The new Tolkien companion, Tolkien and the invention of myth, The forsaken realm of Tolkien: Tolkien and the medieval tradition, War and the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, &c. But the nominator provides no reason to delete and so there's no case to answer. Warden (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is nearly eight years old and uses only one source: a primary one at that. If it can be improved I may change my vote but I doubt it will be. GimliDotNet (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You obviously haven't read the article as the arrow makes more than one appearance. Warden (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. So there were two. Whoopee. I knew what it was, having read LOTR umpteen times, and already had a pretty clear opinion as to its relative importance. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the
    WP:IKNOWIT which seems especially weak when it turns out that you don't in fact know it. Warden (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That's just a redirect to a list, which you would know if you followed the link. I'm calling
WP:POT on this one :-D GimliDotNet (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Link Records

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

Non-notable record store/record company. Nothing to establish notability, not significant coverage in independent sources (as required under

WP:MUSIC criteria. GrapedApe (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article certainly needs work, especially with its references but its notability is established by its artist roster. A quick scan of Ian McFarlane's Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop provides The Boys Next Door/The Birthday Party,[17] The Bleeding Hearts,[18] Philip Brophy/→ ↑ →,[19] Dynamic Hepnotics,[20] and so on. Other sources include Ed Nimmervoll's Howlspace [21] and the National Library of Australia [22].shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources: Closing shop.[23], [24], [25]. Going digital.[26]. Shop/label.[27]. Shop.[28].shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2011 (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hug a Ginga Day

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

Changed PROD to an AfD, as the article already had a disputed PROD in its history. Reason given in the new PROD: Obscure joke holiday. Singularity42 (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nom was me. Thanks Singularity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A local radio station gimmick that's received some passing "human interest" and "slow news day" coverage in local papers, but not the level of
    significant coverage needed to establish notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, nomination by a

talk · contribs). --MuZemike 03:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

The Rise of the Blue Beetle!

The Rise of the Blue Beetle! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - at first glance this appears to be adequately sourced with four sources. Of the four: ToonZone describes itself as a "site run by a group of devoted animation fans" and doesn't appear to qualify as a reliable source for establishing notability. Same for Mania.com, which allows anyone to register and post reviews with little or no indication of editorial oversight. The Wired article, while a reliable source, is a general article about the series and not specifically about the episode. That leaves IGN. A single source is not good enough to establish the notability of the individual episode. Notability requires multiple independent reliable sources that are substantially about the episode. Lee Haas (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Mania is for sure a reliable source. Staff reviews are separated from user reviews. The reviewer is "currently the editor of the comic book movie news at Mania.com." Having a panel of writers and three editors that have contributed to major media companies, this is reliable.[29] SL93 (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also really like this interview with the director talking about putting the episode together. SL93 (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found this. SL93 (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Toon Zone is used in 485 articles so it is possibly reliable. SL93 (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another interview mainly focusing on Blue Beetle in this episode and the pilot. The writer only did one other episode. SL93 (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2011 (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. Michig (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weather and Climate during the Trail of Tears

Weather and Climate during the Trail of Tears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original essay/synth, "look at me I'm proving a point" and all; I don't see evidence that this is a topic discussed in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well written and well sourced, but subject is not inherently notable in itself, and there is a strong whiff of OR. The fact that it was written in a single purpose account doesn't push me toward giving it the benefit of any minor doubts. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though it is conceivable that there might be something to merge back to Trail of Tears or the articles on the individual removals. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2011 (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. POV fork of Armenian genocide. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French Genocide

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

Misuse of term "French Genocide" and non-notable recent media event. The term "French Genocide" is rare in the literature, and when it does appear, usually refers to the killings in the Vendee region during the French Revolution [30]. Here, this term is completely misused. To the extent that the deaths of Algerians during the Algerian war of independence could be construed as genocide (which is generally not the case), the article should be entitled "Algerian genocide". But that term is nonexistant in the literature [31]. All we have here are the accusations of the Turkish Government in retaliation for the recent French law on the Armenian Genocide, which is not sufficiently notable to warrant an encyclopedia article.

talk) 02:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Agree : A short-lived thunderous political reaction, nothing else. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Media manipulation!
  • Delete This page English translation of
    Esc2003 (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is political point scoring between a genocide-denying Turkey and the French legislature. If kept it should be "Genocide in Algeria". The killing of the Jews by the Germans is never called "German genocide" and the article on the Armenians is at Armenian genocide. History needs to be written by historians based on documents, not by policitians with a gripe. I am taking no view on whether the actions of the French during the Algerian war of independence do or do not constitute a genocide. I will merely comment that war is a nasty business, and particularly civil war, in which relatively uninvolved people get caught in the crossfire. We hear of millions having died in the recent DRC conflicts, but I do not think any one is crying "genocide", at least not yet. It is a pity that List of massacres in Algeria is not in chronological order. However, it seems that peopel were killed as a result of armed conflict, not merely becasue of their ethnicity, which is (or should be) the test for genocide. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was

Speedy Keep
- Criteria 5, page is on the main page; non-admin close

22 December 2011 Baghdad bombings

22 December 2011 Baghdad bombings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why not list the obituaries of every person in the world that died? This is not a real encyclopedia entry, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjiird2011 (talk • contribs)

  • I am fixing the formatting of this AfD nomination; no recommendation on my part yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2011 (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. Michig (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bud, Not Buddy (film)

Bud, Not Buddy (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails

WP:CRYSTAL. I would say to redirect this to the notable (and great) book, but I found nothing that mentions this film including unreliable sources. SL93 (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reason 'Tokyogirl79' and 'Chris the Paleontologist' did not find a "speedy" criteria is because films are generally not speediable... BUT lack of any coverage toward a film adaptation of the novel,[32][33] indicates this article is
    unsourcably premature and a redirect unsuitable as the topic of a film adaptation is unverifiable. The book article will show up as a target option in a search for a "Bud, Not Buddy" topic, so we should not use a redirect from a completely hypothetical film title that is itself unverifiable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:18, 29 December 2011 (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newark Boys Chorus

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

Primary school lacking in notability sufficient for an article. See

WP:OUTCOMES#Schools. Suggest redirecting to the primary school section of Newark, New Jersey, which is what I tried to do. tedder (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Despite the admin/nominator's misrepresentation, the the article about the Newark Boys Chorus is about the renowned boy's choir, a grouip that meets criteria for notability.Djflem (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, when it was nominated, the article was about the school. It was your changes that "recast" it as the choir. tedder (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not continue to make misrepresentations. The article at the time of your nomination was about its title, the chorus, as seen in link you have provided above. In the future please include a rationale in your edit summaries. And please also open a subject or respond on a article's talk page as opposed to wagging as a first option to bring it here. If you were unsatisfied with referencing there are tags for that, too Djflem (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Undecided. The chorus has toured internationally, and performed at well known venues, but so have many high school choruses, bands and orchestras, and many college a capella groups, whose articles have been deleted. The article's subject seems "on the bubble" as to whether it satisfies notability, either through coverage as a school via
    WP:ORG or as a musical group via Wikipedia:Notability (music) . It has a stronger case than the average small private elementary school. Edison (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment The group has toured internationally, and they have a bit more of a case than others to exist. They even have a famous alumni, although my high school chorus probably has more people who are famous than this one. Still, the page would be better off about the school itself with a mention of the choir, but that is just my opinion.
talk) 01:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amejo

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

Dictionary definition with no reliable sources. —Ryulong (竜龙) 00:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2011 (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Elementary School

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

This disambiguation page does not list any notable topics, and it only exists because there was once an article at this title that has since been at AFD. —Ryulong (竜龙) 00:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per G6 -- all links are red, thus is an unnecessary disambiguation page. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, none of the content is irreplaceable by even a bot. Josh Parris 21:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Fmph (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

Jiangdu . (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Jiangdu Middle School

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

Declined PROD. Lacks sources. Fails

WP:ORG. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 00:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    Jiangdu or an article about education in the area, if it exists. Consensus is that only the most unusual middle schools are notable, such as those of well-documented historical or architectural significance. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

123.118.81.178 (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nobody except the nominator advocates deletion and a merge/move discussion can be initiated on the articles talk page. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JetBlue Airways Flight 292

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

This incident doesn't meet the criteria for

WP:PERSISTENCE William 00:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Why not copy some of the info to an article about Jet Blue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjiird2011 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to
    Airbus A320 or create a new article Airbus A320 family landing gear incidents. This problem affected at least six other aircraft. This one just happened to be on a slow news day in L.A. Airbus had already identified the problem and issued a maintenance advisory when this incident occurred. Note that this has already been discussed on the article's talk page. Pburka (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It's only occasionally do I come across the non-existent WP:SLOWNEWSDAY clause. Coverage wasn't just local to Los Angeles, but very heavily nationally and internationally (I guess Hurricane Rita [38], Simon Wiesenthal dying [39] and 12 Americans slain in Iraq is evidence of a "slow news day"). --Oakshade (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually the 3rd AfD for this. Please also see the article talk page where
    N419BH has ideas for merging the content into a more comprehensive article on Airbus landing gear failures. LoveUxoxo (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep for now - this was a notable, significant incident. It probably should be merged into an Airbus landing gear incidents article when that is written, but that's outside AfD's remit - so keep for now. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a well written article that has been edited and updated by numerous people on Wikipedia since 2009. Why delete all that work now? It was a memorable incident - particularly with the people on board being able to watch live videos of their own plane crash landing from the live news feeds. Anyone researching these sort of events would find this article a fascinating and informative summary of the event. It has been well edited by experts in the field since it was originally written. BritAirman (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Whether the article is well written or not or memorable isn't the point. Is this incident encyclopedic? Most non-fatal airline incidents aren't. Some fatal air crashes, cargo planes or commuter planes that have articles at Wikipedia, should really merit a few lines in an article on the airport or the aircraft that are lost. They're written up because they happened in the last 10 years. WP is becoming a great chronicle of the last 10 years. Lexi Thompson who has won two major league tournaments has oodles written about her, Kathy Whitworth winner of 88 LPGA Tournaments between 1962 and 1984, not so much. A sense of perspective is missing but Recentism is not.- William 22:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comparisons to golf players might be interesting to some, but article topics that adhere to Wikipeida notability guidelines like
        WP:NOTABILITY and its WP:GNG which trumps the lesser ones, not the other way around. Feel free to make improvements to the golf player Kathy Whitworth article, but that has nothing to do with the notability of this one. --Oakshade (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
        ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Attempted re-opening of discussion on 7 December.

JetBlue Airways Flight 292

AfDs for this article:
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:NOTNEWS. The arguments for keeping the article in the previous nomination are very weak. At best this warrants a paragraph / entry in the A320s accident section. Petebutt (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per the above discussion. If you don't like it, make a third nomination. Epicgenius (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Speedy Keep - You need to make another (fourth) nomination and not tag a new one to an existing closed one. --Oakshade (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm collapsing in lieu of deleting this section outright. —C.Fred (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proctail

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

Alcoholic drink that fails

existence does not mean notability. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Kuyabribri, Thank you for your feedback. I have included two references, including a maxim magazine article, discussing the cocktail. This should be sufficent evidence of notarity. The notability is light, as this is a newer drinking phenomenon, however light notability is notability nonetheless. I ask that you please remove the deletion. -crwcochran 22:21, 20 December 2011

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable / local. Found only one relevant ghit here http://www.mibba.com/journals/read/139822/  7  00:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by Tonywalton Talk I've removed the speedy tag as this is undergoing AfD, however
  • Delete as nn. This doesn't appear to be notable as a cocktail; as 7 says there appear to be no notable references under the given name, and searches for cocktails made from vodka and pineapple turn up no matches under this name. Tonywalton Talk 01:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya ERS-5600 Systems

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note – The above information is part of the nomination for deletion, and is not an !vote. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The above not a !vote and Alan Liefting is a retired account. - Geek2003 (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are three ELs to IT trade journals that would seem to indicate notability by the classic route of significant mention in 3rd party publications. Why are you discounting them? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.

• Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Added history section and references for notability. - Geek2003 (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    not a catalog or directory. Some products like Cisco PIX or Nortel Meridian lend themselves to encyclopedic coverage because they're technically or historically important. Has anything interesting actually been said about this series of stackable switches which goes beyond simple description or press-release content? If not, it belongs in a list. – Pnm (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Several articles and equipment reviews are now listed. - Geek2003 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 22:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep – Per reviews and coverage in computer-related sources:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 03:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note those sources are in
a single, short news cycle. – Pnm (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2011 (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hippos in Tanks

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

Too soon, one marginally known client, the rest are redlinks, one mention in FACT magazine. Doesn't pass

WP:N for corporations at this time. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redlink doesn't mean not notable. I could demonstrate notability for probably 9 of the 10-act roster listed. The FACT "mention" is regarding it being their label of the year in 2011. FACT is highly regarded. http://hipposintanks.net lists about 20 pages of coverage in sources like the
    WP:CORPDEPTH 86.44.31.213 (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Your argument might be stronger if you provided actual links. All I see are a bunch of weak links and passing mentions. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    it would be, but it's already much stronger than the nom. do you view the FACT source as a passing mention? And this is what you describe as marginally known? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to enter a pedantic argument over your perception vs. mine on FACT. If you have other cites that are as strong as you claim (ie: NY Times article where it is receives significant coverage), please provide them. Otherwise, I will leave it to others to draw their own conclusions. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you shouldn't frequent AFD if you aren't prepared to discuss points you make in your noms. 1) The FACT source is significant, non-trivial, reliable, and strongly indicates notability 2) Much of the current roster and several of the past are notable acts (This is easy, though tedious, to demonstrate, & I'll be happy to do so on request) You strongly suggest otherwise in yr nom 3) read wp:corpdepth, cited above. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources shown by the IP are all tangential, trivial namedrops, not enoguh to carry an article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how cuddly we're supposed to be about these things, but that's an absurd comment. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please limit your comments in an AFD to the issue at hand, instead of
    personal attacks. Disproving the message is fine, discrediting the messenger is not. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I did indeed address the comment and not the commentator. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    31.213's response was meaningless, as it didn't explain why TPH's comment was absurd, but it certainly wasn't a personal attack. By the way, why not use [[
    WP:NPA]] when you're linking "personal attacks"? — Bility (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
'twas an assertion in response to an assertion, certainly. i notice DB's link urges responsiveness to good faith questions! i notice too that neither DB nor TPH have declared that the one has selected and summoned the other to this discussion, which is extraordinarily sharp practice. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to assume
canvassing. I do wonder why TPH was the only editor besides the article creator who was notified of this AfD and whether he had requested to be informed about discussions involving Hippos in Tanks or music-related AfDs. Only Dennis Brown can tell us why this one particular editor was chosen, however. — Bility (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
TPH was consulted because I trust his opinion. He has a history of disagreeing with me as much as agreeing with me, but he is 10x the expert on these types of AFDs. When he disagrees, I dig more and find out what I'm missing. There are other editors and admins here I do the same with. A check of histories can easily show that we don't converse much here, I've just seen him around enough on music AFDs to trust his *opinion*. If I had contacted a few people who all agreed with me, then I would understand the concern, but in this case, I asked one person that has a documented history of participating in music related AFDs. I didn't think to mention I had asked him to participate, but then again, I asked him in a public way. I wasn't trying to hide anything. I understand the concern, but given the totality of the circumstances, I think it is clear that I wasn't canvasing. I accept that the concern was raised in good faith (I did ask him to look) but I only asked him, and made it clear in my request I wanted an objective opinion. Ask User:DGG, I've asked him several times to look at AFDs I've nominated and had to eat crow, so my history should indicate that I don't cherry pick input from people who agree with me, but instead from people whose opinions I consider expert in particular fields. When it comes to music, TenPoundHammer is one those I consider an expert on music policy here. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
personally i accept that was your motivation, and perhaps it was not for you to note anyway, but the contact should have been noted here. perhaps i do him a disservice, but i do not think TPH's expertise extends to electronic music and its sourcing. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight, I probably should have said that I asked him here, it just didn't occur to me at the time, thank you for assuming good faith. My faith in TPH is not based on his ability to source a particular type of music as it is to interpret the notability guidelines for music notability. He isn't the authority, but he is someone who I've seen enough times that I trust his judgement, as he has demonstrated many times a desire to improve the overall quality of music articles. Even when we disagree (several times) I never have questioned his sincerity or objectivity. That said, I still have concerns about the article, particularly since it hasn't been better sourced since the AFD started. It's fine that we disagree on the strength of the references, but it would be helpful if there were more than one to rely on, which would work toward satisfying the "multiple" part of notability, as long as both sources comformed to the
too soon still holds. I have no issue if someone wants it userfied until more sources appear. Who knows, next month, the New York Times, Rolling Stones or another major publication may do a story on the company. However, they haven't yet, which is the issue at hand. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Literally all of your concerns have been addressed prior to your your comment above, except that i am completely unconcerned with the current state of the article. AFD is not for improvement of an article while lazy, incompetent or uninterested ppl hold a gun to its head, wouldn't you agree? It's not fine that we disagree on the strength of the sources: the degree to which this issue is subjective is very limited. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not just spectating by the way, I want to give a rationale, but I'm unsure whether FACT Magazine and Alt Sounds are reliable sources or not. The mentions in unambiguously reliable sources are passing mentions, usually just noting Hippos in Tanks as the label the album or artist is releasing on. Here is the Alt Sounds article. If either one of those sources are notable, I'd keep the article, otherwise delete. — Bility (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Others may know different, but I make no claims for AltSounds, except that i found my visit just now quite horrible. FACT is a fine source, however; I'm quite busy just now but give me an hour or so and I will try to demonstrate that. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the idea that in notability terms significant treatment of the work released on the label in high-quality sources constitutes "passing mentions" is highly dubious! nonetheless, it would be a mistake to view KCRW music blog [40] or The Quietus [41] (or FACT, of course) as either ambiguous or passing mentions, and Dummy seems at most uncertain (i haven't looked into it). 86.44.31.213 (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It's a pain to research due to the influential '60s NY mag, the Bahraini fashion mag, Science Fiction Science Fact mag, the phrase "in fact", etc. etc. I sought to demonstrate reliability not notability, so i also excluded the Saatchi & Saatchi Doc Marten/Kurt Cobain advertising controversy. If it's only notability you're after, check the Da Capo cite, the two guardian articles and perhaps the salon article below. if that's not sufficient with all the cites, search said brouhaha.

Cited in

  • Simon Reynolds' Retromania: Pop Culture's Addiction to Its Own Past. Faber and Faber Ltd,2011, 978-0571232086 in Italian translation
  • in UC Irvine professor Peter Krapp's Noise Channels: Glitch and Error in Digital Culture, [42]
  • in Da Capo Press's Best Music Writing 2010, ed. Ann Powers, [43]
  • in Adam Harper's Infinite Music: Imagining the Next Millennium of Human Music-Making, [44];

Cited by

Sight & Sound, Frieze [52] and so on. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for all the research. I think you've established that FACT Magazine is reliable, and I found one of the other sources you provided convincing as well. — Bility (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The combination of the FACT article and one of the other sources given by 31.213 establishes this company's notability. Other concerns, such as quantity of sources or amount of content, should be handled on the article, not at AfD. — Bility (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Towards notability, here are some other sources: electronicbeats.net and dazeddigital.com. — Bility (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solarminite Productions

Solarminite Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  1. Promotional article written for a new/unestablished company.
  2. No third-party references, only links to video hosting sites.
  3. They claim to be in the web business, but they are "currently in the process of creating it's own website, but does not currently have a web domain." Senator2029║talk 19:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable spam. SL93 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Left a message for Numenlad (talk · contribs) (the article's creator) inviting him/her to leave his/her comments here. Senator2029║talk 03:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport#Accidents and incidents. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines Flight 516

Delta Air Lines Flight 516 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:AIRCRASH criteria for a standalone article William 00:05, 28 December 2011 (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, but I took the liberty of redirecting this to Indic computing. Article was about computing in the Gujarati script. My understanding is that all of the Brahmi-based abugida scripts of India (and Thailand, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Bali, and elsewhere) share common features (ligatures; diacritical vowel marks) and could be viewed as graphical variants on a shared underlying system. This was referenced only to primary sources and a blog. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarati computing

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

Advert for a blog and library masquerading as an article. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete No evidence of notability, nor even any coherent content about the supposed topic, rather than plugging a website. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neither an advertisement nor promotion, but an article about the subject specified, including,as it ought, information about various resources of computing in that language.. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps this could be covered in a section on computing in Gujarati language but only if there are sufficient 3rd party reliable sources to base it on. This article is nothing more than a collection of links and reads like an advert.--RadioFan (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Content is not encyclopedic, but essentially a list of some links that may be helpful in dealing with Gujarati in computing.
    Wikipedia is not a link repository. I suspect (but can't check) that this is essentially a recreation of List of free gujarati tools. Perhaps some of the content could find a spot in a language-specific subsection of Indic computing.  --Lambiam 09:40, 29 December 2011 (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. Consensus of the discussion was that the article lacked sourcing that would allow it to meet the

AIRCRASH essay. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 06:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

USAir Flight 499

USAir Flight 499 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:AIRCRASH criteria for a standalone article. William 00:03, 28 December 2011 (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. Michig (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Level and Incline Running

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

This article should be part of the article on running, not a stand-alone article. It is identified as being part of a seminar. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Without voicing an opinion on the notability of this particular subject, I'm a bit troubled when articles are created as part of a College course, since such articles usually aren't created with knowledge of what Wikipedia is and isn't. Perhaps someone could reach out to the school mentioned in the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Possibly merge to running, but what is here is well referenced. Might not be possible to merge due to length, in which case the ancillary article is fine. (Im a deletionist, so double count this vote :) ) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete It really is very well-written, but also seems an unnecessary split from running and not particularly well-integrated into wikipedia. Following the links through, it looks to me as if the author(s) have written a number of pretty specialized articles which (perhaps) ought to have been part of other articles but which are so well-written and researched that deletion seems extreme. Upon consideration, I would be uncomfortable recommending deletion; a long-standing editor with a project-wide view ought to review this situation. If it's not unique, then precedent can be used. If it is unique, then more experienced eyes are needed. I just don't know what to say about a college lecture series in wikipedia, is all. TreacherousWays (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So far as I can tell, the nomination and discussion relates to whether this article establishes notability. It seems to me multiple independent reliable sources are used as references which provide significant coverage to perfectly well indicate notability. Hence, the article is permitted in its own right and so whether it might better be merged elsewhere is purely an editorial matter. A merge with running would unbalance that article and, moreover, the present article seems to me very satisfactory in its present scope. The title is not ideal but that is not a matter for AfD. I am not too comfortable with the talk page linking in a rather promotional manner, but the article itself does not suffer from this defect. Thincat (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article provides comparisons between level running and incline running. The sourcing is academic in nature, and the article itself has sufficient inline citations, although the addition of more would benefit it. Merging to the Running article would make that article even longer, whereas this article is a reasonable content fork of the running article. Furthermore, the article is well-written and encyclopedic. Despite the fact that it was contributed by a specialized seminar group, the article is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:50, 29 December 2011 (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 Tupac Shakur. Probably selectively.  Sandstein  11:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Garland (Ex Black Panther)

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

References don't pan, but still he is best known as the father of Tupac, and notability isn't inherited. Being an ex panther is also not notable by itself. Considering that this is a living person, the unreferenced claims are a problem as well. Even with some incidental mentions, notability isn't established. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being mentioned in two documentaries as the father of someone famous is what
    WP:INHERITED covers. And please, please, take the time to learn how to do a proper signature. Your signature links to a non-existent user. CocoLumps (not really you) is not the same as CoCoLumps (you). Names here are case sensitive. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge to Tupac Shakur. Being a Black Panther activist and a father isn't a sufficient notability hook. Carrite (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. I agree, all the coverage of the subject is derivative from Tupac - it is intended to give the reader a better understanding of how Tupac came to be the person he was. This is best covered at the Tupac article.
Above comment was by ‎ User:Xymmax 06:35, 6 January 2012. Carrite (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modelio

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

Product does not demonstrate notability. It seemed to have a lot of references but when I followed them, they were either 404s or placed announcements (advertisements). The remaining links are simply announcements and company releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the references show enough notability. Walter Görlitz, please do more research before nominating something. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I did my research. I actually read every press release listed as a reference, and general story where the subject was mentioned off-hand. There are no feature articles on the subject. Would you care to change your vote after reading the remaining, non-404 "references"? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added references to various scholarly articles and papers that reference Modelio and its features. Armand3496 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://ingame.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/28/9770514-chastened-gaming-rep-responds-to-internet-infamy
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_December_28&oldid=1142638785"