Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 27

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 26 March 28 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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JMCAD

JMCAD (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 unsourced software, not to mention terribly translated to the point of being almost unintelligible, prod declined without explanation by editor with likely COI based on username and developers name Jac16888 Talk 21:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Latest edits by a user with a clear conflict of interest have turned the page into a headache-inducing read. Previously the article was well written but relied on a single primary source and had no indication of notability. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 28 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. If anybody wants to merge anything let me know. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flyswatter (album)

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

A recreation of a deleted article, and technically fits G4. However, with possible additional sourcing turned up since three years ago, I find it prudent to run a new AfD. A google book search turns up this for example. It's not much, but there is quite a lot of different sources that provide of more-than-trival yet less-than-in-depth coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with maybe a bit of Merge. Doesn't merit a standalone article. It appears to be covered adequately in the article on the band. The only thing we would really lose by deleting this is the tracklisting, and this could be included in Blink-182 discography if need be.--Michig (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails
    WP:NALBUMS because there isn't significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I've looked for such coverage several times over the years and never found anything that gives more than a passing mention, other than fansites. The book Martijn mentions above gives only 1 sentence's worth of coverage. The most coverage I've seen is in the book Tales from Beneath Your Mom by Anne Hoppus, sister of Blink-182 bassist Mark Hoppus, but that's a primary source and it only gives maybe a short paragraph's worth of coverage, nothing that isn't already covered in Blink-182#Formation (1992–93) or couldn't be added there. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient secondary sources for a self-released work. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move information to Blink-182 discography page, but be willing to put the same level of information for all the Blink-182 albums. When researching popular music, track listings are important. Re: sufficient coverage: when one is looking for information about an album, one doesn't care how popular it is with secondary sources. Note: I'm saying this as a fan of popular music generally, and I have no specific attachment to Blink-182 specifically. Listmeister (talk) 20:43, 3 April 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mbayi Kafwemb

Mbayi Kafwemb (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't find reliable sources for this.

talk) 20:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... just a little note more, which might tie that name in a little more, here Francis Hannaway 08:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. For the purposes of transperency, I invited Francis and other members of the project Congo who may be more familiar with the subject to shed some light as to whether the name is transcribed in error or not. That was after I tried to find reliable sources but failed. Thank you so much Francis for your contribution. Your links make sense. Totally agree, it is the writers responsibility to cite atleast one reliable source.Tamsier (talk) 11:01, 3 April 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like Moths To Flames

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

Very questionable notability for this band. Got a few albums out. Some sources include http://www.smnnews.com/2011/08/19/like-moths-to-flames-recording-new-album/ and http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=2509252 but there isn't enough here to really speak of significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 28 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.  Sandstein  06:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with this picture?

What is wrong with this picture? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Though everybody knows about screamers and all that stuff, we've seen no reliable sources of Internet Prank. Otherwise just games and screamers post all over the Internet. Also, the first part of the article before the "Internet Prank" should be merged with

Highlights for Children. New Living Wiki Editor (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge and redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, possibly, but it is unsourced, and I see the target is flying virtually source-free as well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, are you nominating the most popular kid's magazine for deletion? Bearian (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't dream of it, but it might be an idea if you felt it worth it to add a few sources over there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:50, 28 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,  Sandstein  17:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added one ref which sources it as a well known Youtube or video prank. Edison (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unreferenced essay on an unremarkable topic RadioFan (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnotable, and original research. The only reference that the article provides isn't even talking about the subject at hand, and is about the most trivial mention of the concept possible. Rorshacma (talk) 16:22, 3 April 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, since the 2 previous relisting administrators did not find the participation/arguments sufficient for a "keep" close, I'm going to close it NC. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pastel Accounting

Pastel Accounting (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) 02:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: This should actually be judged against
CORP, as mentioned below by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff below. --Slashme (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: I think there's a reasonable assertion of notability in the article. It's been around for more than two decades, is frequently required for job placements in South Africa, and is taught in many third party courses. There is a link to the Cape Town University of Technology short course in Pastel in the article, but many other such courses are available (e.g. this one). A quick look at Google Books shows that it's mentioned in many published books, with full textbooks solely devoted to Pastel. I am not an accountant, but pretty much anyone who has browsed job ads in south africa knows Pastel. (examples: financial accountant job ad salesperson job ad bookkeeper job ad --Slashme (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you linked appear to be job advertisement websites, and the
reliability of these sources is questionable. The Google books link above has a very large number of irrelevant links. This narrowed Google books search has more relevant hits, but the coverage appears to be trivial mentions. (i.e. the program is on several lists of software) There still doesn't appear to be anything substantial though. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, this would be a better "restricted" search, and you'll see that many of the books here list it as a typical example of accounting software. That shows that it's widely covered. As for the job ads, they might not be reliable sources for some claims, but they clearly show that it's often a requirement for accounting and other jobs, a claim that's also well supported by many of the books, and the university course linked. --Slashme (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: though most sources give little to no description of this software, several imply notability (see the Google Books search links above), which makes me believe it passes
    WP:NSOFT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:38, 13 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, SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:30, 19 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,  Sandstein  17:48, 27 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. Both of the keep votes in this discussion were textbook

WP:GNG. If you believe thet "Alex (Skins)" is a plausible search term such that it should be a redirect, feel free to re-create the article as a redirect. —SW— confess 22:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Alex (Skins)

Alex (Skins) (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 individual episode, all plot, using promo websites as sources. Using this delete as a trial balloon to see what action should be on many related and similarly unsource, non-notable individual episodes. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your view then you might as well delete more than half of Wikipedia. Unreal7 (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of
WP:NOTABILITY means in the context of a wikipedia article. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to the talk page for the user JDDJS, you'll see that that user redirected over 100 episodes of South Park, which had no more than one reference, to their respective season pages and ALL of those redirects were reverted. Why's it different here? Unreal7 (talk 16:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a few reasons. First off, working with WP:Notability requires a more complex approach than just creating blanket standards for all articles of a given type (in this case, t.v. episodes). You seem to be arguing that people are not applying a consistent approach, but the thing is that not all shows are of equal stature when it comes to notability. In particular, the comparison you've provided is as unequal as they come in that South Park is a massively more well-known show, and one that is famous for making a cultural splash and exciting controversy. Also, you will note in the page which you referenced that the editors who called that guy out mostly went out of their way to point out that they weren't necessarily defending the content of those articles, which may or may not warrant deletion anyway, but apparently rather that they were simply irritated that he wiped out all of that content en-masse without consulting anyone and then entered into revert wars to defend the change.67.121.238.159 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Wikipedia doesn't need an article for every episode of every show, certainly if they contain only a retelling of the plot. RadioFan (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's really no arguing for WP:Notability on this one and the argument that Wikipedia is full of episode articles which fail to meet this standard is not an argument for keeping this one -- it's an argument for getting rid of the others and against further unnecessary entries. What's more, the article lacks encyclopedic tone, doing little more than relaying each minute detail of the plot to what seems to be an utterly unremarkable episode of a teen drama. I'm sure there's a Skins wiki or some fan project out there where this might find a home, but it's clearly not appropriate here.67.121.238.159 (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if I cut down the plot? Will that help? Or should we just redirect all the Skins episodes? Unreal7 (talk 22:43, 4 April 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women's History Museum and Educational Center

AfDs for this article:
Women's History Museum and Educational Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable; local museum which lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources. It is also known as The Women's Museum of California, but despite its sweeping choices of names it is actually the San Diego Women's Museum, focused entirely on the women of San Diego County. I found very little Reliable Source coverage under any of these names. The only significant news coverage I could find was in January 2011 when they announced a name change, and in fairness I added that reference to the article; otherwise the article is entirely self-referential. All other news hits I found were passing references, calendar items, and occasional local coverage when they announced their Hall of Fame nominees. Not enough to meet

WP:ORG in my opinion. (Note: there is some news coverage under the name California Women's History Museum which was not about this museum; it was about a proposed museum in Sacramento that was never actually created.) MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. It has been mentioned in some news sources, but only in passing or in community calendar type listings. Not even finding mentions of this museum in guide books for the city. RadioFan (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was surprised when this article was drawn to my attention over a copyright problem. Mostly by the date of creation - December 2011. I remember another article on this subject, or articles on the inductees containing copyright text like that I've deleted from this article - or even both. I can't remember what it or they were, but there was a lot of copyright stuff involved from the same website then. I've nothing against this museum, but the referencing doesn't do much (under
    WP:RS) to show notability. I'm commenting for now rather than !voting as I removed quite a bit of the article as copyvio. I've suggested to the original author that the referencing should be improved, but if Melanie can't find anything I don't hold out much hope. Peridon (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete; although it does exist, I have not found sufficient reliable sources that have significantly written about the subject in a manor that shows that the subject passes
    too soon and the content can be userfied if requested by the primary editor, but until then it should be deleted from articlespace. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:04, 27 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. Even after discounting the

spas, there is a weak consensus to keep this article. However, if the sources are translated and it's not felt that they represent significant coverage, then no prejudice against a quick (but not speedy) renomination. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Saleem Dabbour

Saleem Dabbour (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 writer/filmmaker of questionable notability. Google news search shows zero results. Standard search shows a lot of primary sources, along with trivial mentions and unreliable sources, but little significant coverage. Claim of being voted one of the "Top 5 Cultural Personalities" shows zero results outside this article. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon Mike, but searching Gooogle Archives show something more than simply "zero results". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. He may not have English coverage, but he has plenty of Arabic coverage and he is indeed popular in the Middle East. I'm taking a look at the Arabic sources on سليم دبور and the ones that Sean said were reverted in the article itself right now. ~dee(talk?) 16:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All the External Links are actually references to various media where he is covered. The article needs a lot of work...but that's a copyedit issue and his notability isn't in dispute. I'll try to do some work on this... ~dee(talk?) 16:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP: I don't see the Article which talks about Mr. Saleem as a promotin one, it actually tells little facts about his great work and all of it are FACTS, I'm a palestinian and I know this very well. He is always in TV and news. Yes there are not to many external links in English about him, and that is because he is A palestinian writer, google him in Arabic then you will find out too many external links or references, such as al jazerra net, Alquds news, Middle East, Ma'an and so on, I added some for your convenience.
This writer is a well known person, and very popular, Arabic google support my point of view, There for I'm against the idea of deleting the article which gives the none arabic reader a hint about such a man who revived the Palestinian Cinema and Theater, and used this Art to raise awarness and to envoice his people. trust me guys he is a very popular writer and a general manager of a well known civil society organization: www.awcsw.org view this please. Best, Ahmad Basha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad Basha (talk • contribs) 17:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — Ahmad Basha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep: Mr. Dabbour has too many reliable Arabic sources, for he is a well known and influential writer in M.E. I hope the issue of deletion has nothing to do with him being a Palestinian!
PS: I would like to draw your attention that the name of this writer appears almost daily in the national Newspapers and has numerous television and radio interviews. It is not his fault that the Western press is not interested in Arabic literature or Drama, although he was interviewed by many Dutch Newspapers such as NRC,RDB, and interviewed by NBC, Spanish TVs, and Dutch TVs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.60.50.23 (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — 46.60.50.23 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Nor his fault that google itself is not as comprehensive for non-English topics as we'd like to pretend. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am rewriting the article in my sandbox and should be finished either today or tomorrow. ~dee(talk?) 10:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your efforts dee. click here please if you are interested to add his picture [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad Basha (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep It is ridiculous to delete this Article for several reasons, Firstly; Mr. Dabbour is a well-known influential and eminent writer in the Middle East. Secondly; This article requires a better editing and has nothing to do with his notability and so on. Thirdly, Wikipedia is strongly advised to keep this article and remove it from the deletion list. Thanks, A Palestinian Director. RA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.205.58.39 (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr. RA, Mr. Dee is working on eiditing. Ahmad Basha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad Basha (talk • contribs) 16:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and continue work on translation of sources. His receiving
    addressable one that does not call for deletion. Sourcable notability outside the The West is notability none the less. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:59, 3 April 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. —SW— converse 21:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Pineda (soccer)

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

PROD contested by

WP:NFOOTY as the subject has not appeared in a fully professional league. The article can always be userfied in the creator's namespace until the subject becomes notable, if/when it does. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sir Sputnik, more or less.
    Daily Herald in the Chicago suburbs (by Orrin Schwarz, 2/16/2012 9:16 PM), and Pineda only gets 5 sentences making up about a thrid of the article, plus the title. The other sources are soccer organizations' self-published "news" for generating interest about anyone related to the organization. --Closeapple (talk) 17:53, 30 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. —SW— talk 21:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Bailey (American football)

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

Mess of an article which seems to contain information on two different players (see history). GNews searches show that there was a player but no sources are significant. It seems clear that neither player ever played professional American football. Fails

WP:GNG Tassedethe (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Al E. (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clarifying. That's an odd history. I still vote to "delete" the article which, as it currently stands, is about the Va. Tech player. Since the current article is not about the former Ga. player, I do not think we can or should preemptively judge his notability. If and when a current article about the Ga. player is presented (which may be never), we can decide at that time if it should be deleted or kept. Cbl62 (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not seeing the coverage to meet
    WP:GNG. Have it? Let me now, I can flip-flop!--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with extreme prejudice. Never appeared in a regular season NFL game per NFL.com, Pro-Football-Reference.com and databaseFootball.com, therefore there is no presumption of notability per
    WP:GNG. We active editors of WP:NFL and WP:CFB really should seriously consider setting up a committee to work through existing American football player articles to purge non-notable players such as this one, and stop relying on others to randomly trip over them. I would be surprised if there were not hundreds of FB player articles whose subjects also fail any of the applicable notability standards. Ironically, we do not have stubs for dozens of consensus first-team All-Americans . . . we need to give some careful consideration to the present notability standards for American college and professional football players. IMHO, he "one appearance, one play" presumption of notability for NFL players is extremely problematic in the absence of any meaningful coverage in reliable secondary sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Sloan

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

Clear case of

WP:BLP1E: this runner is famous only because he allegedly cheated during a marathon – one so unnotable it doesn't even have an article, at that. I'm honestly surprised this article lasted so long... Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    BLP1E- no external notability. A412 (Talk • C) 02:57, 28 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 deleted by

G12 as an unambiguous copyright infringement of [3]. Non admin closure. "Pepper" @ 10:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

PragmaDev RTDS

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

Does not assert notability and does not provide any references, most notably third-party references, to support notability. Only 140 Google matches as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PragmaDev and RTDS has 1,180 matches on Google. 140 matches is for the exact phrase "PragmaDev RTDS". RTDS is the most active tool based on SDL technology standardized by ITU-T. I added this entry because all other tools on the UML Tools page had a dedicated page. I made a first shoot but I am planning to improve it in the coming weeks if the page is maintained. Would that be ok ? --Manu31415 (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not agree, for example PragmaDev RTDS is used by Airbus to design the Air Traffic Control software on board the plane as described on CS web site(unfortunately it is only in French). PragmaDev RTDS is integrated in the European Space Agency framework called TASTE. PragmaDev RTDS is also used by researcher such as in the University of Berlin. And PragmaDev RTDS is used by teachers such as at the INSA in Lyon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manu31415 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 28 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. I'm going to

WP:GNG. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Riverdale High School, (riverdalekolkata)

Riverdale High School, (riverdalekolkata) (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 appears to have been largely copied from

hoax. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This should NOT be speedied, no matter what. I doubt it's a hoax and that would be the only cause for that. Carrite (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Official Website seems to indicate that this is a new school, with the first class 2010-2011. This may or may not have anything to do with the difficulty finding it in this or that listing of Kolkata schools. While this SO FAR remains unverifiable, this does NOT look like a hoax to me. Somebody with unlimited international phone minutes should give the number a call and see if someone answers... Obviously not a "high school" per se, including kids of many ages, and it may or may not pass muster on those grounds, even if its existence can be documented. BUT this should NOT be speedied as a hoax unless some sort of proof can be found that it is a hoax, which I'm not seeing. Carrite (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once I cleaned out the copyvio sections, nothing worth keeping was left. If a school has been around almost a decade (the article says the school was established in 2003), there should be some sources. And if it hasn't been around since 2003, well, maybe it is a hoax. While WP keeps articles on high schools, this article (despite its name) isn't about a high school as such. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:31, 30 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 Bushranger One ping only 23:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol and Avon League

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

Following on from a discussion at

WP:GNG so should be deleted. Adam4267 (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - given the 100 or so leagues being considered for deletion, an article on lower level non-league leagues would unfortunately probably end up as little more than a list with a few brief notes. I have suggested an alternative approach on
County Football Association.League Octopus (League Octopus 18:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC))[reply
]
  • Keep - accords with
    WP:GNG in a historical context as well as being a unique source. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC))[reply
    ]
  • Keep One person making a comment about leagues below level 11 on
    WP:FOOTY does not make for a consensus. The current clubs are clearly not notable, but I don't see why the league itself shouldn't be, particularly as it included teams from Bristol City and Bristol Rovers in the past. Number 57 11:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment This discussion may be the victim of some off-Wiki canvassing, so better watch out for SPA !votes. Number 57 14:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article seems to be peppered with original research, e.g. "A careful appraisal of the league records indicates", which suggests the information cannot be attributed to a reliable source, and "There were also a few clubs from South Gloucestershire such as Henfield Youth and Pilning Athletic", which reads to me like not only is a reader not sure which clubs are involved, but I cannot check, and I get the feeling that the writer himself isn't even sure. I also had problems finding a working link for one of the citations, which should support at least four points made in the article. Regarding the references in general, I feel, due to this "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.", there are two references which are of limited interest, one which is a primary source and the other one is a local newspaper. It looks like it is not enough at the moment but I am willing to wait for more information before voting. Cloudz679 15:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the dead link: googling the article's headline produced a live link as first search result. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I thank you for giving me the opportunity to develop this article further and respond to the points raised by Cloudz679 - this I will undertake shortly. At the moment I am able to confirm that thisisbristol.co.uk is the website of the Bristol Evening Post (and also serves its sister paper the Western Daily Press). An article in the Guardian confims that the Bristol Evening Post is a regional evening paper and of course the Western Daily Press is widely acknowledged as a regional daily. League Octopus (League Octopus 21:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the link Struway, read the story, which looked quite familiar - this needs to be addressed, too. Cloudz679 04:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing the copypasting, which I've now rephrased. If you still think it's too close a paraphrase, which it might well be, please feel free to improve it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additions made and references added to the history section.League Octopus (League Octopus 11:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep as all my concerns have been addressed, the article is looking good and is now worthy of inclusion in my opinion. Cloudz679 21:30, 31 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. Speedy deletion criteria G11 (Unambiguous promotion) and A10 (Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic). For G11 the first sentence of the article says it all: "This is a personal and philanthropic project started by Dakotta .J.K. Alex to educate and bring awareness to more people on the diversity of the Jewish diaspora." For A10, we already have

talk) 13:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Jews of India

Jews of India (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 similar to History of the Jews in India. This can be deleted as detailed article is already present Madhuric (talk) 12:58, 27 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.

CSD G3 Hoax Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

CFMX-FM (Kokoya)

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

There does not appear to be a radio station of this call sign in Kokoya, because there does not appear to be a place called Kokoya. Given the editor's history, I am led to believe that this article is a

hoax. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Hoax: I have to agree, this is definitely a hoax. The real radio station in this case is CFMX-FM, broadcasting from a suburb of Toronto. That station is licensed through the CRTC, Canada's version of the FCC. As for the "town" of Kokoya, I found one, ironically, in Toronto. Only this wasn't a town, but a Korean restaurant called "Kokoya" on Yonge Street in Downtown Toronto. Still a hoax though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:58, 28 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.

CSD G3 Hoax Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

MKOV-TV Cima

MKOV-TV Cima (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 sources of information about a television station called MKOV. The article is not clear enough (nor written in anything close enough to actual English) to decipher where this television station might be located in order to narrow a search for sources. The website listed (mmedia.com) appears to have nothing to do with a television station of any kind. Given all this, and the editor's history, I believe this article may well be a

hoax. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 28 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. joe deckertalk to me 20:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Kee Ann

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

There seems to be no claims of notability except for running 2 martial arts schools, which clearly fails

WP:MANOTE. In addition there appear to be no reliable sources--2 of the sources are from his schools, while the third one (mindef Singapore) reads like an ad. It has links to the school, tells how to contact them to set up lessons, and makes comments like "find yourself as nimble and quick as Jackie Chan!" Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 21 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, BusterD (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article makes no assertion of notability (being ranked 5th Dan, or ranked Level 6, or co-founding a martial art school do not inherently imply notability). Janggeom (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found nothing to show the subject is notable or has significant independent coverage. Mdtemp (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable in the extreme.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:00, 1 April 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. There is consensus (including apparently now by the nominator) that the sources added establish notability.Rlendog (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Been Down So Long

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

Song fails

WP:Music. I could not find any sources to establish notability. No mentions of charting, either. Tinton5 (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Would stubbing it Help?--

talk) 01:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

That is because i stubbed it. And no chart info may be known yet either.--

talk) 01:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

maybe replace the deletion tag with a speedy deletion tag?--

talk) 01:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well, I usually don't do this, but after seeing those edits, I appreciate what you've done to improve the page. So having said that, I feel as to possibly withdraw this nomination, but let us see what others will say now. Thanks. Tinton5 (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Was this song released as a single? Tinton5 (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure, changed it to song for now until I find otherwise. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:36, 17 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) 00:10, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after improvements made by Theornamentalist. ~dee(talk?) 15:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after impressive revision by Theornamentalist  The Steve  10:44, 29 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.  Sandstein  06:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misu Ilie

Misu Ilie (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 see no indication the subject passes

WP:MUSIC. Biruitorul Talk 01:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 13 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) 00:10, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first reference is the only one that has a bit of relevant content but it's way too thin to establish notability on its own. Pichpich (talk) 22:53, 30 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.  Sandstein  06:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12 Apostles (record label)

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

Contested PROD, plus 2 of the 3 artists that actually have an article listed aren't even notable plus

Stop Cleveland Hate and I'm not sure if that is notable either. JayJayTalk to me 00:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks sources for verification Shii (tock) 14:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Definitely known in dance music circles about six years ago, they had a distribution deal and released a number of records - http://www.discogs.com/label/12%20Apostles - and ROC (now that the link points to the right artist!) are notable - but as Shii notes, there aren't many sources, and their current status is unclear the way the article's written now. Fosse8 (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a prime example of an article that could be improved by adding the relevant sources. Give it a chance! 98.28.12.216 (talk) 18:47, 18 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:10, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 12:00, 27 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, and create Category:Chinese Tea Ceremony schools. The arguments against this article on notability grounds are compelling, and would apply equally to a list. However the same notability criteria do not as strongly apply to categories, and this suggestion by The Bushranger seems to satisfy the requirements of all parties; no non-notable article or list, but the articles in question are linked together and accessible via a common page.

The notability of the articles that now belong to the category was not a matter for discussion in this nomination. Should they subsequently be deleted and the category rendered empty, clearly it can be speedily deleted under

WP:CSD#C1. waggers (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Schools of Chinese Tea Ceremony

AfDs for this article:
Schools of Chinese Tea Ceremony (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 organization does not seem notable. I can't find any good sources for it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per
    WP:BURDEN. As far as I can tell, this is not an organization in existence. The article refers to three schools that already have their own articles. Whether those three schools are notable is another question. Here, I don't see any notability for an article re-describing these three schools. What is the added value? This article is more a year old. Since it was AfD'd and tagged a year ago, there has been no improvement in establishing notability. The "references" do not actually say anything about these "schools of Chinese tea ceremony." Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 13 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) 00:09, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As long as the three articles on the schools exist, this list article is useful. If the nominator's wish is to delete the articles on the schools, it's those articles that need to be nominated, not this one, because deleting this one won't do anything about those. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Pontificalibus. As long as the listed institutions are notable enough for articles, this article is a valid list article per WP:LIST. Rlendog (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks but
    WP:NOTCATALOG. No one has actually made a case for why this list is notable. So no one has actually addressed the basis for the nomination. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:53, 4 April 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, per additional sources. Rlendog (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lu-Yu Tea Culture Institute

AfDs for this article:
Lu-Yu Tea Culture Institute (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 organization does not seem notable. I can't find any good sources for it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For searches also try trad. Ch.: "陸羽茶藝中心" and also "lu yu tea art center". icetea8 (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 13 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) 00:09, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current references are sufficient to establish notability. Pichpich (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now sufficiently referenced to pass the GNG.
    talk to me 23:18, 1 April 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Research and Extension Station

Tea Research and Extension Station (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 organization does not seem notable. I can't find any good sources for it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For searches also try "行政院農業委員會茶業改良場" or "茶業改良場" and "Tea Manufacture Experiment Station". icetea8 (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets
    WP:ORG. I found a number of sources by simply searching for "Tea Research and Extension Station" and have added them to the article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 21:42, 15 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) 00:08, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 11:57, 27 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. —SW— spout 21:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agile Networks

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

Declined CSD. References are trivial mentions that don't support notability. One possible non-trivial coverage (behind registration-wall) but one reference is not enough to support notability. Written in a promotional tone and not possible to be re-written in an acceptable manner due to lack of sourcing. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 15:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the original criticism there are now 6 references included, all from external third party sources. The publications include industry publications in the UK (CRN) and Ireland (silicon republic) as well as the online version of Ireland's main evening daily newspaper - the Evening Herald. Additional details of the 100MB Schools Broadband project can be added to indicate the national importance of this project which is part of the Irish Government's "Programme for Government". I am the original author of this entry, my first on Wikipedia, so apologies for getting it published in an incomplete manner.

Darraghonline (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The references still aren't very good:
[4] May or may not establish notability; can't read without registration/subscription.
[5] Fingal County Enterprise Board isn't a reliable independent third-party source: this is just a press release. Can be included in references, but doesn't establish notability.
[6] Very short (3 sentences).
[7] The article doesn't mention Agile till near the end, and the source isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, but may still be ok.
[8] Doesn't mention Agile.
Final link appears to be wrong. Google can't find correct article.
It's debatable whether this establishes notability - is insideireland.ie a reliable source? Are any of the other sources substantial enough? Are the missing link or the channelweb.co.uk link useful? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* References

1 - CRN is the main channel publication for UK and Ireland with a sister US publication; it would be considered a mainstream publication for anyone working in IT
5 - As per the article description this was released when Agile was Telindus Ireland; ie under its pre MBO name
6 - corrected now, link should work and silicon republic would be considered the main source of news on IT within Ireland

I'm not qualified to say what makes a source substantial but all are external, unconnected, and with the exeption of Fingal CEB professional media organisations. I have also updated links within Wikipedia to Agile's customers as seven of the nine have their own entries within Wikipedia. Darraghonline (talk) 13:57, 14 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) 00:07, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All trivial mentions or non-mentions. This is standard press-release stuff. EEng (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Here's an additional article, which doesn't appear to be sourced from a press release:
  • Corcoran, Sorcha (February 16, 2012). "Agile Networks gets €80k grant from Fingal CEB". Business and Leadership Ltd. Retrieved March 28, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
—Northamerica1000(talk) 22:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you Google the opening sentence, A start-up company specialising in network integration, Agile Networks, is getting grant assistance of €80,000 from Fingal County Enterprise Board you'll find a score or more "newspapers" carrying exactly the same story. It's a press release. EEng (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while more references are added Comment - Found apparent references in Lightreading, a venue that is (IHO) THE publication of record for the telecom services and equipment industries but has the unfortunate problem for Wiki references that all tis content is behind a registration wall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdc wms (talk • contribs) 01:56, 30 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. —SW— yak 21:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Babayele Sodade

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

PROD contested by

WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 28 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Display Campaign

Display Campaign (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. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

While the participation (9,275 buildings in 336 cities) in the project is fairly substantial, there isn't a
reliable third party sources. Until sourcing is found, notability can't be established. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article should never have come to AfD. The notability issue should have been discussed on the article Talk page, and a merge done with
Energie-Cités, if there was consensus for that. Johnfos (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
One of the primary purposes of Articles for Deletion is to establish whether or not a subject meets the
notability guidelines. I fail to see how this nomination is inappropriate. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:11, 20 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) 00:00, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 11:50, 27 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Morris (soccer)

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

PROD contested by IP with no explanation given. Fails

WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 28 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. Withdrawn by nominator. joe deckertalk to me 20:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dallin D. Oaks

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

I'm no expert on linguistics (and I don't know how to do that publication citation rating thing), but this BYU associate professor's achievements look a mite weak to my inexperienced eyes. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Oaks has authored or co-authored three major books and has also written many articles in this subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 28 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. Virtually certain hoax, no indication of significance, and no response from author when asked to provide evidence.

talk) 16:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Alif Hilmi Azmir

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

Contested PROD - PROD reason was "None of the "references" cited even mentions Alif Hilmi Azmir, nor can I find any mention in any reliable sources. Likely hoax, and if not then no evidence of notability" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 27 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 Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure.

talk) 10:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Aker American Shipping

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

Though it claims a large financial turnover I can find no coverage online in reliable general news sources about Aker American Shipping or its alternative(?) name, American Shipping Company ASA. Generally it is listed on various financial websites and dirtectories. Possibly its shipyard may be a notable landmark, but that shouldn't contribute to the notability of the holding company, should it? Judged by Wikipedia's

WP:NCORP notability guidelines, this company doesn't seem to tick the boxes. Sionk (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

—Northamerica1000(talk) 21:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn - can't argue with the above sources, sufficiently newsworthy for me, not sure why I didn't spot them myself! Hopefully the article can be updated and improved. Sionk (talk) 22:50, 27 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) 08:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prostki, Podlaskie Voivodeship

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

Reference is bogus, there is no entry for this settlement in the TERYT (nominated for deletion on plwiki) Bulwersator (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 28 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. Feel free to re-create it as a redirect to an appropriate target. —SW— confer 21:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Veilig Rijen

Veilig Rijen (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 couldn't find any indication that the film was notable (or that much more information was available than was already listed in the article.) I propose this article to be deleted for lack of notability. Mgm|(talk) 07:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A very small article on a short film without any verifiable third party sources and references. Does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Appears non-notable as there has actually been no article expansion and information edit history since it was created 10 months ago. Plus no article of this name exists on any other Wikipedia including the Dutch Wikipedia where it actually should have been made if this short film was notable. TheGeneralUser (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but I can't find any Dutch reliable sources. If this were an American short film no-one would think twice about deleting it.
(talk)(contribs) 01:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not at all opposed to a deletion. You did find and offer a source showing it has screened, so thank you. But as it failed to receive any coverage, I agree it does not merit a separate article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per my comments above. When a topic lacks the sourcable notability to merit a separate article, it serves our readers to at the least send them to the one place where even a non-notable film might be listed within the director's filmography. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:23, 1 April 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transformational Quality (TQ) Theory

Transformational Quality (TQ) Theory (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 theory of education. I can't find much on it. I can't even find the books that are supposed references for the article. A search for "Living theory press" brings up this very Wikipedia article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "Transformational Quality Theory" brings up two pages, both non-academic pages by "WJ Barry". "Barry, W" is also the author of two of the supposed references for the article. This appears to be just someone's pet social science theory that is not mainstream or accepted by the social science community. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable theory, no independent coverage found. May perhaps become notable in the future, but currently isn't. Atkins and Wallace might be a valid source, but has not yet been published.Yunshui 雲‍水 07:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking sufficient evidence of notability. As always, I would be happy to reconsider if new or additional evidence is provided. ElKevbo (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very vague definition - not even enough to warrant a Stub classification much less indicate notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 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. I am willing to userfy per the request. Rlendog (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BAMMA 8

BAMMA 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

Mtking (edits) 06:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Mtking (edits) 06:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
But
Mtking (edits) 19:47, 27 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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True Capitalist Radio

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

Nothing other than a minor award nomination. →Στc. 05:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - even with the award nomination (most nominated for shorties are not notable), show does not meet
    WP:GNG.Karl 334 ☞Talk ☜ 21:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable internet radio program that fails to cross the verifiability or notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 18:49, 2 April 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. As

WP:TNT. If userification is desired, ping me. The Bushranger One ping only 05:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Anti-Texas sentiment

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

Only source is an opinion column. Article is essentially a short POV statement. PROD declined without explanation by IP that is likely the article creator. Safiel (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, there's nothing here beyond "some people don't like Texas." Hairhorn (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neither of the sources are even about the ostensible topic. (one is about a sports team, which indicates nothing, and the other is more like "criticism of the Texas state government.") –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having one publication, "Why I Hate Texas" does not justify the article. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This source in the article ([18]) is about the Dallas Cowboys, not Texas in general. This source ([19]) is an opinion piece, and the reliability of the source is questionable. After other searches, just not finding coverage in reliable sources about this topic. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've done a small but of much-needed cleanup to the article so it meets certain minimum standards (article categorized, formatted references, proper formatting) and I believe that an article on this topic can be created. As a longtime resident (but not native) of Texas, there does exist an anti-Texas sentiment in places whether due to politics, sports, or the general braggadocio of Texans and there are bound to be reliable sources that cover this in depth. However, the article would be far better served if it were developed in userspace, expanded and sourced beyond its current stub state, before re-introduction to the live encyclopedia. - Dravecky (talk) 16:50, 28 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 deleted as obvious vandalism. Mgm|(talk) 08:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Troy StanHolm

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

Biography of a non-existent person. Page is a copy of Doug Stanhope. Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and apology to
    reliable sources. (Until I saw the article's name and the article in which it was copied from) Speedy delete as pure vandalism. Bmusician 05:13, 27 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 Bushranger One ping only 05:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Austin

Lynne Austin (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 doesn't seem notable, and the article does not have any RS Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe Hooters magazine IS a RS after all? I thought it was a joke, but apparently it is a real publication.Fasttimes68 (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Google news search reveals several RS covering her life as the first hooters girl and her marriage to Daulton. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on the exhausting/ive debates over Playmate notability a while back, she merits an individual entry by a narrow margin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Unless one is questioning whether a particular individual merits a separate article (like this one) or whether the content should be put in the corresponding year article, another round playmate AfDs is really not an efficient use of our time.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Komatsu

Maria Komatsu (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 independent RS on the notability of what seems to be just a person with a couple of YouTube channels. Sources are all related to the subject. Does not satisfy

WP:SPIP. Michitaro (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. YouTube non-entity with no third-party coverage or reliable sourcing to demonstrate any notability. --DAJF (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly non-notable, no indication of notability, no independent sources. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ talk 11:43, 2 April 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 under

G5. — ξxplicit 22:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Bilal Khan (singer)

Bilal Khan (singer) (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 musician. All refs are self published. I believe this was previously deleted, as it popped up new on my watchlist, but am unable to find the previous delete, perhaps an admin can weigh in on the history. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Obviously Keep - The article about the pop singer from Pakistan have its own importance and Bilal Khan is a notable musician in Pakistan. You may the see the evidence of his notability on youtube (Bilal Khan on youtube). Hence, it should not be deleted as the article have reliable sources and external links. --- Angel from PAKISTAN Let's talk about it! 02:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is not a reliable source. Especially not the musician's own channel (again see
WP:BEFORE. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]


comment to keep !votes Please read

WP:VERIFIABILITY. "I like this guys music". "because". are not valid reasons to keep the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

already reported. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable per
    WP:MUSICBIO. All the sources in the article are of blogs and thus not independent and reliable source. --SMS Talk 03:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Yes, many non-notable people are on itunes. Anyone can put their music their in about 5 min. Additionally, you are a confirmed sockpuppet, you just havent gotten blocked yet. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not exactly a brilliant showing in the article, and a miserable one here. Rampant sockpuppets are always damning to a cause. Peridon (talk) 20:23, 28 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 drained. The Bushranger One ping only 05:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ballard Pool

Ballard Pool (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 public accommodation. No significant coverage in news or book. Bongomatic 01:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not needed, could be merged with the recreation park article if there is one. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 18:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – a public facility that has never made much of a splash. If delete is objectionable, then it could be redirected to Seattle Parks and Recreation. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely unremarkable public swimming pool operated by the City of Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:43, 30 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 prejudice against recreation if and when he makes his debut for Army United The Bushranger One ping only 05:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kert Kütt

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested procedurally as the article had been previously deleted by PROD. The delete rationale remains valid nonetheless. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 27 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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allelon Ruggiero

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

Actor BLP unsourced since creation in 2006, except for IMDB. A Google and Google News search reveals several apparently passing mentions of him in his first role, which is mentioned in the article, and nothing since. Appears to fail

WP:BIO.  Sandstein  10:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 21 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) 00:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no way meets WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He has mentions in RS for a few other roles, and for the short film Lost, his single directorial effort. However, he has certainly not caught the eye of the media in any great sense, and that's this article's downfall. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of programming blocks by Cartoon Network (Latin America)

List of programming blocks by Cartoon Network (Latin America) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Honestly, I have no idea what this is. As far as I can tell, it's not a list of notable programs aired by some channel, which maybe is acceptable. This is unverified, and directory information at best. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It sounds like it is unclear to you what a programming block is. If that is the case, the article Block programming might provide an explanation. Basically, they are groups of programs that the station thinks will appeal to the same people. The station gives a name to the block so that they can advertise the block as a whole. However, the block consists of separate individual programs, and the programs shown in a block might change over time. It looks like the list that Tokyogirl79 links to shows both the names of the individual programs and the programming blocks into which those programs are grouped, which would make the separate list of just the block names redundant. Calathan (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 21 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) 00:03, 27 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 Independence Public School District. The Bushranger One ping only 05:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Ridge

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

Middle school that does not seem to meet our notability guidelines. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment About Malformed Nomination: The note on the article is malformed and does not direct here. It takes some searching for anybody interested in the article to find this discussion.Americasroof (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The template on the article appears to be in working condition, it's just redlinking for whatever reason. Clicking on said link will lead to here. Unless you mean on the log? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD link being redlinked on Article for deletion tags is typically remedied by
purging the page, after which the link becomes functional. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:30, 27 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) 00:02, 27 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/Userify.. Consensus is to delete. As the creator has expressed a desire to have the page userified, I have done so; redirecting the original location and/or creating Earless rabbit can be done through the usual channels. The Bushranger One ping only 05:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Til (rabbit)

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

There was a rabbit without any ears. A cameraman stepped on it and the poor animal died. It will now be stuffed and exhibited. Sources confirm this happened. PRODded with reason "Not notable. Just a minor

WP is not a newspaper. Hence: delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

  • There are some individual animal articles out there which do survive AfD, but honestly they aren't that useful unless you are trying to remember a particular incident. One such article was morphed into the much-celebrated
    List of animals with fraudulent diplomas, which is well sourced and a good compilation. I love the idea of an earless rabbit article (which can include mentions of notable earless rabbits), assuming we can source it well. I wouldn't go with German celebrity animals, because I see news stories out there about earless rabbits from other countries too.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to work on an article without worrying about anyone else's interference you can always start it off on a user subpage. For example, you could work on User:CallawayRox/Earless rabbit until you felt it was of a high enough quality to be moved into the main encyclopedia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that because we can't redirect from mainspace into userspace, I'm going to have to mark Til (rabbit) for deletion. This will not prevent you moving the article back into mainspace when you choose. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reverted the move. An article under discussion at AfD should not be blanked or removed. The proper procedure is to wait until the AfD closes and then, if appropriate, to userfy the article.
    talk) 12:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Just copy and paste into a new userspace article.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with that suggestion is that you will have to be careful about including any other editor's contribution without attribution. Using other people's contribution without attribution is copyright infringement. A surprising number of people think that somehow copyright infringement doesn't count if it's from another Wikipedia page, but that is not so. Attribution is normally in the editing history, but that is lost if you copy and paste. In this case, almost everything is from one person, but not all. Really, it would be better to either (1) edit the existing article (2) wait until the AfD is over or (3) write a new article from scratch, so that it doesn't include anyone else's edits. Also, I think it is only fair to warn you that, before putting a significant amount of work into the new article, you should decide whether the subject really does meet Wikipedia's
talk) 15:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I will just wait since you won't let me do any work. CallawayRox (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The trouble with that suggestion is that you will have to be careful about including any other editor's contribution without attribution." Maybe so, but it happens all the time beyond the notice of almost everyone. AfD shouldn't delay people's desire to create, if they wish to do so.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:53, 2 April 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) 00:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable bunny/event. Slow news day. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed. Might be worth a line in some rabbit-related article though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:18, 28 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) 08:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Varsity Trip

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

This article has no secondary sources to establish notability outside of the confines of those groups closely affiliated with this organisation. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The previous AFD asserted reliable sources that covered a particular prank, not the organisation itself. As the organisation was not the primary focus, these sources do not qualify as indicators of notability. All other sources are self-published or closely affiliated with the subject. The JPStalk to me 18:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 21 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) 00:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe that the races held on this trip make up the oldest team skiing competition in the world (that is still running), and are therefore notable. There are plenty of sources confirming that it has run since 1922 (including coverage in The Times newspaper from the 2nd year until the 1980s) - however, it's less easy to prove that there are no other older competitions still running. Arguably the article should be expanded based on the newspaper articles to include more details of the format/notable participants/... over the years. If there is a consensus that this would make the article worthy of not being deleted, I could spend some time doing this next week. The size of the trip also seems significant (especially given that it is run by full-time students), although the claim that it is the largest student snowsport event is again hard to backup (3200 people is certainly more than a similar trip organised by BUSC). --SnowAddict (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the independent sources to verify these claims? It isn't a question about clean-up or expansion -- it's about providing some solid third-party, independent references where the club is the main focus of the piece. Things aren't notable by association, so a 'notable participants' won't establish notability here. See
WP:GNG. The JPStalk to me 20:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The earliest article that I've found is from The Times, 29th December 1923 and, whilst short, is dedicated to the races. Later articles are longer, and go beyond simply reporting the results. For example, on 11th December 1930, there was an article (again in The Times) discussing the status of the competitions within the universities, and weighing up the two teams in anticipation of the races. The Times is a major, independent publication, which covered the races more or less every year until 1975 -- and it may well have been covered in other papers, but I don't have access to those archives. There is also archive footage from both British Pathe (1924, 1933) and ITN (1964).--SnowAddict (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SnowAddict  The Steve  11:27, 29 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 to delete. Only one participant in the discussion has characterized their opinion as "Keep" but the sources and arguments presented by the nomination and previous comment do not argue strongly for deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Baird

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

Does not appear to be notable outside of the connection with the LFW house. This is the best I could find, but I don't think it's enough.

Wha? 21:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To me, Baird seems to have (or have had,
    WP:PROF#4. And there's more around, even if most of it is either reviews or citations of Varnum's book, reminiscences of former students or, as in this case, both. PWilkinson (talk) 14:26, 24 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) 00:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. GBooks search turns up a truckload of substantive hits, and GScholar indicates that the book about him (mentioned in the NYTimes obit cited by the nominator) is probably notable itself, and amounts to the substantial coverage required. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:43, 27 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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ECOBOND lbp

ECOBOND lbp (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 reliable third-party coverage to establish notability per

WP:CORP. Kelly hi! 22:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 21 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) 00:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The company information is wrapped in general discussion about lead in paint, but basically nothing here (including the EPA directory listing) is enough to mmeet
    WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 27 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.

are obviously all the same user; there is no information provided beyond a release date - not even a track listing. No prejudice against recreation after the album is relased and has proven notable. The Bushranger One ping only 05:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Believers Never Die (A Gerald Walker album)

Believers Never Die (A Gerald Walker album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

talk 23:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete - I see no significant coverage about this forthcoming album that would establish notability at this time. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 21 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) 00:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No relevant information, and it's unlikely there will be any before the album's release. Huon (talk) 15:22, 27 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_March_27&oldid=1142634473"