Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 1 March 3 March >

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 delete Samir 20:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deposition Source

Deposition Source (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 subject of the article lacks

notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Whpq. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armenianwingchun

Armenianwingchun (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 Organisation

Wanderer 23:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no indication of notability and no independent sources. Mdtemp (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all. The consensus below is that the awards are not

notable for Wikipedia purposes. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Fright Meter Awards

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

Online awards of questionable notability, presented by a website of questionable notability. No indications of notability, no independent references provided. Google news search on "Fright Meter Awards" shows zero results. Standard search shows only 121 unique entries - the majority from primary sources - the rest mainly blogs and other primary references - no significant coverage from independent reliable sources found. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons: MikeWazowski (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fright Meter Award for Best Horror Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fright Meter Award for Best Actor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


What would be needed to keep the page for the Awards, which are becoming recognized in the horror community? The DVD cover art for The Wrong House, which won a Fright Meter Award has a large mention of the award on it. Also, this year, recipients Pollyanna McIntosh (The Woman) and Lin Shaye (Insidious) acknowledge their win and provided interviews and have discussed the award. While they might not be as prevalent as some of the other awards, they are gaining attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyesc (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC) — Troyesc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


Link to DVD with mention of Award: The Wrong House DVD

Mention of the Awards on Production Company site: The Woman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyesc (talk • contribs) 23:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Awards Committee] is the best proof that it is just an internet vote. Google Search returns just 48 mentions on "Fright Meter Award", including the organising frightmeter.com and twitter. Clearly fails
    talk 04:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Fightstar. Nomination withdrawn, article already redirected. (non-admin closure) —SW— babble 23:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Westaway

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

Should redirect to Fightstar. Westaway has no notability outside the band. Bazonka (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • So redirect it in one edit rather than making three edits just to nominate it for deletion. Project:Articles for deletion is for getting an administrator to exercise the deletion tool. Hence the for deletion in the name. Even an editor without an account has the necessary tool for redirecting things. The deletion tool is not involved anywhere in the process. Uncle G (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair point. Yes, I should have done that. Bazonka (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination for deletion has been
    WP:WITHDRAWN. Bazonka (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That's kind of why I raised it here in the first place. Bazonka (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Fleiss

Note - Arguments in this AFD are being used to propose changes in WP:Creative and WP:NOTINHERITED here and here. PPdd (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also here - Proposed_addition_to_clarify_definition_of_.22co-creator.22_in_WP:CREATIVE. PPdd (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

‪Clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability‬ camera operator for multiple hit reality television shows????? Theroadislong (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Clearly passes

WP:CREATIVE
- "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

  • This should not deteriorate into a discussion of the merits of reality television as an art form, or a comparison of its camera work to the camera work in what editors consider to be great works of art. This is a discussion of the application of the language of WP:CREATIVE, and notability, not quality, of significant participants in co-creation of a hit reality series that appears in multiple periodicals on a regular basis, for better or for worse.
  • A sufficient criteria for notability is significant coverage OF THE BODY OF WORK created by a co-creator, which does NOT require ANY coverage at all of the co-creator himself.
  • A cinematographer is clearly a co-creator of any cinematographic work. The cinematographer of a reality television show is often even more important as a “co-creator” than in most works of scripted cinema. This is because of at least two reasons.
1. The split second decision of a reality television camera operator to cover some unscripted event in reality when it interacts with the show in an unscripted way, is what drives ratings through the ceiling and causes coverage of the body of work, even though not directly coverage of the co-creators. The camera operator operates without direction to try to film something unscripted and undirected, and is an essential co-creator even more than in most other forms of film. The camera operator in reality television may be the most important of all of the works co-creators in getting significant coverage of the work.
2. Unlike scripted film work, the reality television work would be entirely different with a different camera operator, making the camera operator possibly the most important co-creators in the entire crew of co-creators. The STYLE in which a particular camera operator follows “reality” around on reality television is a distinctive feature by which a reality television show can be immediately recognized just by the camera work style, even with unknown characters. This is unlike in almost any other filming on television. This makes the camera operator more essential as a co-creator than in almost any other form of cinema.
  • It is indisputable that the body of work, The Bachelor, has been the subject of “multiple independent periodical articles or reviews”, producing producing hundreds of thousands of different news stories in a Google news archive search alone.
  • Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals says notability IS Inherited by a co-creator of a notable work or body of work - "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
  • Independently of the above sufficient argument to keep, keeping and growing this article certainly improves Wikipedia since an encyclopedia user who wants to know about notable reality television camera operators would certainly want to know about those whose work is historic, whether or not it is deserved by its quality as art.PPdd (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals, which says "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The cinematographer in any film production "played a major role" in the artistic creation, and especially so in a reality television show where the split second decisions and reactions of a cameraman reacting to events in reality that are not predicted is essential to the creation of the work, which is admittedly a work made solely to increase ratings and with little or no artistic value. Certainly The Bachelor a historic reality television show, is a "well-known work... that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", although I did not provide sources for this indisputable fact. PPdd (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But Fleiss has NOT been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. A cinematographer is generally equivalent to the director of photography do you have a reference for either of these with regard to Fleiss? Or indeed ANY references at all for Fleiss? On his own website he describes himself as a camera operator or camera assistant. I'm really struggling to find any notability at all.Theroadislong (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. The criteria is NOT that Fleiss is "the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", but that the body of work is "the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews".
1. I have not read Fleiss' own website, since it is not RS. Theroadislong, you are likely having trouble finding notability because Fleiss is a hack camera operator who is notable in his field only because he makes split second camera decisions that drive ratings throught the ceiling, but produce art so dumb and of such porr artistic quality that a Wikipedia editor would likely never watch it to the end. But quality of the work product is not the criteria for notability, the coverage of the work product is. Without Fleiss, those reality television shows he shot would be entirely different, since they evolve not just from a plot, but from a hoped for interaction with unpredicgted reality, at which point the audience for some reason watches even more. PPdd (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The body of work already has it's own articles though?Theroadislong (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is irrelevant. The co-creator of a body of work is notable under WP:Creative if the body of work is notable. A branch of physics may have its own article, but a co-creator of it would get an independent article, with personal information included in the person's article that is not in the body of work article. The WP:Creative guideline seems as clearly worded as it can be, and I am mystified about the existence of the delete votes on this page, or the existence of an AFD at all, just minutes after I created the article. Theroadis long, since yo seem to be the only editor on this page that appears to be even trying at all to read the WP:Creative language, which seems completely clear to me, I ask that you read it carefully and reconsider your vote. PPdd (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you ignore the
basic criteria for notability. By your definition every literary editor who has worked on one or two notable books should have their own article for this, even though there are zero sources that discuss that person. A person whose work (in Mr Fleiss' case that would be a source that discusses the camerawork of Mr Fleiss and names him, not the series as a whole) hasn't been discussed in reliable sources isn't notable (as a subject for a Wikipedia article). 84.177.60.236 (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Reply- Notability IS inherited by the creator of a notable artistic work, per the above quoted language. PPdd (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've been here long enough to understand how this works. Find reliable sources that discuss Fleiss and add them to the article; that is what demonstrates his notability. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails to establish
    notability. A camera operator/technical supervisor is hardly a person that plays "... a major role in co-creating" the TV programs cited. Much in the way a printer of a book, unless other factors came into play, would not fit the criteria cited. reddogsix (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Reply - Saying cinematography in a film production is not part of the creative process, just as a printer of a book is not part of the writing process, is disingenous at best. Note that since December 17, almost the only contributions to WP by Reddogsix have been attempts to delete articles I write. No wonder so many new editors quit almost immediately upon coming to Wikipedia. Imagine the likelihood of a new editor writing about cinematography being told by Reddogsix that cinematography is no more an art than the printer of a book, and having their article deleted, ever trying to contribute again. PPdd (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempt at discrediting my comment does not change the fact that
notabilty
has not been established for this individual.(disingenous, really?)
A camera operator in TV production is not a
notability of the individual? My best to you...reddogsix (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Re your comment: "I have never seen an award for the best camera operator in a TV show." One such is called Emmy Award. A camera operator in a reality TV show is a cinematographer, and makes the sponteneous decisions of what to film. PPdd (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will concede the Emmy for camera work; however, I do not believe the individual meets the criteria for inclusion. We obviously disagree, good luck with the AfD. Again, my best to you. reddogsix (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is your basis for your delete vote, if you now agree that camera work is part of the artistic process, and the language of the notability criteria is so clear? PPdd (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, "Fails to establish
notability. A camera operator/technical supervisor is hardly a person that plays "... a major role in co-creating" the TV programs cited." reddogsix (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Reply - I did not say "every camera operator on a reality TV show is notable". Your argument is a straw man. Why did you write that? I said that the camera operator for The Bachelor is notable, since the show is so notable and using the quoted notability criteria. PPdd (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is notable solely for being the camera operator on a reality show, no matter how popular that show, in the absence of any other evidence of notability. I think that's a totally unreasonable standard for notability, and a complete misapplication of
WP:CREATIVE. MastCell Talk 07:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
You would not think it was a misapplication of
WP:CREATIVE if you were a camera operator or student studying camera operators and wanting to access an encycopedia article on others in your own creative field. That is the whole purpose of a BIO. The purpose is not for a handful of editors to decide what fields are important to "artistic creation" or not. (I am having to bite my knuckles in calling a reality tv show "creative" or "artistic", but this is not about our own personal aesthetics). PPdd (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I think it would help if you slow down your posting volume, dial down the rhetoric, and listen to what people are saying here. I'm not judging anyone's creativity or professional worth, so please don't cast the discussion in those ridiculous terms.
WP:CREATIVE is not a final judgment on which people and professions are "creative"; it's just a guideline this particular website has agreed upon to focus its content.

Wikipedia isn't a professional networking site for camera operators, or for anyone else for that matter. I suspect that camera operators are able to use the Internet to connect socially and professionally already, and I don't see how a single biography of a non-notable camera operator furthers that goal. MastCell Talk 20:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

here.PPdd (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The significant coverage needs to be about the subject of the article, so that a properly-sourced article can be written. Jakew (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the significant coverage does not need to be about the subject of the article. A person is notable if they are not covered, but they are a co-creator of a "body of work, that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." It is sufficient that that body of work is covered. It is not necessary that the person themselves is covered. That is the reason for the language of WP:CREATIVE. Please reconsider your vote. PPdd (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Please go to
WP:CREATIVE). Note that these are additional criteria. Further down that page you will find a section labelled "Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria", which clearly indicates that a standalone article is not an option. Jakew (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The argument for keep make perfect sense, as follows: The Bachelor = Citizen Kane & Guy with battery pack around waist = cinematographer => Jesse Fleiss = Gregg Toland. Right. EEng (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This completely invalid straw man argument is in no way helpful. It demonstrates a need to clarify WP:CREATIVE for some editors. PPdd (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fleiss was one of 54 camera operators on "The Batchelor" see here [1] Theroadislong (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, and only in 7 episodes, some of which he was credited just as "assistant camera". Cavarrone (talk) 10:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The last two comments by Theroadislong and Caverrone are the only valid arguments to delete on this page. They demonstrate that WP:CREATIVE fails on the "co-creator" criterion, there being so many other camera persons, and so few shows worked on. I would not have started the article in the first place if I had known the two facts pointed out by Theroadislong and Caverrone.I have never seen The Bachelor, but I recognize some reality television shows that my mother watched simply by vitue of a special and distinctive camera style, especially on some reality crime shows, which is essential to to the reality feel of the show, thus the camara operator is a significant part of the product created in those cases. I changed my vote to delete because of Theroadislong's finding that Fleiss is not reasonably considered to be a cocreator of the body of work because of his minimal participation. The other delete arguments on this page indicate a clarification is needed in WP:CREATIVE, which I am proposing here. PPdd (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but one of them was the time that Billy looked like he was about to give the rose to Jeanette but then at the last second gave it to Rochelle, and Jeanette burst into tears! Luckily the artistic Jesse Fleiss was manning the camera and caught every salty drop! What artistry! EEng (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing ad hominum by sarcasm "the artistic Jesse Fleiss" is a waste of AFD page space and editor attention, and exhibits an overall misnunderstanding that WP:CREATIVE does not require a co-creator to have created something valued by editors. PPdd (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of over all, over all the other text of WP:CREATIVE is this: This page...is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. (I underlined the words common sense to make them stand out for you.) The waste of editor attention has been your insistence on Fleiss' notability in the face of universal opposition. EEng (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC) P.S. It's spelled ad hominem, and you might want to check out what it really means before attempting to use it again. (But you do need to find out precisely what it means, too. My argument would only have been a.h. if I'd used an attack on you as a rebuttal to your arguments. Any disparagement of Fleiss would have been I-don't-know-what-in-Latin, but not a.h. in the rhetorical sense.) EEng (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a spell check funcion on the WP edit screen, or do I have to always cut and paste from a word processor like WORD? PPdd (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no spellcheck function on WP that I know of, but don't worry -- I only take off points for spelling when I'm in an especially mean mood. Look, I'm sorry I gave you such a hard time, but I do think you weren't applying common sense here. Perhaps things will go more calmly when we meet again. EEng (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like meanness in editors. Regarding the ad hominum (sic) fallacy in reasoning, "An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument." Sarcastically calling him "the artistic Jesse Fleiss" has nothing to do with anything, since being artistic is irrelevant to the argument for notability, being a co-creator and the work itself having substantial secondary source coverage. If the show had only one cameraman and that work was a large factor in causing it to be a commercial success (which I incorrectly had thought when I first started this article), then they are notable by the notability of their co-creation, not by its being artistic. The only time I ever noticed a reality television show in the background was when I saw a unique camera style that seemed to give the show its character, especially in reality shows on cops which were sometimes "gritty" and thereby successful, and sometimes indistinct and thus a commercial failure. This is solely by virtue of the camerawork. I also saw grocery check-out coverage of when a cameraman caught some bit of reality that was not scripted, which caused the secondary source coverage. In these cases the camera operator would be notable if they were the main or only one in the body of work. And speaking of spell chekcers, does EEng mean you are an Earonautical Engnineer? PPdd (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Community Service Announcement There's not been a single "keep" sentiment expressed except by PPdd. If an editor has a new "keep" rationale, by all means please post it here. Those who are inclined to argue delete, don't waste your time -- barring a new keep rationale, the outcome is clear. EEng (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Changing vote to delete per Theroadislong's last comment. (Other arguments to delete because editors argue that reality television is not "artistic enough" to be notable are invalid, given the "co-creator" and multiply reviewed "body of work" wording of WP:CREATIVE, which does not require the creation to be art at all. However, I ask that this discussion be kept up for a while longer since it is being referred to here for a proposed clarification of
    WP:CREATIVE. PPdd (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete due to the notability concerns raised here. Also noting that there were still copyvio concerns with the version deleted and that these also may have been enough for deletion. Dpmuk (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makuhari International School

Makuhari International 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)

Non-notable elementary school. No hits in a Google News search and no hits in a Google News Archive search. The only information I can find about this subject of this article comes from PR pieces or from blogs.

It's also a copyright violation of this magazine's article on the school (page 6) but I want a decision to be made on the subject's notability as the article may simply be recreated a third time. OlYeller21Talktome 21:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable school. The article (and alternative spellings of it) have been speedily deleted in the past, but regardless of that I am unable to locate reliable source coverage to establish any notability whatsoever. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article creator in this diff [2] has stated a conflict of interest and declared, "It is my task to document activities and promote the school on the internet and to contribute to WIKIPEDIA was my first assignment." I recognize the COI doesn't impact the notability for an AfD discussion, but thought it was important to note since there has been a pattern of this article being recreated after being deleted. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing any in-depth third-party coverage to verify notability of this school. --DAJF (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Health and Human Services, v. Florida

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

appears to be a duplicate subject as

talk) 21:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Bmusician 10:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nanki Ram Kanwar

Nanki Ram Kanwar (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 not about a significantly notable person, and it does not have information or references (WP:BLP). Noopur28 (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The person is a senior minister in state government. The reliable references are already there .The nomination is surprising.Shyamsunder (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that several such Chhattisgarh minister articles of the present government have been created with no content at all. I don't have the resources to improve these but during tag and assess I saw that if a user can make the effort of creating an article and adding a tag on talk page, why has no information been added to the article? Also, I am confused about the notability of every minister in every government that comes to power. Do they constitute enough notability? Noopur28 (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am confused about the notability of every minister in every government that comes to power. Do they constitute enough notability. Yes members of provinicial/national legislatures and cabinets are deemed notable in wikipedia. Read the notability criteria for people and politicians again.
if a user can make the effort of creating an article and adding a tag on talk page, why has no information been added to the article? That is no grounds for deletion. Even if it has a single line, that is information and has potential for expansion (especially when the subject is notable). Don't tag articles because of its size or because it has no content. The solution is expansion through regular editing process, not deletion.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sodabottle is right. One liners are worth keeping too. I wish to see a one-liner FA someday. :) -
talk) 12:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Speedy Keep Passes WP:Politican and as per Sodabottle above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per above reason. -
    talk) 12:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kirat Anand

Kirat Anand (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 could not find any reliable source coverage of this person ThaddeusB (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and self-promotional. andy (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete created by user banned for using Wikipedia for promotion. LibStar (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdoul Nikiema

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

Footballer who has not played a single senior professional game. Fails

WP:GNG. Tassedethe (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedily deleted per

G4 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Brian Penny

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

Still not notable. -- Crowsnest (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to

Pine Valley (All My Children). editors can obviously be selective in what content should be presented there Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Wildwind

Wildwind (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 suggestion to merge. However, this is all in-universe plot summary and fancruft, so I see literally nothing worth merging. There is no out of universe notability at all. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pending - This topic is not significantly covered and, therefore, fails
    WP:EXISTENCE-related arguments; none work for me. Nevertheless, a possible redirect to... All My Children? Why not userfication to a loyal soap fan, such as Raintheone and TAnthony? ......Maybe I'll change to delete if everybody votes the same thing. --George Ho (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. henrik•talk 19:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel doughnut

Wheel doughnut (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 little more than a definition of a minor car part, that does not appear to have much notability beyond a mention or two on car sites. QueenCake (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
    t • c »  22:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 19 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mennen Arena

Mennen Arena (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 arena is used primarily by families for recreational purposes. There are numerous ice skating rinks that do the same. Its not a notable facility. Denassq (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major arena's are definitely notable. Especially ones that have hosted professional sports teams. -DJSasso (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DJSasso. Patken4 (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


*Delete I can't say that this a "notable" arena. The arena itself does not even have an official website. It is referenced through a local parks commission site in the county to which its located within New Jersey, as displayed here. Within that site, it even highlights the following statement: The arena is a full service ice center with skating year round. It offers public sessions, group lessons, hockey clinics, figure skating clubs and birthday party packages. In the state of New Jersey alone, there are upwards of probably 100 ice skating rinks. I did a quick search on Google, and a website lists over 70 of them here. They pretty much have the same thing in common; they are all family oriented, and not notable. And thats just New Jersey. For the rest of America, there are thousands of ice skating rinks that cater to the general public. None of them are notable, and none of them deserve inclusion into wikipedia. Denassq (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any Arena/Ballpark/Stadium that hosts a professional team is notable. Not all those rinks you mention will have done that. Which makes it a notable arena. -DJSasso (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I beg to disagree with your classification of a "professional team". First of all, the
    New Jersey XTreme, there's absolutely no reliable sourcing to even indicate that the team played at the Mennen Arena to begin with! It's completely unsourced material. Denassq (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Well, as I mentioned earlier, is there a reliable source to even corroborate that the Xtreme played there? I have yet to see one. As far as notability is concerned, a good example would be in music. There are thousands of bands that are out there and have some minor success like an album or two, a loyal fan base and a media page perhaps on MySpace or Facebook. However, sometimes even possessing that criterea is not sufficient to be included in wikipedia. There have been numerous debates to verify notability on that subject. If your best friend is in a band, and they have an album out on an independent record label and have played the local bar scene, it still doesn't necessarily make them notable. This subject is still open for debate. Are there other users with differing opinions? Denassq (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm not quite sure I understand your reference to music. There are a LOT more bands playing around North America than there are professional sports teams. There could easily be 100,000+ bands playing in North America, and that number could be low. There are probably less than 1,000 professional sports team in North America. Patken4 (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention in your analogy the buddies playing the local bar scene would be all the local amateur sports teams. The professional sports teams would be the people who are the rock stars played on the radio where the minor league teams are probably the one hit wonders and the big 4 major leagues are the legends of rock. One hit wonders are just as notable as the legends. -DJSasso (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a FYI, I'm not sure that you, as the requestor, needs to state that you think the article should be deleted. That would be assumed since you requested it. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Patken4, I'm entitled and allowed the courtesy to insert the delete term and to follow up and explain why I think the page deserves deletion. Likewise, I don't think it was necessary for you to insert as your first comment on the page the following: *Keep per DJSasso. It's not a constructive edit to just agree with somebody without explaining your individual reasoning. Now getting back to the discussion, Djsasso, I agree with the concept that you mentioned as per the following: the buddies playing the local bar scene would be all the local amateur sports teams. But again, that particular criterea doesn't always merit inclusion into wikipedia. I think this needs a more open discussion with other users. We need a consensus. Not just your opinion, with your friend tagging along for the ride. If a host of other users agree and insert factual information for which the page deserves inclusion, then thats the way it should be. But at this particular time, I don't see that. Denassq (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you'll want to read
Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force/Notability. Consensus has been reached about what constitutes a notable sports venue. Patken4 (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
If their reasoning was the same as mine there isn't much point in repeating... What kind of factual information do you want. Its a long held standard that already has consensus across the wiki that all venues that housed a professional team are notable. Not much more to say other than that. But you are right the Afd will stay open for a few more days so others if they see something will have a chance to have their say and then an administrator will close it. -DJSasso (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minimal coverage in reliable sources (and it's been tagged for almost 2 years). Also, it should be noted that
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force/Notability is just an essay, not a guideline. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • DeleteKeep, it should also be noted that
    Verifiability constraints. I don't believe that the asserted inclusion for notability is verifiable; hence reasons for deletions outweigh any counter-argument. Well done Arxiloxos for finding some great reasons for inclusion, changing my vote to keep. Cloudz679 15:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The NJ.com source fails
    WP:RS for me, it's just a collection of photos with three lines of text. The arena is not the primary topic of those three lines, either. The other one, CIFL football, is not a third-party source as it is directly associated with the topic. According to the article here, the team only played one game there - hardly a glowing endorsement of notability. This second source also fails to support anything else mentioned in the article. To continue, this second source is actually saying that there will be something there in the future, not a solid confirmation that anything is actually done, other than the aforementioned one game in 2005. So, all in all, quite a lot of reasons for me to question these sources. Cloudz679 05:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This obviously isn't just some place to take the family ice skating. GNews turns up hundreds of news stories about events at this venue, including not only plenty of stories about indoor football games e.g.[3][4][5][6][7] but also competitive skating championships[8], dog shows[9], concerts[10] Also its alternative-energy issues have gotten attention in reliable sources[11] including this 2011 story from CNET[12]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Although I'd like to, I'm not really inclined to change my mind with those examples given. The amateur football are really hardly considered mainstream professional sports in America. Most of the country has hardly even heard of these indoor leagues. Its entirely questionable whether they are considered notable to begin with. In addition to the fact some of those leagues or teams don't even exist anymore, as well as their play at the ice skating rink was limited to begin with. The other examples given speak for themselves. Whats notable about dog shows? Here is a link to upcoming dog events in New Jersey. The venues where they are taking place are not notable in the slightest. As far as the alternative energy piece is concerned, here is an article about a Regional Water Treatment Plant in the Jersey area thats installing solar panels to more efficiently utilize their power needs. But that particular Treatment Plant is not notable. The installation of solar panels doesn't make it notable. And as far as the concert is concerned, big deal. Sarah Lee Guthrie also played the Folk Music Society of Huntington at 30 Washington Drive in Centerport, NY on November 5. The Folk Music Society of Huntington is not a notable venue. She's also playing Tillet Gardens in the Virgin Islands. Thats not a notable venue either. The Mennen Arena is like dozens of other ice skating family-oriented recreational facilities across New Jersey, and the rest of the country for that matter. Denassq (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Double !vote. (Triple if you count nom.) -DJSasso (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sorry. Next time, I'll be more careful. I'll just write down my notes. I won't insert the delete tag for a 4th or 5th time. Denassq (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's enough coverage of this venue to show notability. [13][14], among others. Its locally apparently a big deal.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The links you provided don't really account for notability. The first link denotes the following: Youth hockey leagues, figure skating instruction, pickup games, open public skating, high school games. There's nothing notable about those attributes. The second link is not a big deal. See above. I already provided a link and described a similar situation with a non-notable facility doing the same here. Denassq (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand what notability is in wikipedia terms. Notable simply means have been written about in reliable sources. If something has then it is notable for the inclusion in wikipedia. So whether or not you think its not a big deal doesn't matter, if its been written about then wikipedia considers it notable. -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a county facility used for local and amateur sporting events. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cork Under-21 Football Championship

Cork Under-21 Football Championship (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 amateur, under-21-years-of-age, county-level, Gaelic football championship lacks requisite multiple independent substantial RS coverage. Epeefleche (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Part of a national (in fact international) competition:
    talk 11:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:56, 17 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, Wifione Message 11:34, 23 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hacı Karay

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

Hardly any particular notability of this "person" (this is the best how he is described in the article; says something of notability) Locador (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I don't speak Turkish or Kurdish, but I couldn't find any sources that looked promising. Moswento (talk | contribs) 10:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 23 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fuk Wa Street

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

unsourced article on one of many streets in Hong Kong; no indication why the road is notable Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I have already placed a request for redirect on the article page and on the Sham Shui Po article. Content has been merged. Now everything is ready for a redirect. I just don't understand why a deletion, which will erase the article's history is even considered. Note to those reading a bit too fast: deletion IS NOT THE SAME as redirection. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This street is long enough to extend way beyond
    blocked as a sockpuppet.[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 01:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable.--JuntungWu (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That bare assertion means nothing. Where are the sources documenting this street? Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. henrik•talk 19:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FirstPage

FirstPage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found no

significant coverage for this HTML editor. SL93 (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep - I actually use this editor myself. It has been around for years, free to use and widely publicised in computing and website creation magazines. If you look at the Google book search it will give you a sample of reviews and recommendations. Evidently it would be a sensible idea to add some sources to the article. Sionk (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those are significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia also has to be useful. I think that availability of a tool on a download site like c|net with favorable end user opinions should be enough to at least keep it on a list of HTML editors, and that a short article like the one we currently have is also useful. We have much more obscure pieces of software here, and I think we should. (BTW, I am using it and it is quite good, but this is "original research" (o: ) --bonzi (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I also used this quite a lot, but in the absence of evidence that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources it doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. The Peter Christian source ([15]) was the most significant coverage I could find. --Michig (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete be it useful or not, it is non-notable as determined per
    WP:NSOFT, and removal of this software will definitely not render Wikipedia useless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:32, 14 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, —SW— confer 02:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge with List of HTML editors on the strength of the books referenced in the article. It's debatable whether any of these constitute significant coverage alone, but I think that combined they do. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Cretan

Carla Cretan (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 can find no evidence of this individual's notability. Of the many links supplied in the article, all but two are either dead or make no mention of her. This one is a letter to the BBC; writing a letter to the BBC does not make one notable. This one makes passing mention of an article she wrote about a decade ago regarding her days as a student wasting time in Internet cafés; again, that in no way establishes notability. All other claims are unproven, and in any case nothing particularly notable is even claimed. - Biruitorul Talk 18:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing in Google news, books, scholar. Web search does not return anything that establishes notability. The references on the current Wikipedia page are ridiculous, most are not even references at all. Fails
    WP:GNG MisterRichValentine (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I PROPOSE, She doth not even exist! 74.104.96.250 (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GNG. I agree with nominator about an evaluation of sources and I'm not seeing anything better in a reasonable search. Subject likely exists, but I see no compelling case for encyclopedic inclusion. Based on edits to image, likely autobiography intended to self-promote. BusterD (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her most significant childhood experience is that "she watched the Romanian Revolution on television". Are these the thoughts of a person that exists? 207.2.122.150 (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of my most significant childhood experiences was watching the moon landing on TV. And I remember watching the "Romanian Revolution on television" myself as an adult, and it made quite an impact on me. All this is entirely off topic, since some sources do tend to corroborate her existence. And Cretan's story is somewhat compelling. She seems a fine individual who cares and is trying to make something of herself. I'm sure it would make interesting reading in an autobiography, but we're not here for that and she's not yet a notable subject for an encyclopedia, based on sources found. BusterD (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't be bothered to click all the unformatted links that are presented as sources, but the ones I did go through either do not verify the text, are circular, or are simply put spam. Oh, and did we mention
    WP:COI? The bloody TV Revolution bit is to save for a potential anthology of wikipedia autobiographies. "Never loneliness felt so lonely in one loner's loneliest life", indeed. Dahn (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SCOUT eh! second nomination

AfDs for this article:
SCOUT eh! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. DiverScout (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Notability concerns + source concerns, I spent some time googling and cannot reliably source any reliable sources for the article. Given the nature of the organization I have reason to believe such sources may not exist. Tawker (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per my nom - pretty hard to have an article we can't reliably source, for all that could reasonably sourced would be one sentence in which case notability concerns would come to light -- Tawker (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Actually seems to be pretty easy to source, and I'm working from the other side of the Atlantic with limited access to Canadian media. I cannot understand why the people who created the page never added sources. DiverScout (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Googling must have been giving me funny results, by all means, if you've found it, that removes my main concern - still needs some work to address notability but it sounds likely -- Tawker (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - additional sources have been found which address concerns in nomination making rationale in original nom invalid -- Tawker (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As
    advocacy page for this organization. It contains a lot of contentious content with very little sourcing, except for the organization's own website. Mike (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per my nom. The article carries no evidence of notability which is seen through attempting to research the group. My research included searching through the databases maintained by the Canadian Government, searching through official news websites (the globe and mail, canoe, toronto star, and cbc news) for "significant coverage" of SCOUT eh! and searching multiple search engines (yahoo, google, bing) for websites which may entertain evidence that SCOUT eh! is more than a small group. -- Munvo (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -Merge to Scouts Canada page. This is a pressure group within said organisation, and it is only notable in relation to that organisation. This organisation has been operational within SC for about 8 years, so is not a flash-in-the-pan thing. Previous log states that newspaper articles were available in 2005. A bit "other stuff exists" but ought to note that external sources for many Scouting articles are often poor with even main organisation articles referring heavily to internal documents and press releases (see Scouts Canada references for example). Some comments on this read as heavily PoV orientated rather than rational policy arguments - "whiners", "complainers", "bitch-board"? Really? Important note - the link-to on the article header does not work. No judgements should be made until a wider group of users have been given a chance to comment on this AfD. DiverScout (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had a quick look for sources. Found a whole government paper relating to a SCOUT eh! representation and several newspaper reports relating to SCOUT eh! concerns about Scouts Canada finances in 2007. It seems that the government and newspapers consider this to be a notable organisation, therefore I am moving more towards a Keep DiverScout (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, finding a fair-size raft of media sources reporting on the activities of this group. DiverScout (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Condense and merge This has no references to establish wp:notability to exist as a separate article, it seems unclear whether or not such sources are likely to exist. But looks like it should not be totally erased from Wikipedia. They are of some scale and probably of some significance in the national scouting situation. Maybe a short summary in Scouts Canada or a couple paragraphs in a suitable sub-article if there is one. North8000 (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Recent expansion of references and notes by knowledgeable people on this page have changed my mind to "Keep". North8000 (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and merge to Scouts Canada page. There were apparently media articles on the subject in past, but I see no references to them in the article. If there were some third-party citations to establish the notability of the subject, I would consider changing my vote to keep. Regardless, the content needs extensive work on providing citations or trimming unverified details, as well as editing for NPV. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep and cleanup (vote changed based on addition of citations) — article still needs work, though. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also on readability...uses internal jargon terms without explaining them. North8000 (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noted comment on language but am not sure which phrases are being declared as internal; jargon needing to be explained, as it looks like pretty plain English to me. DiverScout (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This group has testified before a committee of the Senate of Canada and has been mentioned numerous times in the news media. It has has a notable impact on Canadian Scouting and needs to stay. The article should have more references added. Lkmorlan (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE The comment above should be disregarded as the editor is a member of the tiny group in question and is therefore a

WP:COI vio. Mr Pyles (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Do you have any doubt this person is telling the truth about them testifying before the Canadian Senate? That information should be regarded since it does convey notability. Dream Focus 04:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The editor perhaps could add that fact to his profile page, but has put on a user box indicating they attempt to comply with our editing policies. At least one of the nominators is in Scouts Canada, therefore
WP:COI vio. One other is bordering on personal attacks. Clearly this is an emotive subject for some SC people. Should we, therefore, ignore input from SC people - or just judge the page according to Wikipedia policy? The statements he has made about the organisation are clearly true (verified by my being able to easily add them, despite being non-SC, non-SCOUT eh!, and non-Canadian) and this page certainly now meets Wikipedia:Notability and is now sourced, having significant coverage of its campaiging in varied and reliable sources. DiverScout (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Early conclusion possible? - Nomination of this article for AfD was based on lack of notability and reliable sources, and assumption that such sources could not be found. Article now quotes media and government sources, and meets

WP:NRVE. DiverScout (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

My recommendation is (changed to) "Keep". But I think that this should go through the standard process so that an early close does not itself become an issue leading to a third AFD. I've seen this lesson learned the hard way elsewhere. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was doubtful about this when it was first put to AfD, but a good job has been done on it. Well done. It is now fine. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep", good news coverage and covers an interestings aspect of Scouts Canada, which is an National Scout Organisation with a long history and strong membership. Thanks for your work DiverScout.-Phips (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. v/r - TP 01:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WeVideo

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

Several sources removed do to 404, wiki has lost all creditably, and thus not suited for wikipedia, wiki is additionally written as a advertisement as well, which has no place on wikipedia. PetterPanNever (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm finding a lot of sources for this in various sources (which I'm adding to the article now), so I'm wondering if the article could just be re-written to remove any potentially advertising tones?
    talk) 14:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment: I have to admit that I was worried that the majority of the stories about this website were predominantly about its release. Eh, I tried my best but I had doubts about it actually getting kept. No biggie, if it gets notable enough later on it can be readded.
    talk) 04:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and copy sources here. The article as it is can't stay, though the topic seems to be somehow notable. Let's see, whether anyone but advertisers is interested in creating an article on the topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dmitrij indicates that the subject of this article is suited for inclusion, but this article is somehow not. Barring criteria for speedy deletion (spam, copyvio, attack page), all pages with a subject suitable for inclusion should be kept. This is the very foundation of a wikipedia. Improve what you can, keep everything that can be improved. I interpret Smerdis' rationale as 'it meets all standards, but it's just not suited for inclusion in an encyclopedia' I have often seen this argument from him, which I think comes from the idea that companies that haven't shocked the world shouldn't have articles on wikipedia. I certainly don't agree with that, and I don't think there is consensus, or even a majority for this point of view. Sources to establish notability are decent (I only looked at the TechCrunch and CNet articles, and together they easily demonstrate notability), and I see no reason to delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The articles are not only the text, but also an editing history. FWIW, this editing history should be deleted, and the article has its right to stay only if and when is rewritten and the editing history is blanked. This is best achieved if this article is deleted and new one is written from scratch by someone who cares the topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources applied by
    User:Tokyogirl79. When seen together, several sources satisfy my view of IRS and GNG. LA Times, PC World, SVBJ? I'm not seeing anything to dislike. Bad-faith nomination too. Nominating account seems to be here solely for the purpose of nominating this article, and the Oslo ip associated with this account([16], [17]) has done little but de-source this page. BusterD (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete agree with Smerdis of Tlön Eiad77 (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T. Kilgore Splake

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

Completing AFD nomination on behalf of

WP:BLP. I'm happy to look at any sources you can find, but I'm coming up blank. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 24 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, Bmusician 11:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Based just on what's in the article, I did not investigate) Zero references, no indicaiotn of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. AfD is the request to have an administrator (semi-)permanently delete the content of the page. There is consensus there is encyclopedic content here we would like to keep. There is no consensus in which form to keep this: Should it be merged? If so, what with? When there is consensus for this on the AfD discussion, it is reasonable and customary that the closing admin summorises that as well. In this case, there is no consensus for that, so the only thing to close here is the question of deletion. There is consensus against that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unitary National Liberation Front

Unitary National Liberation Front (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 references or evidence of notability, article tagged since 2010, subject of edit wars. Performed Google search per

Nobody Ent 11:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep. The article is not written as extensively as it should be, but its subject is certainly very notable. "National Liberation Front" Yugoslavia renders 22,000 hits on Google Books. And as for "edit wars" - one very brief edit-war hardly justifies any deletion of content. Anyone familiar with this subject is aware of its notability. Have look, for example, at the
    talk) 11:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Why is the article title "Unitary National Liberation Front," then?
Nobody Ent 12:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Is it the same as the (barely referenced)
    Socialist Alliance of Working People of Yugoslavia? GiantSnowman 12:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Either way can we close the Afd please? And discuss possibilities for name changes and merges on the talkpage? --

talk) 15:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

No no, your position is very logical. I was thinking about that possibility myself, I'm not sure, but I don't think it'd be a good idea. --
talk) 00:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
No justification for an article named "Unitary National Liberation Front" have been presented. Finding references for similar but different names is like saying finding references for "Fish" justifies having an article on Catfish. If it's notable as "Unitary National Liberation Front" find some references to support that; if it's notable under a different name move or merge the article to that name.
Nobody Ent 02:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Ugh.. its not about the name - its about the notability of the subject. Even if the article isn't named appropriately (and imo it is), do you think we should delete all articles that aren't quite named in accordance with policy?
This organization was named "Jedinstveni narodnooslobodilački front", but that's kind of tricky to translate. Hence different sources use different names.
So there are quite a few variants in English sources. --
talk) 04:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Leaving other things aside, the translation "united front - jedinstveni front" is given in a dictionary.[19] (Ostojić, Branko. "Englesko-srpskohrvatski I srpskohrvatsko-engleski rječnik", 1991. Pg. 67) I don't think there are any sources for a different translation, but if there are, please present them. I wouldn't get into the matter here if you would not so vehemently claim the only correct translation is unitary. --
my talk 09:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
How about this? Add one or more Serbo-Croatian sources documentating notability for Jedinstveni narodnooslobodilački front.
Nobody Ent 13:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't have a strong opinion on whether we merge the SAWPY into this article or vice versa. The unsourced information is another story. You claim that the UNLF united ALL political parties and individuals of the republican, federalist, and left-wing political spectrum. Can you provide a reliable source for that claim? Yes or no? BoDu (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DIREKTOR has mysteriously disappeared. You don't do sources DIREKTOR, that's apparently not your thing. BoDu (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We should discuss the merges and moves on the talkpage in the proper venue. Not like this. --
    talk) 16:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The article has had a no ref tag for a year and half. As an editor limited in skill to American English, I an unable to find any references to support the name as is; it's not unreasonable to expect editors who wish to keep the article to meet the
Nobody Ent 17:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. has already been speedied —Tom Morris (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Error 41

Error 41 (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 is a short article giving the reason for an error code in Windows. There are very many error codes in Windows and other operating systems and no reason to think that this particular one is so important that it needs its own encyclopaedia article. Fails

WP:GNG andy (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. andy (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on the article's talk page, you are correct that it would not be appropriate for wikipedia to host individual articles for every error code. However, that is not to say that an error code may not be notable. As an analogy, it would be possible for me to propose that the Barak Obama article be deleted because 'there are zillions of mammals out there'. Yes, Barak Obama is a mammal, yes being a mammal is not notable, but he is notable for other reasons. The question then must be, is this particular error code notable compared to other error codes?

Joe MacElderry is not as notable as The Beatles. The question is: 'Is 41 notable enough?' The below arguments have been copied form the article's talk page, and I suggest that this structure be used for further discussion of the question posed. Garemoko (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, this error code is of note amongst error codes"

  1. The error code features in popular culture, i.e. the recent xkcd webcomic. Garemoko (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The error code is used in the device manager of a major operating system, Microsoft Windows.Garemoko (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is just a regular error code

No arguments yet proposed

This topic does not meet the criteria that: a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject

It has been suggested that there is not significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It should be noted, however that Google returns "About 2,040,000,000 results"[1] for Error 41. The majority of those on at least the first few pages of results are reliable and independent sources. This topic certainly does not lack significant coverage.
We may question the popularity of such coverage, that is to say that the internet tends to be used more by those who work in IT and therefore has a bias towards content on fixing
wikipedia's guideline's
however, and I would argue that given this topic's mentions in popular culture combined with its significant coverage in reliable and independent sources that it more than meets the criteria for notability.

Garemoko (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I tidied the text above for readability, replacing section headings with italics - sections aren't normally used on AfD pages. Incidentally, there are a similar number of hits for Error 42, Error 43 and so on. Just saying. andy (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked "error 31" through "error 49" and "error 41" has the most hits. Some have considerably less hits, but you're right, many are comparable. Out of interest, as I used him as an example above, Barak Obama only gets just over 10% of the number of hits, as does "error 404". this suggests that hits on Google is not a good indicator of notability. Still, the topic meets wikipedia's guidelines - it has a significant number of reliable secondary sources. Garemoko (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of wp:notability provided, and ability to meet it looks unlikely. I also found the analogy given to be flawed. The analogy provides an ambiguous class (individual mammals vs. species of animals?) but more importantly for error 41 the class is given as the main reason for notability, whereas in the analogy the notability is clearly for reasons other than the class. North8000 (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi North8000. I've give 3 separate reasons for notability above, so I feel its inaccurate to say that no "indication" has been given. It would be much more helpful to explain why each reason given is not a good enough claim to notability. I appreciate that this may require a little more work on your part, but since you are pushing for an undo of the hard work I have put into researching and creating the article, I don't think that would be inappropriate.
In regards to the the analogy, I hope you'll agree that the accuracy of the biology is irrelevant to this deletion discussion. Replace the word mammal with "American" and the point is the same. I think you've misunderstood the point I was making though. My point there (which you appear to agree with) is that being an error code is not sufficient to establish notability. Error 41 as a topic must be notable for other reasons in order to be considered notable enough for an article. This analogy was originally in response to a proposed deletion notice which essentially suggested that the page be deleted because the topic was an error code and there were lots of error codes. My argument was that this was the equivalent of suggesting the deletion of Barak Obama because he is a mammal and there are lots of mammals. This is simply not a good reason to delete a page.
It is therefore the responsibility of those arguing for the page to be kept to provide alternative reasons for notability, and the responsibility of those seeking to delete the article to refute those reasons. i created section headings as a framework for this debate. Thus far nobody has attempted to refute any of the reasons given or provided any evidence in their comments of having even read further than the article's title. Garemoko (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable topic, and the article already seems to be becoming a dumping ground for trivia. The xkcd connection is at best dubious as the error there is minus 41. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good point. I totally misread the cartoon. That does put a significant dent in the "in popular culture" section which is (was) probably this article's strongest argument for its existence. Garemoko (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Filecamp

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

Constested PROD. Concern: Non-notable software product. Mostly promotional. Eeekster (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't remove the prod, because I wanted to discuss the nomination and wanted to see if I could address the issues. When nobody answered I removed it and asked for feedback if there still where issues. It is frustrating using a lot of time and energy and then somebody wants to delete my work without any discussion. I feel this deletion isn't really based on knowledge about the software but is more of a routine exercise. I don't understand why this has been nominated for deletion. The reason why I added it was because there are other services of the same size and notability, and I am an app fanatic. If this has to be deleted, then there a lot of other services that needs to be removed. Also don't understand why it has been marked as mostly promotion, since I've used the Picasa post as template and tried using the same tone, so that wouldn't happen. And since I didn't get paid to make this, I'm surprised by this comment. I almost feel like I am being bullied, and if this is how wikipedia works, I am done

with it! (Vagn30 (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC))— Vagn30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

question about what counts as a reliable source, feel free to ask the people at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. When in doubt, it's better to ask and to know then to fill up an article with unreliable and/or primary sources, then get upset if someone nominates it for AfD. Also, don't take AfDs personally. While there are some nominations that are done in bad faith, 99.9% of the nominations are done because the nominator does not believe the subject matter passes guidelines. Whether or not Filecamp meets guidelines is for the discussion here to decide. I'll be honest and say that stomping your feet and saying "I'll leave if you don't keep my article" (or some variation thereof) is not the way to get things done around here or to keep an article. Trust me, I'm ashamed to say that I've done that before and luckily I saw how silly I was acting and rather than sit in a huff, worked to keep the articles I wanted around. There are people who are willing to help you as far as looking for sources and seeing whether or not anything needs to be added or changed. Some will even edit an article they know is pretty much doomed, all in the hopes that it might help keep it. (Not all of us are deletionists by choice, sometimes it's just inevitable.) If you absolutely think that this AfD is done in bad faith, feel free to bring it up to

talk) 12:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This source in the article is also in Danish, but appears to be a very short article with a passing mention, and the reliability of the source website itself may be questionable: Stillinger Tagged ‘Filecamp’. Perhaps someone who speaks Danish could check these out? I searched online, but didn't find coverage in reliable sources for Filecamp. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This article serves no purpose except to attack the subject. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harper Fascists™

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

Just a page with a slang definition on it. Subject should be on Urban Dictionary, not on wikipedia Aunty-S (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No indication of wp:notability, and ability to meet it looks unlikely. North8000 (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yesterday (before it was deleted) this page was a rant on the same topic. Without any sources, it is so much Original Research or Stuff Made Up One Day. Chris857 (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, again. Not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per
    neologism. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The consensus below is that a combination of mentions in reliable sources and

WP:BLP violations) that would mandate deletion in the face of a clear local consensus to keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

H. A. Hellyer

H. A. Hellyer (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 subject is not notable: no reliable sources give him in-depth coverage, let alone multiple sources (

WP:ACADEMIC as well, insofar as any such claim might appear from the prose. In virtually every potential source, the subject is the author or is otherwise associated with the publisher. Even if this subject is an expert or writes a lot, his expertise alone is not a basis for notability because neither actually the subject of any significant coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 06:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Firstly, the article as currently written is very short - because all the primary-sourced and/or uncited material, most likely added on behalf of Hellyer, was removed by nom very recently, so there has not been time for other editors to do anything about it. See this version from 29 February to appreciate the changes. The material was not well sourced but that doesn't mean that none of the now-hidden claims could be sourced. We should check - to take just one example, the claimed Brookings Fellowship should be traceable, it would be an odd thing to claim if not true, and it would certainly help to establish notability.
... Secondly, Hellyer is in the (usual for WP) tricky position of being much better known for writing and speaking than for being written about, so we need to consider carefully if he is sufficiently notable in his own right (his recent book is certainly notable but that won't help him much here). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - I've had a quick look at sources and have added the easiest half-a-dozen, his book and some affiliations in External links, and brief notes on his career as a Middle East 'Expert'. It seems certain there are plenty more RS out there so it's time to say a definite keep. Will add more RS if time - please add some more yourselves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – most of these are primary sources. Looks like maybe two secondary sources; depending on how you see it, in-depth coverage may not be there. JFHJr (㊟) 14:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above: "Hellyer is in the (usual for WP) tricky position of being much better known for writing and speaking than for being written about..." I believe that our notability guidelines for journalists are defective. Hellyer writes for the Egypt Independent and is an expert and public intellectual specializing in matters relating to the European Muslim community. Further parsing for sourcing to follow. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An March 2010 Interview posted by Our Shared Europe. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cited as an expert in a piece published by AOL News. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that he is a fellow of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Full paper published in 2007 by the Brookings Institution, including copious biographical material on page IV. Notes that he was Ford Fellow for Middle East Policy at the Saban Center of the Brookngs Institution. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An expert on polling the Arab community, writing analysis for Gallup. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is clearly an individual worthy of encyclopedic biography. Rather than a test of whether this individual meets GNG, this seems to me more of a test of whether GNG meets the standards of journalists and public intellectuals like this. We who frequent AfD have bumped into this before. There are special metrics to measure the output of academics and ranks and honors to take into consideration, but no appropriate special guidelines for journalists and public intellectuals. In these cases it is best to judge each case on its merits. This is a public figure as an expert and a biography belongs in Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

Texas Education Agency accountability ratings system#Academically Acceptable. v/r - TP 01:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Academically Acceptable

Academically Acceptable (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 basically an A10 speedy candidate that, IMO, fails the "recently created" criterion. A redirect may be plausible. Tiderolls 06:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I overlooked linking to the existing topic:
    Academically Acceptable. Tiderolls 06:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Lees

Ronnie Lees (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 subject is not notable: fails

WP:AUTHOR as to his book printed by a publisher of unknown authors. The level of personal detail before BLP edit indicates it was originally a vanity piece. JFHJr (㊟) 06:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. no quorum, so a

WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Greathall Productions

Greathall 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)

Promotional article for a company of questionable notability. Google news search shows zero results. Standard search shows quite a few sales and simple directory links, primary and unreliable sources, but no significant coverage of the company itself from independent reliable sources. I can not find corroboration from reliable sources on the alleged awards, either. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of primary source hits. No Secondary source hits.Curb Chain (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Scissor Sisters (album). Merging and deleting is not possible due to the attribution provision of our licence. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Oz (song)

Return to Oz (song) (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 completely fails

WP:NSONGS. It is a single track off of an album that I previously redirected it to
, but this was recently disputed. Therefore, I am seeking that it be officially taken care of at AFD.

All mentions of "Return to Oz" are in its capacity as a single track off of the

original research that is tenuously sourced to the various links at the bottom. Even though I originally turned this five year old mess into a redirect, I do not think that a disambiguated page is of any use as a redirect, but this could be an equally as viable option rather than deletion. —Ryulong (竜龙) 03:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlo Hayda

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

Although this person has led a very interesting life, I'm afraid I don't see anything in the article that's evidence of

notability per Wikipedia's criteria. ... discospinster talk 03:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep - According to the notablility article, it says the person must be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". You, yourself admitted that he led an interesting life and I don't see how he is any different or less interesting from other Ukrainian activists or clergymen who do have wikipedia pages like Jack Chanin, Oleh Mahlay, Innocent Lotocky, Slau, Ed Evanko, Victor J. Pospishil, Jules C. E. Riotte, etc.
  • Keep - Cursory Google search supplies multiple sources; his death in particular got quite a bit of coverage. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this clinches it for me "the first priest of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church to be legally ordained in [the] Ukraine following the collapse of the Soviet Union and emergence of the Church from its underground."--MacRusgail (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the comment above - that seems sufficient.Faustian (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. There is a consensus below that, in the absence of coverage, these self-published ebooks are not notable. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A War Below – Part 1: Run

A War Below – Part 1: Run (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant self-promotion of an eBook. No ghits, no mention on Amazon. Further parts of this alleged publication are at "A War Below" parts 2-4, all tagged for proposed deletion, as was this; deprodded by the author Tonywalton Talk 02:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

parts 2-3 now deprodded by their author; please consider A War Below – Part 2: Hunt, A War Below – Part 3: Pay as part of this nomination. A War Below – Part 4: Die is still proposed for deletion but as of now the author hasn't removed the prod tag. Tonywalton Talk 03:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and keep an eye on the account to make sure he doesn't re-create them or make more. It's a single-purpose promotional account. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Initially I nominated all for speedy deletion. Most of these e-books are not yet published, and are written by an author,
    Peyton Farquhar, whose significance is not established. Per above, these articles appear to be the product of a promotional account. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete A quick search provided no secondary sources. Eomund (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not finding any reliable-source coverage for this topic whatsoever. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ventraq

Ventraq (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 subject of the article lacks

notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 15 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, —SW— comment 16:16, 23 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, →Στc. 02:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compatible Systems

Compatible Systems (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 subject of the article lacks

notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 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, —SW— confer 16:18, 23 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, →Στc. 02:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ilmac

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

Event that seems to only have primary links on google, or links that are related to the event itself. Basically, a tradeshow held every 3 years without obvious notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I cannot find anything beyond primary sources; certainly nothing to suggest that this is notable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 15 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, —SW— soliloquize 16:21, 23 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, →Στc. 02:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tagged 'Third-party sources' in August with no improvement since. Eomund (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warscapes

Warscapes (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 do not believe this is notable, but I removed the speedy tag to give it one more shot in a wider forum. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I feel confident that this online literary magazine launched less than four months ago is a worthy venture that may well become notable. I've found no evidence that it is notable now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:30, 24 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, →Στc. 02:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find significant secondary source coverage. Eomund (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After searches for "Warscapes magazine", "Warscapes publication" and others, not finding any coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Classics

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

Unnotable Pony Softball team, that has been tagged as nonreferenced since 2008. No effort has been made to improve the article, and searching for references turns up nothing except for the team's own site. Although there is some claim of notability by stating the number of won tournaments, I can find no reliable third party sources to confirm this. Fails

WP:RS. Rorshacma (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 28 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, →Στc. 02:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Project Abakan. There is no such thing as delete and merge, since it destroys the history, and would violate the licence in respect to attribution Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

APT assault rifle

APT assault rifle (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 indication of notability, appears to fail

WP:GNG. Cut and paste move from Postnikov assault rifle. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 03:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined torwards Keep if better sourcing can be found - as a weapon developed for military use, notability is close to inherent...if it can be
    reliably. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:08, 24 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic-American Zakat Foundation

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

Appears to fail

SarahStierch (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 24 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murder She Solved: True Crime

Murder She Solved: True Crime (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 per

WP:RS. Article lacks third party source or any evidence whatsoever of notability. Google News search does not show significant coverage. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the official Facebook page is a good source, it clearly says that it airs on

talk) 01:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

"A TV show is always notable"? How so?—Kww(talk) 02:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to let you know, facebook is discouraged as a source. The only way it can be used is as a primary source and primary sources do not show notability at all and can only be used if you have multiple independent and reliable sources to back up the claims in the article and show notability. See
    talk) 04:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply
    ]
  • Comment - Citing the article creator's user name is not a valid rationale for deletion. Also note that additional sources have been added to the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete—No reliable news sources. I know facebook is a publicly viewable source, but it's not accurate nor reliable. Minima© (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually there are some reliable sources that cover this topic. See my !vote below. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Delete - Note that additional sources have been added to the article as of the time of this post. While the series is listed at IMDB, after searching, not finding additional significant coverage in reliable sources at this time. This article (in the article as a reference) from Mediacaster Magazine constitutes significant coverage and appears to be a reliable source: [23]. The other two references include passing mentions of the topic. If additional significant coverage is found, this !vote can change. Also, it's concerning that some of the !votes to delete above that were posted after the addition of references don't include discussion about the quality of the references, nor the references themselves, and instead just discuss Facebook, or state "Delete per nom". This is essentially just typing "delete" without actually qualifying why the article should be deleted. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. The Media Caster article is a run down of a bunch of shows; the coverage is not signficant. The St. Catherines Standard and Niagara Falls Review articles are really local interest where a local crime is being covered by the show with much of the coverage about the crime. I don't feel that these in aggregrate are sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. no quorum, thus a

WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Kirra Lynne

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

Subject fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT. and the GNG; single GNews hit is a passing mention in a promotional/presskit piece, no pertinent GBooks hits. No reliable sourcing for any biographical content. By well-established consensus, the Urban X/Urban Spice award fails the well-known/significant standard and does not indicate or demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rihaan Patel

Rihaan Patel (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 does not qualify for GNG as there are no multiple, reliable and independent sources which give substantial coverage to the subejct. it's a vanity page created by the subject himself. --

talk/contribs 14:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 24 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the added sources are more than sufficient to verify notability. It could use a go-over for grammar (I don't have time, or I'd do it) but the notability of the subject and the reliability of the sources should not be in doubt, and the creator has been informed of the COI guidelines (I checked his talk page). - Jorgath (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the coverage found in the sources identified above by Schmidt and Cavarrone.  Gongshow Talk 08:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. per

WP:DRV Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

James McKeown (politician)

James McKeown (politician) (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 local councillor who fails

WP:ONEEVENT. Valenciano (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I creator of this politician's page on Wikipedia would urge the removal for the nomination for deletion log.My reasons for this being he is unique in his role as the only Sinn Fein politician on Larne Borough Council andthe Facebook controversy was unheard of in Northern Irish politics.

talk) 20:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I'd strongly urge you to read both
WP:ONEEVENT which I've already linked above. Being the only councillor from party X on small local council Y is definitely not grounds for notability and neither is a very minor controversy. Valenciano (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I disagree.The council has its own page on Wikipedia,some other councillors on the very same council have entries on Wikipedia.Having this page on Wikipedia improves local interest and understanding of the council.

talk) 20:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Your disagreement has no basis in Wikipedia policy.
WP:USEFUL. Valenciano (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep Yaloe one event plus elected plus only sinn fein —Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Three arguments, let´s take them in turn.
1. One event. I´m afraid you´ve misread
WP:ONEEVENT
as it says people known for only one event generally don´t qualify for articles.
2. Elected, see
WP:POLITICIAN
: "3.Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" that clearly applies here.
3. Only Sinn Fein councillor. As I´ve said above "being the only councillor from party X on small local council Y is definitely not grounds for notability" quite the opposite in fact, since this would imply that if more Sinn Fein councillors were elected, he wouldn´t be notable then. However,
notability is not temporary so clearly that can´t be the case. Valenciano (talk) 13:12, 28 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've already voted keep above in your 24 February post. You don't get to vote twice. I repeat: being the only local councillor of party X on a local council of 31,000 inhabitants isn't grounds for notability per
WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Jones (baseball)

Daryl Jones (baseball) (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 minor league baseball player, fails

WP:Athlete. Hasn't done anything notable enough to warrant an article. Yankees10 16:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep Fails
    WP:GNG, which supersedes the athlete guideline. He was a legitimate prospect and received non-trivial coverage regarding his status. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 24 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's plenty of material available on Jones. I've got three different years' worth of BA prospect guides at home that all discuss him at some length. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. no quorum, making this a

WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Eric Beinhocker

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

Couldn't find significant coverage. Coverage seems to consist mainly of incidental mentions of him and his book; there's no in-depth coverage of the man himself. Fails

WP:BIO. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 19:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it's not the first thing one would look for in this case, he might just meet

WP:PROF#1, despite being primarily a businessman. His book is quite widely cited, and so are a couple of papers. PWilkinson (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dry The River

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 subject per

DR goes to Wikimania! 00:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Revising my earlier opinion, Keep. Those additional references are sufficient for me, although I'm still a little worried about running afoul of
    WP:PERSISTENCE. 71.178.129.76 (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Persistence is not really an issue in this case due to the number and quality of sources. With weak sources, yes, but these guys are getting coverage from the most mainstream publications that exist, not just industry or music related websites. Same with Crystalball. Only way to have stronger sources is being on the front page of the New York Times. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy keep - I had already looked at this one after it was created, and did the move because I found them notable. BBC interview here[29] (except for those of us in the USA...) plus The Guardian [30] and The Telegraph[31], with the last two being quite comprehensive. I can find more (I literally spent two minutes is all, two pages on google), but I think these should be enough to demonstrate notability for the purpose of the AFD. The article just needs work, the creator is a newb, and I complained about the "short" part of the article on the talk page already, knowing it would end up here unnecessarily. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and worked those refs into the article. I can understand the assumption that a new band that has yet to release wouldn't pass criteria here, but in this case, they do. Dennis Brown (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal ball is not a generic descriptor for an article. It actually has meaning. In the other article you are fighting for, it is used accurately, because the film is a future film. This band is current. your arguments will carry more weight if you actually try and understand the policies you are arguing. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree that they are notable. Alex9788 (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep" Dry the River deserve a place on Wikipedia... this is their place. Why would you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.123 (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=error+41. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_March_2&oldid=1142634542"