Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 4

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies Live Longer

Ladies Live Longer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article has multiple issues 1. No biographical information 2. Does not meet the layout requirements 3. Is not adequately referenced.

So please delete Wikishagnik (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, because they won the Funny Women 2011 Variety Award. The Funny Women awards are sufficiently notable to have national media coverage. Jll (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, their award is pay for play.
  talk) 22:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the award is for new entrants into the industry, they didn't win and there doesn't actually seem to be much coverage.
  Stuartyeates (talk) 03:51, 11 February 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) 01:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salesi Tongamoa

Salesi Tongamoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article has multiple issues 1. Does not meet style layout 2. Does not meet notability requirements 3. Does not say much about the player at all

So I suggest delete it Wikishagnik (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or maybe redirect to
  Mkativerata (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as fails
  WP:RLN. Mattlore (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 February 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) 01:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SmitFraud

SmitFraud (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 no notability for this computer virus. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary source to establish notability as required by
  WP:GNG. The best source I could find was a Google books result that's helpful but not sufficient, at least for me. Msnicki (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: while there is quite a few of references from third-party sources, the notability per
  WP:NSOFT is not established anywhere. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per
  Stuartyeates (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. LFaraone 02:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thewittyshit.com

Thewittyshit.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A7 speedies on this article have been declined twice before, and a third nomination just popped up. Although I personally see no reason to advocate the deletion of this article, I've brought it here to settle the matter once and for all. Neutral.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nothing indicates notability of this webste. I nominated it for deletion, as I had not realized it had been nominated before. The fact that people keep wanting to nominate it indicates evidence that a lot of people don't think it's notable.
  talk) 18:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep. The coverage cited in the article is probably sufficient, although some of it is as much about the website's creators as the website itself.--Michig (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  What notability does the article claim?

  talk) 23:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

See

WP:GNG. If it has received significant coverage in reliable sources, it's notable.--Michig (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• What reliable sources?

  talk) 23:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• keepThis article provides sufficient information and also has enough external links to prove its notability..Brat tariq (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC). — Brat tariq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  The number of sources is not a claim of notability.

  talk) 23:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  If multiple third party reliable sources are available then it has notability...its notable. --Brat tariq (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unremarkable website. I'm not seeing significant coverage from the provided sources, tho - I see some passing mentions and what look like product placement/press releases in local papers - not enough to signify greater notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  local paper..? sources mentioned here like DNA newspaper,India Today are national publications and hold a great significance in India.thus they definitely provide notability--Brat tariq (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources: India Today, DNA News. There's also coverage in Yahoo Campus (India) and mentions in Mid-Day. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one round of publicity less than six months after founding doesn't notability make.
  Stuartyeates (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Underdark (band)

Underdark (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence that this meets

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Haven't found anything significant about them.--Cavarrone (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

for now, change to Neutral per below. I took a look at these websites, and at first glance they appear reliable secondary sources. Probably more in-depth researches in Polish websites could reveal further sources. Cavarrone (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There are several Polish sources from Google News, which may or may not be reliable: [1], [2]. Also this. Even if these are deemed reliable sources, it's still a bit thin to support an article.--Michig (talk) 08:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There doesn't appear to be an entry on the Polish WP, however... ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:02, 4 February 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 Iris (software). JohnCD (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dexetra

Dexetra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

According to

• Delete As the nominator. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I declined this speedy delete because of the claim to produce Iris (software) which is famous enough to be discussed om Tech Talk Radio podcast. However I have not check if there is any substantial coverage on the company. Searchers should also use local languages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I have added three independent references to show
  WP:GNG is satisfied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I do not think the sources are sufficient to show .notability I see the first source indicates that it received funding -- but for only $200,000. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and possibly selective merge to
  for all the rest of human history (yes, all 10 1/2 months left of it) needed to support an encyclopedia article at this time; but that isn't the question posed here. But assuming for the moment that Iris (software) merits an article, a brief notice of the developer in its article would not be out of order. Startup announcements from "Techie Buzz" and mobile phone application trade blogs do not establish significance on their own. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect per Smerdis of Tlön's rationale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, default to keep since deletion obviously isn't the correct outcome. Whether the article should be merged to Pez is now beyond the remit of AfD. Deryck C. 16:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Pez

Star Wars Pez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No assertion of

• Delete. There don't seem to be any other Pez product lists on Wikipedia, and absent some verifiable information beyond "this was made" I don't see a reason to have them (a
  WP:NOTCATALOG issue, perhaps?). The Star Wars series maybe merit a mention at Pez#Characters. postdlf (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:ODD. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • One fan's amateur museum, with Star Wars Pez being one among 7,600 various items? The Weird Maryland piece might marginally establish the museum's notability, but I didn't even see a mention of pez. The WM book doesn't establish Star Wars pez notability any more than it establishes Star Wars kite, yo-yo, or keychain notability (which are mentioned in the essay). --EEMIV (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please give me some time. I've been adding some other sources, many of them fairly recent news items. See also
      WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Pez#Characters. Let us dispense with the notion that we need an article about a particular Pez variation. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- there's too much there to merge anywhere, quite frankly. More than enough sourced info to support its own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Clarity. Seems an appropriate place to mention it. Maybe a merge to Cultural impact of Star Wars if that article were expanded to have some details on fans who collect items like this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the major cleanup and sources added by Bearian. Based on the sources added to the article, it appears that the subject has received
  notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge individual pez's don't seem notable from the sources; but taken together they are. There is no reason or rationale given for abandoning the long-standing method of grouping pez's.
  Stuartyeates (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

How is this particular set of pez's not notable? The vast majority of the coverage in the article is not about the generic pez, but specifically the Star Wars Pez. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The sources now are enough to establish notability, thanks to User:Bearian's help. --Bmusician 14:18, 14 February 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) 01:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Panagiotis Andreou

Panagiotis Andreou (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 young player who fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:N. Cloudz679 17:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. Can't find a single Google hit so possibly a hoax. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL GauchoDude (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - the article links to a "fantasy" football game website; it's a hoax. Jogurney (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Even if this article isn't a hoax, there is no indication it meets
  WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:37, 11 February 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.

Legality of drugs

Legality of drugs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article is not what the title says; title is too broad/undefined. Article as it currently exists largely duplicates information in

• Merge or improve. Nomination argues for improvement, not for why the article's information is bad a priori. So go improve it. Sai ¿?✍

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It's all just about one drug, the Devil's Weed, hence redundant due an existing article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Title is too broad" is, in of itself, a non-argument. Law is vastly broader than this page, but no one proposes that it be deleted. See Wikipedia:Summary style.
• Unless it is expanded to include other drugs, this article should be merged into to
  Legality of cannabis by country, and redirected to that article, unless anyone can think of a better target. I think that it is a plausible search term. James500 (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Improve or merge per above. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. this article has broader scope than the cannabis article, but I think hard drugs are banned in most countries. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 06:50, 6 February 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. Possible renaming can be considered as part of normal editing. JohnCD (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth completion

Smooth completion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is better suited for Wiktionary Wikishagnik (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete: "Smooth completion" is a non sourced terminology, which contradicts the usual mathematical meaning of "completion", which supposes that the completed space is embedded in its completion (this is not the case here). Moreover, this terminology is not notable, the usual one being "normalization of the projective completion" or "desingularization of the projective completion". D.Lazard (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a mathematical error on D.Lazard's part. If the affine curve is nonsingular, then it is indeed imbedded in the smooth completion. Tkuvho (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood your logic but the article still belongs to Wiktionary Wikishagnik (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your comment is based on the assumption that the current form of the stub is its current form. You may have noticed, however, that the article was only created a short while ago, and has not received the attention it deserves. The "wiktionary" idea does not apply to it more than any other math article in wikipedia. Tkuvho (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short While Ago? The Article was created on 5th Jan 2012?Wikishagnik (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Smooth compactification: It seems like the term "smooth completion" is used (from a quick google scholar search), but I've never heard it. On the other hand, "smooth compactification" is a quite common term for what seems to be the subject of this article (and it applies to varieties of higher dimension) and it a quite notable subject. I disagree with the statement that this belongs on wiktionary for the same reason Tkuvho mentions above: the same would hold for plently of other math articles (especially stubs). RobHar (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "compactification" title is more logical, but I happened to have heard "smooth completion" in this context. I guess the thing to do is to look at reliable sources. What would this be called in a standard textbook? Tkuvho (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (although have not objections against renaming), it is a quite common subject in complex geometry.

  Sadly, there are many Wikipedians which basically misunderstand the purpose of Wiktionary and think about it as about "unWikipedia for very short articles". But the difference is actually in the subject, not size. Wikipedia should describe pieces of knowledge represented by words. Wiktionary is for knowledge about words, which obviously is not this case. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this confusion will exist till the time people think of Wiktionary to be an inferior cousin of Wikipedia. Agreed that people and experts spend more time on Wikipedia but that does not mean we create pages for every documented variation of a mathematical formula. Wiktionary is better suited to understand a concept while Wikipedia is better suited for giving it a historical context, contribution to humanity. I know that a lot of people try to use Wikipedia as a textbook on scientific topics but that defeats the whole purpose of an encyclopedia. We cant confuse an article on sauce with its cooking instructions. Wikishagnik (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with
  affine algebraic curve i don't see why this article deserves a whole page, then every exception to every mathematical formula will get a new page. I still hold on to Delete because their is nothing encyclopedic about this article. Its just a concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikishagnik (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

"Just a concept": We have many articles that are "just" about "concepts". That's a silly reason to vote delete. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: This is not a candidate to move to Wiktionary but notability is still borderline. The term does have some traction in the literature, though most of the sources I found defined it for a variety rather than just a curve as given in the article. I could not find any sources that were accessible to someone without a degree in algebraic geometry, or more specifically I couldn't find any secondary sources, so I think this subject is more suitable for a section of larger article than for an article on its own. The article as it is does have a number of serious issues, lack of sources being the most serious, but also the article consists simply of a definition and an example, so notability aside it would be better to include it in another article until there is enough material to do a split. I'd suggest Resolution of singularities as a merge target but there may be better ones.--RDBury (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope. First, smooth completion (compactification) may involve resolutions of singularities (e.g. where a curve has self-intersections at infinity), but is not always the case. There are no singularities in curves ${\displaystyle y=x}$ or ${\displaystyle y^{2}=x^{2}+1}$, but their compactifications are non-trivial. Second, the article "resolution of singularities" is about various methods, by contrast with "smooth completion" where blowing up is always used. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: widely used term, see here. It would be nice however to add some references. Sasha (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting hits on Google scholar is not a criterion for keep. First, are you getting hits on the actual topic or hits on the same phrase being used with a different meaning? You have to actually follow the links and understand what they say to make that determination. Also, are any of the hits for secondary sources? Again you have to follow the links and determine if they are primary research. WP shouldn't have articles where only a few researchers can verify their accuracy.--RDBury (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material is in Hartshorne chapter 4, a standard reference (see current version of article). Tkuvho (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly where in Hartshorne is the term "smooth completion" used? Does he call it something else? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@RDBury: Well, I am not an expert in algebraic geometry, but I hope I am not totally incompetent. Obviously, I have looked through the some of the links (to the best of my modest ability) before posting the link to google hits here. Most of the links that I saw are secondary sources which refer to the same mathematical object which is discussed in the article.

As to accuracy, the same reasoning can be used (and has been used) to argue that there should be no technical mathematical articles on Wikipedia at all. Sasha (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The page requires expansion but is obviously a notable subject. Tkuvho (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I maybe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikishagnik (talk • contribs) 21:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  affine algebraic curve if it can't be significantly expanded with references; it's just too short and dict def like as it is, though yes not the sort of definition that would be welcome at wiktionary.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Merge to which article? Did you walk through the link

  affine algebraic curve, yourself? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I'm leaning towards keep. Assertions that the article has no possibility of expansion seem farfetched to me. A glance at some of the scholar hits shows, for instance, that researchers also talk about smooth completions of higher-dimensional varieties. So right there is something that could be used to expand the article (and also make the merge targets so far proposed inappropriate). Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Perhaps I should add a comment concerning how important smooth compactifications are (and Smooth completion appears to be a special case/synonym though I've never heard the term). Off the top of my head, here are just a few names of people who have put a lot of effort into constructing smooth compactifications (of Shimura varieties): Deligne–Rapoport, Faltings–Chai, Mumford, Katz–Mazur. And I'll just stop there, that's 3 Fields medalists already. This subject is extremely important in the whole Langlands/Serre automorphic/Galois representations business. RobHar (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Variations of Hodge structures of a Teichmüller curve" by M Möller in

J. Amer. Math. Soc. 2006 uses the term "smooth completion". Tkuvho (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

What I meant to say was that before this AfD, I had never heard of "smooth completion", though when I searched for it on the google I found many results. The difference in terminology seems to be partially a difference between which field of math you're reading. Another difference may be that "complete" is usually used for varieties, so if you are looking at more general things (which may not even be schemes), you might use "compactification" (as a synonym of the never-used "properification"). From looking at a few papers it seems like a "smooth completion" of U might be a variety V that has a divisor D which has locally normal crossings and such that V\D = U. One might use "smooth compactification" more generally. RobHar (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but possibly move to smooth compactification (183 hits on MathSciNet vs only 26 for smooth completion, and a little more general as RobHar says). There is an entire book on this topic: Ash, Mumford, Rapoport, and Tai, "Smooth compactifications of locally symmetric varieties", 2nd ed.,
  MR2590897. To me that seems convincing enough evidence that it can stand alone. And the article has been significantly improved since it was first nominated. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• changing my !vote to keep based on it's current expanded state, per David Eppstein and others.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:39, 8 February 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.

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 has multiple issues This article reads like a travel advisory so a website like TripAdvisor seems to be better suited for this article There is no geographical (state, city, country information), population or other info available. Is this a ghost town? Any notable persons from this town? I think articles like this which are more than a month old need to be deleted. If the author is not interested for months then so should we. Wikishagnik (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not necessary for notable people to come from a town for a town to be notable. The town is clearly not a ghost town since it has public transport services. Inactivity of the articles author is in no way an indicator of an articles notability. The town has been mentioned in a "The Times Of India". This nomination is a clear example of cultural bias.Flaviusvulso (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An incomplete and not balanced article, but all places are notable at Wikipedia, and so there is basis only for editing, not deletion. I suggest the nominator learn a little about WP:Deletion policy before making further nominations. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt: Are localities in a town also automatically notable? This is just an area of

talk) 12:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep As per DGG, all places are notable in Wikipedia KuwarOnline ^Talk 19:19, 8 February 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.

Ancestry of John Seymour (Semer) of Sawbridgeworth

Ancestry of John Seymour (Semer) of Sawbridgeworth (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 appears to be a genealogical paper about a

• Comment:: The article is NOT about John Seymour the cobbler. It IS about his ancestry, as indicated by the title. Please show where ALL articles included in Wikipedia must be about notable persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- It is not about his ancestry (from ancestors), it's about his descendants. Dru of Id (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable and
  not inherited. A complication comes, however, in discussing John's ancestry which is the subject of this article, because it is being asserted that he was himself related to Sir John Seymour who is undoubtedly notable. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be verifiable, and even if it were, again we run up against the problem that notability does not transfer automatically to offspring legitimate or otherwise. --AJHingston (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The man may have some notable descendants, but
  Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of genealogical entries. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Clearly some very hard work has been put into this article, but it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Looks like it contains some original research, and notability here is not inherited. AniMate 19:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This article seems to have quite a bit of content about the family of
  not inherited in either direction. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - this is a delightful and fascinating genealogical study (I am NOT stating an argument here), but unfortunately it is not a Wikipedia article. There is as stated above no evidence of notability for John Seymour himself, and so the article must go. I am sure there is plenty of room for such an article on other websites. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research which mentions many people with the same last name, without even documenting they are related to the person who is the subject of the article, as well as some supposed descendants. Nothing here satisfies
  WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Do not delete It's difficult to understand why anyone would say that the article is not about John Sawbridgeworth's ancestry. It's entirely about his ancestry. Please further explain how you reached this conclusion.

I would assert that the subject of John's ancestry is quite notable on its own merit without regard to whether or not John was able to live a notable life. I would further assert that the article would probably find wide interest by many in the general public who are not as interested in the genealogical aspects, as probably would be the 100,000+ descendents of John Sawbridgeworth, and possibly descendents of other branches within the clan as well totaling millions of people. This period of history continues to generate great public interest, and in particular any facts related to Henry VIII, and his royal court. This has been recently evidenced by the fact that Hilary Mantel, in 2009, won the Man Booker Prize for her novel Wolf Hall (named after the Seymour family manor although given more modern spelling). This article merely expands on that seemingly interesting subject by gathering together many related historical facts in a new way.

Therefore, as it's been repeated over and over again that John is not a notable person, I'll reiterate that the notability of his own personal accomplishments are not the subject of this article, and are therefore irrelevant. Furthermore, the subject of his ancestry, due to the notability of the other people involved, and the period of history which it affected, is completely notable and worthy of being included in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talk • contribs) 13:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose that I should be flattered that my little article is receiving so much attention. It makes it hard to imagine how so many millions of articles currently exist on Wikipedia. Keep up the diligent work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talk • contribs) 13:35, 5 February 2012‎

Just so you know, it's

not your article. Toddst1 (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Also so as you know, Pablocombiano,

Original Research is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Nobody here has questioned that the subject is interesting. But because Wikipedia simply cannot be a repository of everything interesting, any more than it can catalogue everything that exists, it is necessary to apply guidelines and policies on what should and should not go in. In this case, we accept that there have been a lot of Seymours on both sides of the Atlantic who are very notable and should be in Wikipedia. There is already an article on the

Seymour family. The probability that they are all connected in some way seems quite strong. However, anyone who has involved themselves in this sort of research knows that it frequently impossible to conclusively prove family relationships especially this far back. Other possibilities exist than the one premised here. We expect articles to be properly referenced, but the point about the original research rule in this context is that also applies to conclusions. These need to be referenced to reliable sources. And even if the conclusions are right, the topic seems to belong within an article about the Seymour family, or one part of it, and does not appear to have a notability of its own. --AJHingston (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

First, thank you Toddst1 for very correctly pointing out that this is a Wikipedia article. Secondly, Chiswick Chap, I think we've previously more than adequately addressed whether or not it's original research. Under the original research guidelines of Wikipedia, it is not. I will repeat--that it's existing historical evidence simply reproduced in a new format. If anyone would like to remake the same erroneous comment, please address this point. Thirdly, AJHingston states that it's "frequently impossible to conclusively prove". I'd like to make a point on that topic as well, by paraphrasing George Dudley Seymour as stated in his book A History of the Seymour Family: "Admittedly, we lack direct record evidence. This is not the same as to say that legal proof is lacking. Many things can be proved in a court of law by cumulative circumstantial evidence. Historians too look with favor on this type of evidence when its weight is sufficient. A single piece of direct evidence may be a lie; it may have been forged by a fraudulent dealer for the sake of profit, for example. But when we review all the known facts, and each circumstance harmonizes with all the other circumstances, and every bit of evidence fits neatly into the picture as if by magic, - then we feel entitled to claim that theory has given way to proof." The article doesn't purport to draw any particular conclusion, it's merely a conglomeration of facts on a single topic. Why don't we just let the reader decide? Is there something to fear here? Finally, I can't help but feel a little bit demonized. If the article needs a few changes, please suggest them. To say that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, doesn't seem a valid point. I think I've already adequately pointed out that it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talk • contribs) 12:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take any of this personally. You're not deliberately disrupting wikipedia - clearly, you are here to contribute and doing so with the best of intentions. However, this article appears to fall outside our guidelines on what we have articles on. I'm sure that you could add tremendous value here, but probably not on this article. Toddst1 (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess persistent would be a better word than offended. I feel strongly about this articles inclusion on Wikipedia, and so far I haven't seen a valid reason, under Wikipedia guidelines, to exclude it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.169.113.186 (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case,

you haven't been paying attention. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete The article is rather confusing, as there are several John Seymours. But there is no definite indication given except the name and the similar place of origin that "John Seymour (1535-1605) (contemporarily Semer) lived and worked as a cobbler," has any direct connection with the aristocrat of the same name, John Seymour (1474–1536), "a member of the English gentry and a courtier to King Henry VIII,". Presumably he was a humble collateral or by-blow of that line, or perhaps someone from the same area named after the leading gentry family. But no information about this is given in the article. The connection seems to be that "There are remarkable parallels in personal characteristics, and lifetime achievements, between members of the British ducal branch of the family, and the American branch descended from John." and that some of the cobbler's family had the same first name as some of the nobleman's;--and the vague non evidence of a similar seal. This is the sort of work done by the less rigorous genealogists of earlier centuries, and amateurs of our own, when they were trying to prove a connection between the status-seaking descendants of the American immigrants and the high-born families in England they hoped to show they were connected with. This is not history, but the sort of thing which made genealogy a synonym for everything too vague to be part of real history. I suppose we could have an article on the american family as such, and we certainly could have one on the English; the appropriate inclusion in the article on the American "branch" would be "It has been suggested that they might have some connection with the English family", referenced to the first two references in the present article. Wikipedia has managed to distance itself from this sort of speculative web pseudo-information, or it wouldn't be worth the trouble of using or making. The relevant basis policy is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia , and the consequent WP:V and WP:OR, DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete The conclusions reached by DGG are certainly valid possibilities. One also might conclude, after carefully reviewing the historical evidence, that John Seymour (1535-1605) was a political liability of the family in 1535, and could not be recognized for fear of damaging repercussions. I disagree that the only evidence presented is based upon similar personal characteristics, although I do agree that it's a persuasive piece of the puzzle. The section entitled "Historical Evidence" lists thirteen other coincidental points. Whether DGG has been able to correctly evaluate the evidence provided or not isn't the issue at hand. The article presents worthwhile historical information on the topic, and readers deserve the chance to evaluate that evidence, and then to draw their own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.99.197.114 (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This could well be an accidental IP usage by the creator (rather than intentional sock). If so, it's a duplicate vote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 8 February 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) 01:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Al Thuwaini

Youssef Al Thuwaini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Existing references do not verify any asserted information. No indication of notability. Cloudz679 15:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 15:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL GauchoDude (talk) 19:16, 4 February 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, since the presence of significant external coverage has been established. I also implore editors involved in this discussion to expand the article with the references given here to prevent another AfD. Deryck C. 16:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-Dutch

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Good effort but this is an un-encyclopedic article. 1. There is no history 2. This article is best suited for Wiktionary unless many of the mentioned people credit their heritage with their success 3. There is no independent source referred. The website linked is a dead-end. The topic might be good the page isn't Wikishagnik (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep though a rename to Afro-Dutch people might be advisable. The article seems the standard format for articles like this: a description of what is being listed, and a list of examples. The rule for including examples is that they need to be notable enough to have Wikipedia articles , and these do. Additionally, there are suitable general references. The nom may not be aware or it, but printed books ar perfectly good references at Wikipedia, we're a general encyclopedic , not a encyclopedic of those things that happen to be online this year--what that would be, is a web guide. (see
  WP:NOT). DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete References noted to date do not satisfy
  WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep There are multiple references sufficient to establish the topic something more than a dictionary definition. The sources prove Afro-Dutch is not a term only, but a community with a history. The article needs expansion, AfD is the wrong venue. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG and SupernovaExplosion. There's plenty of
  if you take time to look. Bearian (talk) 01:56, 14 February 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) 01:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guagua National Colleges

Guagua National Colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Deprodded with "secondary and tertiary colleges are generally accepted as notable". However, I still think

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Verifiable secondary and tertiary institution. Therefore notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Tertiary school. Google News Archives show national coverage, incidental but Google News only has records for Philippine secondary sources from around 2000. Being established in 1918 also makes it one of the older schools of the Philippines. Google Book Search reveals more coverage, and Googling with its older name verifies age, with sources going back to 1935 when the Philippine education system was still under the U.S. Dept. of Education. A presumption of further significant offline sources is not uncalled for here. That said, the article needs work.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - by long-standing precedent we keep verifiable tertiary institutions. In Filipino terms this is a historic institution and no evidence that there has been a search for local sources. Sources likely to meet
  talk) 22:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. My understanding is that the general practice is to keep such secondary schools, if they are verifiable. This secondary school, though its coverage is very light, is verifiable. The article is in a grave state, and most of its text presently fails our core policy of
  wp:v. But AfD is not for cleanup.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 11 February 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 Hyperion Cantos. Consensus is that this should not be a separate article, but there's disagreement about whether and what to merge. A redirect allows merging whatever's useful (and sourceable!) later from the history.  Sandstein  20:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Shrike

The Shrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Plot element from a series of novels, not independently notable (

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge with redirect of "The Shrike" to Hyperion Cantos, as there will be those who will look for the character from a reference thereto, not knowing the author or novels. htom (talk) 23:24, 4 February 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. As a navigational list, maybe retitle?  Sandstein  20:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of South Asia

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

At the moment, this page is simply a massive See Also section, just listing various history articles. This isn't much of an article. If this page was an article, its contents would have to be almost identical to those of History of India, and although there is perhaps some room to say the two topics are not exactly identical, there is no denying that there is such a huge range of overlap that any article will suffer from massive duplication. CMD (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Useful outline page for navigation. Wouldn't have a problem with a rename to "Outline of South Asian history" if nom thinks that would clear up some confusion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't mind if it was set up as an outline article, but even if it was, it would still be hard to justify it having a different title to the article it is outlining. CMD (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to History of India (note that this article is not about the country, but the subcontinent). There's even currently a major merge discussion ongoing to merge South Asia with Indian subcontinent. As the two are essentially the same, this would indeed be a duplication of History of India. Links and navigational aids can be incorporated into Template:History of South Asia, used on both pages. Nightw 19:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lists of lists are useful navigation tools, and no policy-based reason for deletion has been articulated. Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I articulated
  WP:CFORK. CMD (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: This article may be renamed to Outline of South Asian history. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see what is currently in this article being part of an outline, which would make sense if we make it stretch up to modern times. However, the page
  History of South Asia shouldn't redirect to the Outline, but to the history article. CMD (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep and improve History of South Asia is a different topic than History of X country articles. A lot of books are available titled "History of South Asia". Before the advent of present-day nation-states, there were interconnection between the different geographical regions. In many aspect, South Asia stands as a unique and unified whole compared to the other regions. For example, South Asian Stone Age is different from Stone Age in general. The article in its current form is unencyclopedic, but there is scope to improve and expand this topic. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of India is not a History of a country article, but basically a history of (at least the vast majority of) the South Asian region. CMD (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was : Speedy keep. Masturbation is a suitable topic for an encyclopedia and has been subject of scientific publications. If you disagree with some specific part of the article's content, please take it to the talk page. (By the way, what do you mean by "Wikipedia policies 2.3, 2.7"?) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masturbation

Masturbation (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 and other articles on masturbation infringe Wikipedia policies 2.3, 2.7. In addition any attempts to make articles more scholarly and objective , even though they are not really general encyclopedia subjects, are being immediately deleted. RevRoland (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oppose. The good reverend has made four edits to this page which have reverted as unconstructive. sour grapes? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I'd also like to politely ask that the nominator please stop being disruptive and vandalizing the article itself. OSU1980 14:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep, bad-faith disruptive nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 14:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naturism

Naturism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article contravenes Wikipedia guidelines on content policy. As confirmation, all editing to make the article more objective have been consistently deleted or 'vandalised' RevRoland (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

clearly not. Article is 96K long, and has grown bo 2k this year, so is being updated/ improved and not "constanly deleted". I see the Rev also wants to delete masturbation. Am I seeing an agenda? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

clearly not:RevRoland has only made two edits to the article both of which were unreferenced POVs. They were reverted. In March 2010 he added

Modern naturism is often associated with 'swinging' or sexual promiscuity, and some naturist magazines cater for this. Naturism may be seen in traditional terms as a form of natural witchcraft where no formally laid out ceremonies are involved.

And in September he had another swipe. Then again he comes out of nowhere with a AfD. I have 'watched' this page since I did the major rewrite some years back, and all serious suggestions have be taken to the talk page and integrated someway. This is the first time that vandalism has taken the form of a malicious AfD (edit conflict)--ClemRutter (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: See nominator's recent AFD.

talk) 14:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy keep Well-referenced article about encyclopedic subject. --bonadea contributions talk 14:51, 4 February 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) 01:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trelby

Trelby (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 hate to do this. I am sure you are quite excited about this product but I found the following strong negatives

1. No News articles or scholar reviews of this software. I am sure your page has this but its not enough 2. The only hits in Google are the odd troubleshooting questions. Please note that blogs don't count as articles. 3. The only reference on this page is the home page of the project and that's not enough. You need more independent websites.

Please get this work done urgently. Its important to keep this page Wikishagnik (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added third party news references. Anil.verve (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that's not enough. You still need more verifiable third party references. Please go though all the guidelines Wikishagnik (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Those who wish to improve an article, as the nominator does, should improve it, or ask the contributor to improve it, not nominate it for deletion. There seem two reasonable quality third party references with substantial coverage that do not read like press releases, which is sufficient for any product. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: it was not all that good idea to write about a software that was just resurrected, but as it is already written and contains two
  WP:NSOFT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: I found [5]. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though indeed reliable, it is the same publisher as
    The H reference in article. It even links there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:48, 10 February 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. Sourcing/hoax concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure)  Gongshow ^Talk 03:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samad (crater)

Samad (crater) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Hoax/mistake? Google found only mirrors of Wikipedia, without sources since 2005 and with unreferenced stub template since 2009. Bulwersator (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged as {{db-reason|1=G3 hoax, no hits outside Wikipedia mirrors}} by TenPoundHammer Bulwersator (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• And there is entire category of similar articles (Category:Impact craters on Enceladus). Also images are without sources Bulwersator (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is not a hoax, it appears in the IAU Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. I have added a reference to the article. JohnCD (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article is now referenced and the image was uploaded by trusted editor User:Volcanopele -- Kheider (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/Feature/5288 Any question? Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, article is OK Bulwersator (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep – valid feature and name, but not much in the way of published content. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:58, 7 February 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) 01:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Core synchronism

Core synchronism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A

• Delete fringe medical concept; article admits it's pseudoscience; virtually unsourceable; and essentially
  WP:Complete Bollocks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator's excellent research. This appears to be somebody's personal invention and has not received notice outside of their particular circle. Non-notable even for fringe science. MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per all above, fails GNG. but why is it categorized as a society topic? --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'cos I hate categories, the initial AFD autotemplate doesn't list medicine as a possible category, and I'll be damned if I'm going to put it in with "science and technology"

_complex 19:42, 11 February 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) 01:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forex Forecast

Forex Forecast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced, written as an essay, possibly non-encyclopaedic material. Fails

• Delete. This seems to be original research and even if it isn't, the article would need a complete rewrite from top to bottom in order to make it fit notability guidelines.
  talk) 11:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply
  ]
• Delete: Essay. SL93 (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 4 February 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Books

Creation Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This page was incorrectly listed (the discussion page wasn't created, so was redlinked in today's log). As a purely procedural move, I'm listing it properly, and contacting the editor who attempted to nominate it. It should be recognised that the nominator (

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep, without prejudice to renomination. Not sure of notability, because news results will be full of results about creationism, but this appears to be a niche literary publisher, and I do see a fair number of results about books they have published. A notability argument would require some attention to the actual content of the sources which are easily found, and without a statement from the nominator review is going to be fairly superficial. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "easily found" sources? If they're out there and I missed them, then certainly, I'll want to change my !vote. But the article doesn't cite any that could establish notability and when I did my own searches, I couldn't find any. Msnicki (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by
  WP:GNG. I have looked through the various Google searches and based on that, I don't believe the sources exist. Msnicki (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: I am not finding any reliable sources that give substantial coverage of the company, fails
  WP:CORP. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• For what it's worth It appears that the publisher is trying to get this deleted to stem criticism of his company. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. All we care about here is notability, which turns solely on whether there are reliable independent secondary sources. Msnicki (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As infamous as this company has become, there just aren't any reliable sources that would show how it's notable. The only sources I've found have been articles briefly mentioning the company as well as of course a few blogs and websites talking about the controversy over authors not getting their royalties, none of which could be used as a reliable source. There's just nothing out there and since Wikipedia isn't meant to be a
  soapbox
  for viewpoints, there's no other choice but to vote to delete.09:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
• Delete no sign of reliable sources here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 13:04, 4 February 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.

Hotcow

Hotcow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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