Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 12 February	14 February >

Guide to deletion

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stadeon

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

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable defunct software company. The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. The only reference is summary of Yahoo acquisitions and it has 3 short paragraphs on Stadeon, mostly Yahoo comments about how this acquisition makes what Yahoo is selling better. North8000 (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I don't see a claim of minimal importance in the article text; being acquired by Yahoo does not make that standard by itself. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Found a few reliable sources, but they were all in regards to being bought by Yahoo, and they all referred to Stadeon in a more passive way; the focus of the article was Yahoo. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (to List of acquisitions by Yahoo!). Neutrality^talk 00:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mountain Studios

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: instead of reliable sources about this company I found MobyGames' entry about the software. It lists two games by this ISV: Apparitions: Kotsmine Hills and Findola (note the color). That said, the trivial mention hits for this company is relatively high. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly per Czarkoff. Nothing much out there that is providing anything significant or independent for coverage. --MuZemike 21:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar Tickets

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another ticket seller, no indication of durable significance. Google News appears never to have heard of them; coupling this with the claims of agency and sponsorship made in the article, I smell a hoax. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not established, no RS found in quick search. (note: and their website will not open in IE9?) --Tgeairn (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stonegate Shopping Centre

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

I cannot find sufficient independent, substantive, multiple, non-run-of-the-mill RS coverage of the notability of this 432,000 sf mall on gnews or gbooks (though there is a good deal of coverage of other notable Canadian malls). Article was PRODed, but PROD was removed by Night of the Big Wind without any rationale. Epeefleche (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, the coverage in the article is on the fence as two trivial and one non-trivial. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL. Just a big shopping center as are present in any big town, of which the sources don't show its notability to a wider world than Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) B music ian 01:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Owens (corrections officer)

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

non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This contributor's articles on this executioner and others, is a good contribution to our content on crime and criminal justice. Academic Challenger (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That one reference has a large / substantial 1947 newspaper article on him in it. Specifics indicate RW notability and an near-certainty of there being other sources. Very brief encyclopedic article. North8000 (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A state's executioner would seem to me to be notable. Deletion needs a better rationale than the highly subjective "non-notable person". -- Necrothesp (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs more sources but It looks good to me--Dcheagle 02:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is this Tulsa World article. Some lighter coverage from 1979, coverage in this book. Not availabel for preview but the search snippet reads "This was Mr. Rich Owens, whose place in hanging history is safe because of one thing: he ..." from this book. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article now expanded. A412 (Talk • C) 03:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Mosher

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

No verifiable notability. External links are to insignificant web-only articles. The subject of the article uses the article as his calling card on various Internet forums, including foodservice.com, where subject's assertions about his own notability have been questioned, and where the assertions remain unsubstantiated. The subject apparently did own several restaurants, and currently sells a software product to the food service Industry. Links to this article from other pages seem to have been inserted into those other pages primarily in order to "anchor" this article into Wikipedia. Pooryorick (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Valfontis (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only valid deletion criterion I see in the nomination is that it appears to fail WP:GNG and lacks verifiable references that would support notability. It may be an autobiography (it was created by an Oregon-based IP in 2004 and the subject appears to have edited the article and provided images) by that isn't necessarily a reason for deletion. This AfD should address notability only. Valfontis (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After studying the available references (not, like the nom says, web-only, but in fact including two print newspapers) and not finding any more reliable sources on the Internet, nor in news, books or magazines, especially independent sources, I have to conclude that this article does not pass general notability, nor notability for biographies (and more specifically biographies of creative professionals), especially in terms of significant coverage. After having removed much unsourced material from the article (which appears to have been added by the article's subject), the remaining sources are two hometown papers from two of Mr. Mosher's hometowns, one of which mentions about 10 clients for his company, and another which mentions a few hundred. So redirecting, say, to an article about his company ViewTouch isn't a solution, as the company would not pass WP:CORP. Per criterion #2 of WP:CREATIVE, it might be possible that Mr. Mosher "is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" However, though it appears Mr. Mosher may indeed be a pioneer in the POS field, nobody seems to be claiming this except Mr. Mosher himself, and though it might be a great injustice that he is not getting the credit due him, that is not Wikipedia's problem. I also resent what appears to be an attempt by the article's subject to use Wikipedia to promote himself. I did my due diligence before coming to that conclusion and had hoped it wasn't the case. I'd suggest Mr. Mosher work on his AboutUs page instead. Wikipedia is not here to provide free advertising space. Valfontis (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Valfontis. I'm also unable to find independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of Mosher. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources. Local coverage essentially take his claim of inventing the touchscreen POS like in this article. There is no corroborating independent sources that attest to his being the inventor of the touchscreen POS. In fact, if one reads the article carefully, he appears to be claiming that he shopped his ideas around but they companies simply stole his ideas. It's an easy claim to make but difficult to prove. In any event and touchscreen POS is not something so innovative that others in the same industry would not have indpendently dreamed up. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete As far as a head count is concerned, there is not much here (3 deletes, 2 keeps if we count Chernyi as a "keep" although he/she does not actually say "keep", and also says "if members of Wikipedia see fit to delete this article, that's fine by me. I just wanted to play around with creating my first article to be honest.") However, the "delete" arguments are substantially based on policy, while most of the "keep" arguments aren't. For example, "This article has more references than many others of its kind" is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, and invalid. "As far as WP:ONEEVENT, the events are still playing out, so we don't know what the impact will be" is also invalid: we assess the notability of subjects as they are now, not as we speculate what they may be in the future. (See WP:CRYSTAL.) I assume that in "Since the group has moved from the Dolphin Hotel to the JT Morgan store, WP:EVENT is no longer a valid rationale for deletion", WP:EVENT should have been WP:ONEEVENT. If so, it misses the point. It is still one event, even though the event has more than one phase. The one "keep" argument that does relate to policy is the statement that there are multiple reliable, independent secondary sources, but the quality of those sources has been questioned, with their local nature being emphasised. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cwtch Community Group

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

This group is only a few days old, and their occupation of the disused hotel is only local news; this doesn't look like it passes our notability guidelines for events. The news coverage also does not look like it meets our notability guidelines for organizations, although I think the most important factor here is that Wikipedia is not a news source. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has more references than many others of its kind, and will only grow over the next few days. I also find it funny that you are so dismissive of news sources such as the BBC. The BBC is not a local news source but a national one. Chernyi (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to be dismissive of the BBC at all, just pointing out that it is local BBC coverage. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far as I can tell, this is "around a dozen people" squatting in an abandoned hotel. I'm sure they're having fun, but as far as being encyclopedic it's right up there with what I had for breakfast this morning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If what you had for breakfast was half as interesting as this, I want to hear about it. In all seriousness though, if members of Wikipedia see fit to delete this article, that's fine by me. I just wanted to play around with creating my first article to be honest. I can save the details and re-add the article when/if the Cwtch Community Group becomes more notable — which I'm sure it will. Chernyi (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're so sure, but the rest of the world doesn't share that enthusiasm. The problem with such speculative reasoning is that it's exactly that: speculative. Sure, it could become the basis of some important legal ruling on squatter's rights or something, but to create an article because of something unlikely that might happen is as silly as creating an article on every newborn baby because it might grow up to be president someday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lenahan = rest of world? Someone has an awfully high opinion of themselves. Chernyi (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starblind, can you elaborate on how the article is unencyclopedic? (see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC) Gobonobo ^T ^C 20:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The BBC coverage goes into ample detail on the organisation and the article meets the criteria of WP:GNG, having multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. Gobonobo ^T ^C 23:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much of the coverage is about the abandoned hotel and its fate, rather than about the squatter group itself. The group amounts to WP:ONEEVENT: locally notable for the brief time that they can keep headlines, but with no lasting impact. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. I'm having trouble understanding your first sentence there. 9 of the 10 references currently used in the article are concerned with the squatters' occupation of the hotel. I do agree that a better home for the article might be Cwtch Community Centre, focusing on the squat itself and not the group. As far as WP:ONEEVENT, the events are still playing out, so we don't know what the impact will be. Gobonobo ^T ^C 20:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we resolve this one way or another? This is a clear keep as far as I can see. If you are looking for similar articles to trim from wikipedia, I totally agree that there are at least half a dozen articles regarding info-shops/social centers that should be deleted. Just look at the "formers locations" on the info-shop template. These articles have only a few sentences of content, no references, no existing links, and talk about places which have closed years ago. This article on the other hand has been growing since day one, has several links, and multiple references. Chernyi (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that it doesn't meet notability guidelines for events. Also agree that this is only local news at the moment and it should be noted that Wikipedia is not a news source. If it becomes a national story when the court ruling happens on Tuesday, that's fine but it really is just a hotel that squatters have broken into. — User:mrjmay 13:56, 12 February 2012 (GMT) — mrjmay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Relisting comment: Since the subject is a current event subject to major development this week, there's no harm leaving this AfD open for another week just to see what happens.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 22:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What has happened (see [1]) is that the group have lost their case regarding the Dolphin Hotel, and immediately set about illegally occupying another vacant building in town. This makes the persistent, but not notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for exposing your bias wikidan61. Their occupation of the building is not actually illegal under Welsh/English law. Chernyi (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That appears to be the group's claim: that their occupation of the abandoned department store is legal because they entered through an open window. I suppose the courts will have to work that out. My own comment was not based on bias (please assume good faith), but rather a misunderstanding of English property laws. Whether the occupation is legal or not, it still doesn't make the group notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An understanding of English property laws would help in understanding why these particular squats are notable, but is not required. The ongoing coverage from the BBC has now established the notability of the organisation. Furthermore, since the group has moved from the Dolphin Hotel to the JT Morgan store, WP:EVENT is no longer a valid rationale for deletion. Gobonobo ^T ^C 17:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right that WP:EVENT no longer applies here, but I think that is still open to interpretation. Even assuming that is the case, I don't think they would pass WP:ORG - the news coverage doesn't seem enough to satisfy the "depth of coverage" part of that guideline, in particular the part that says "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Before anyone asks, I'm classifying the BBC coverage as "local" here, so let me explain why. While the BBC is an international news organization, in the UK they are also a local news organization, and they have many local branch offices, and make local television and radio broadcasts in addition to their national ones. The BBC News stories in question here are categorized as local - BBC South-West Wales - and while they probably made the local TV and radio broadcasts, I doubt that they got as far as the national ones (though we will need input from someone actually living in the UK to verify this). I think at this point it's quite clear that the Cwtch Community Group have achieved some recognition in Swansea and the surrounding area, but Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, and local coverage still does not seem like a good reason to have an article on them. If this story makes the national papers there may be a better claim to notability, especially if those stories make some claim as to lasting historical significance. For now, though, I'm still not swayed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stradivarius, by your definition, literally anything that ever happened in Wales in the last 20 years (with the exception of National Assembly for Wales political events, and things relating to the three odd Welsh football teams in the big leagues/divisions) couldn't make it onto Wikipedia. 94.197.127.139 (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy . already redirected. Nothing more to do here. StarM 02:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of museums outside the Houston Museum District

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

Duplication not needed. This entire page consists only of a list of five items. All museums listed here are covered at List of museums in Houston, Texas and/or List of museums in Greater Houston metropolitan area, Texas Maile66 (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect List of museums in Greater Houston metropolitan area, Texas RadioFan (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good solution. Maile66 (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd be willing to withdraw your AFD, we can just redirect it.

I'm happy to withdraw my AFD. I just took the tag off the page. Anything else I need to do to withdraw it? Maile66 (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I went ahead and changed it to a Redirect as mentioned above. Maile66 (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Miguel Sousa Freitas

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

Completing nomination on behalf of VascoAmaral (talk · contribs) - Vasco's concern is "Does not pass WP:NOTABILITY, has not even competed in Liga de Honra." My concern is that he has never played in a fully-professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL; he also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated in the nomination, he has not played professionally, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insuficient coverage for it to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omnixray Forensic Disk Editor

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

I only found a bunch of trivial software websites. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing to satisfy WP:GNG requirements. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nonnotable, apparently defunct, no RS significant coverage. Created by an SPA as possible promotional article. Dialectric (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Occupy protest locations#Occupy Starbucks and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Starbucks

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

Still NOTNEWS; not significant besides being part of the larger global movement. Previous discussion closed as "no consensus" two months ago; article's been pretty much stale since then. Suggest either deletion or merge/redirect to List of Occupy protest locations Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, reading the article, it appears that this was little more than a demonstration against the building of a Starbucks. There have been a myriad of protests against the erection of Starbucks, Walmarts, etc; virtually of them non-notable in the singular. Especially since this one doesn't appear to have lasted very long.

Delete as NOT what Wikipedia is about - NOT campaigning, NOT ephemeral news. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Occupy protest locations#Occupy Starbucks. --Lambiam 14:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. It is also not an "offshoot" of the Occupy movement (except for a cynical appropriation of its name). It is a part of an ongoing (over the last 15 years) protest by certain leftist and rightist student groups in Turkey against American brands of multinational food outlets trading inside Turkish university campuses. Meowy 18:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable event. Maybe if it gets noticed by the wider world mention it in List of Occupy movement protest locations S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lambiam. The event is not notable enough to merit a standalone article, per nom & others.--JayJasper (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus exists whether an article should be deleted because many of its components can be found in other articles. None was found here, despite compelling arguments by both sides. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Albania

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

Independent Albania isn't a subject but a compilation of various parts of other articles(Albanian Vilayet, All-Albanian Congress, Assembly of Vlorë, Albanian Declaration of Independence etc.). The actual article for this period in Albania's history is the Provisional Government of Albania. That being said there was never a country named independent Albania, nor did any such entity regardless of the name ever exist. The author created the article on the premise that there was a state that encompassed parts of modern Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Greece between 1912-4, however, Albania was internationally recognized as a state in 1913(Treaty of London) and its borders were more or less the same as today. None of the sources used in the article mention the supposed subject of the article, not to mention that most of the article consists of parts of other articles and not the supposed article itself. Note that the author (Antidiskriminator) has a record of creating inappropriate articles regarding Albania (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myth of Albanian Indifference to Religion) — ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the creator and main contributor to this article. The topic of this article is a state which independence was declared on 28 November 1912. That is notable topic regardless of the fact that it was not internationally recognized. This is not article about:

its government - (Provisional Government of Albania)
"period in Albania's history",
Principality of Albania --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no such unrecognized or recognized state and the Provisional Government of Albania was the one that participated in the Treaty of London. If I were to remove all the parts of the article that have nothing to do with the supposed subject, I'd have to blank out the whole article.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Note that author (Antidiskriminator)" created numerous articles related to this topic, many of them being included in the template about history of state Albania. Here are some of them: Sanjak of Albania, Albanian Revolt of 1911, Albanian Revolt of 1912, Albanian Vilayet, Albanian Congress of Trieste, International Commission of Control, International Gendarmerie - GA, Peasant Revolt in Albania, Bulgarian occupation of Albania, Autonomous Albanian Republic of Korçë - GA, Republic of Central Albania, Committee for the National Defence of Kosovo, Kararname (League of Prizren), Assembly of Vlorë, Black Society for Salvation, Themistokli Gërmenji..."Author (Antidiskriminator)" is probably the most active participant of WikiProject Albania. Most of 36 DYK articles I wrote are part of this project.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles you started had to be corrected because of the many POVs that existed, not to mention the articles that haven't yet been corrected. That being said please don't deflect the issues of the AfD by trying to focus on irrelevant points.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. I even received many awards for my editing.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much of what is in the article is already in other articles. This article doesn't really include anything new.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart from its point of origin, already adequately covered under Albanian Declaration of Independence, this temporary unrecognized state had no significant history prior to the Conference of London, where the history of the modern Albanian state begins.--Kenji Yamada (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This state had significant history prior to the Conference of London. I already started expansion of history section and expect to complete it in several days.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every section of the article already exists in other articles and there was no state called Independent Albania.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources say that independent Albania existed in period 1912—1914. It had an assmebly, members of assembly, government, members of government and senate. Every single of them has its own article. Alternative names are explained in the article, within Name section. If you want to propose renaming the article there is a procedure for it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antidiskriminator, can you explain what would be the problem with simply including the information you're adding in Albania and History of Albania? As things stand now, the Declaration of Independence in Vlorë is cited as an event in the history of the modern Republic in the article on that subject. It would be inconsistent to leave that standing and also describe this "Independent Albania" as a state distinct from the modern Republic by giving it its own article.--Kenji Yamada (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Albania is a state distinct from modern Republic.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent):None of the sources mention this subject and all of its sections are already covered in other articles.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. All sources used in the article refer to state established on 28 November 1912, its history, parliament, senate, government, stamps, anniversaries, parliamentary system of government...

You are right that all of its sections are already covered in other articles. I tried to follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries/Structure where every section has its main article template. That is not valid argument for deleting the article. On the contrary. There are hundreds of articles about this state, about the parliament of independent Albania, its government, senate, every single minister, every single member of the parliament (which are considered as founding fathers in Albania because they founded independent Albania), its partition, its proclamation,.... Why would we delete the article about the state? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 147.8.246.68 (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many elements of this article have simply been repeated. This article includes nothing much new. Uhlan ^talk 04:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does give more insight than the separated related articles offer. The whole is bigger than the sum of parts. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 23:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HR 8938 Cephei

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

Removed PROD. Still seems like a non-notable single not fulfilling WP:NMUSIC. Did not chart as per admission in the article. No refs and cannot find any giving notability. A412 (Talk * C) 07:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed per WP:Note Jhschreurs (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. May not have charted, but seems to have generated enough discussion (e.g. [2][3][4]) to meet WP:N. JulesH (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think especially much of it, on one listen, but so what? As JuleH says, there does seem to be endless bloggery on it, and a verifiable audience: 75,000+ listens on Last.fm, 1.6 million listens on youtube. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mowgly the Whale

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

Not notable. Large whales strand all the time and often get media attention. This is no different. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator has it right. Trivial, fleeting, no indication that this is any more notable that a bad car accident or a mountain climbing accident. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The story is mildly interesting, but the fleeting coverage of this incident is simply not enough to pass our notability bar. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hoax or not this article is an unsourced BLP so it's OUTAHERE. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aya (model)

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

There is not enough context to determine who this might be, making a search for reliable sources nearly impossible. I could not find any AV actresses with this birthday. Since the creator of this article is a likely sockpuppet of a blocked user, I suspect this is a hoax. Michitaro (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources present to prove existence or notability.Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 20:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the hoax theory not proven, but the article is totally unsourced, and a few searches e.g. for "Aya, Miky's Secret" return 0 hits, so deletion is the only choice. No RS, no notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per above. X.One ^SOS 14:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite possibly a hoax given the editing record of the (now blocked) creator and the fact that this person does not seem to be mentioned on the Japanese Wikipedia. No sources or reliable leads to verify that this person even exists. --DAJF (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a probable hoax. Cavarrone (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. Doing a search for the film titles asserted in the article finds that they do not exist. And when searching for her name in association with the companies and projects listd in the article... still nothing. I think that without any evidence to the contrary, we can safely assume the topic of the article is the product of someone's imagination. And even were this article to be of a real person, what we are left with is a BLP violation created by an account found to be the now-blocked sockpuppet of an indef-blocked puppetmaster.[5][6] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JStock

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

Stock portfolio management software with no signs of notability. Contested WP:SPEEDY with the claim that reliable sources in the article (two blogs and sourceforge project page) indicate notability. Search reveals several reviews in blogs and obscure sites, numerous download locations without editors' reviews and a lot of unrelated stuff. In other words, nothing has changed since previous AfD, so the proposed action is delete. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability; no reliable independent references. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability shown since it was deleted in 2009. SL93 (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Coco

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

Article appears to be largely self-promotional style material for a questionably notable source referenced with many first or second party links. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any reliable sources which would establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rorshacma (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jakartabeat

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

Trimmed off the fluff (employee directory, etc) and what we have is a website with no real reliable sources, one weak source, and its own primary source. Searching finds blogs, twitter, facebook and the like. Comes up short in WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The web magazine has been around for only 3 years, and the lack of reliable sources reinforces my conception that it is unlikely to have made any notable contribution to society, music or the like. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom and above. Osarius Talk 22:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Oberhauser

(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." No evidence that this player meets the GNG nor that he has played at a professional level. Cloudz 679 19:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 19:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - This entry seems to suggest that he'd made four professional appearances; enough to satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another link from the same source seems to suggest he has made zero. If it cannot be established by this source, we might need another? Cloudz 679 21:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, how difficult of them. I'll have a look for some more sources. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both this and this suggest no appearances, which makes that more likely. Will support deletion unless anything to the contrary comes up. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ESPN Soccernet page[7] seems to clear this up: all his "appearances" have been as an "unused substitute": i.e., he's dressed, but not played. Which, I guess, means he doesn't get a pass under WP:NFOOTY, yet. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense - thanks for clearing that up. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Transfermarkt is user-edited, and therefore not a reliable source. Other sources confirm he has not played professional, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insuficient coverage to keep it per WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He plays for AC Ajaccio at a professional level, the 2nd tier of French soccer.Oakley77 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although he's not actually played a game for them. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, original AFD closed less than 24 hours ago. Angr (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto music

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

Unsourced since 2007. Most of the acts listed are redlinked and likely not notable (in fact, at least two were deleted just a couple weeks ago). Last AFD was split 50/50 between keeping and merging, but I find no sources discussing the concept of Esperanto music as a whole — just ones discussing individual works at best. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. The previous AFD was closed as "no consensus" less than 24 hours ago. Reopening it now in the absence of an overwhelming reason appears to be disruptive. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic much? If the last one were closed as keep, but the last one was no consensus so I see no reason not to relist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with this nomination. WP:KEEP is only applicable to nominations "with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion", which isn't the case here. My opinion on the article in question will follow shortly. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is an editor who relists an article within a day of not getting the result he wanted, without mentioning that rather relevant fact, and without giving any reason why the previous result should be revisited. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to assume that TenPoundHammer would just like a more decisive community consensus on the issue (and the previous AfD is visible enough on this page). If an admin comes across this and thinks differently, I'd understand & accept a procedural close, but I can't see any reason not to continue a discussion which did not reach a consensus. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)}

Redirect to Esperanto culture#Literature, music and film - It is certainly true that there are some notable Esperanto artists; however, I am yet to see any sources dedicated to the notion of Esperanto music itself, which would be necessary for a full article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Esperanto culture#Literature, music and film depending on whether sufficient material can be found during normal editing. Clearly a viable article topic one day if not today. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. henrik•talk 19:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrice King Brown

AfDs for this article:

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

Has been here a while (tagged in 07), but the coverage of her is thin and local at best. About how she tore an Achilles tendon (that was the best article) and a brief mention. I was trying to clean up all the unsourced claims, and just don't see enough here to establish notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm leaning towards keep, but need to poke around for some more sources. All of Brown's work appears to have been local to Pittsburgh, but some media personalities, though being local are so well known as to be almost iconic. I'm not sure how close to iconic Brown would be but coverage locally like this would make me tend to believe she is so well known locally that an article is sustainable and justifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - After doing more poking around, I don't see sufficient evidence for being locally iconic that would overcome coverage which is purely local in scope. -- Whpq (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage is not significant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is significant coverage of her, but nothing beyond local news. She's probably notable in Pittsburgh, but not outside of there. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the coverage establishes that she is sufficiently "iconic" in Pittsburgh. The Post-Gazette article reporting her retirement, and cited in the article, refers to her as a "fixture on local television" for 32 years, and quotes KDKA's general manager as saying, "If this was a sports franchise I suspect that Patrice's jersey number would be retired . . . ."[8] A longer feature about her retirement appeared in the paper a few days later.[9] Among other things it notes that she was one of the first African-American anchorpersons. I think this is worth keeping.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I note that she finished third in the Miss Teenage America pageant in December 1970 (for the 1971 title)(some coverage here:[10][11]); that wouldn't make her notable by itself but it's something additional to consider in evaluating her overall notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete at this time. The nominator had three points: whether the list serves a purpose (and the consensus was that it does); whether the list is too long (which is fixable and not a reason for deletion); and a challenge to the sources. This last challenge can only be overcome by the addition of reliable sources, which means sources that are independent of the subject. No such sources have been forthcoming. Therefore, although there was no consensus to delete on this occasion, sources should be provided swiftly, and if none appear, then it will be in order to renominate this material for deletion in early course.—S Marshall T/C 08:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

List of Army Cadet Force units

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

Does this list serve a purpose? It's too long and unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - like many other lists, it is of interest to some, and Wikipedia readers do gain pleasure from seeing the range of members of such things. People in an ACF may certainly hope to consult WP to find which other ACFs there are. The situation on sourcing for lists seems to be rather different from normal articles - certainly we seem much more laid back about the requirement, not least because lists naturally act as collections of pointers, and the other pages do have sources, so why copy them en masse... it's a grey area, certainly, but the status quo does seem sensible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Too long and unsourced? WP:SOFIXIT; AfD is not for cleanup. This is something easily fixed by referencing, and by splitting off sublists if necessarly. There is no policy-based reason for deletion advanced by the nominator and thus I propose a speedy close. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly acceptable list with defined scope. No reason whatsoever for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAPOLICY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Limited in scope, focused, seemingly complete, possibly useful. A good list. I'm not crazy about the layout, but there are no style points at AfD... Carrite (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRETTY, WP:ITSUSEFUL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAPOLICY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. TenPoundHammer, it's your opinion that this should be deleted. It's not backed up by policy in any way, shape or form. You can't then complain that those who have expressed opinions that it should be kept are not using policy-based arguments. There's simply no good reason this article should be deleted. WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We cannot have editors running around slapping AfD notices on articles without good reason and then claiming that endless policies and guidelines should be quoted to save them. That makes a mockery of the hard work of editors trying to create articles instead of delete them and of the underlying purposes of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTDIR. Lists are subject to the same standards on verifiability, notability, no original research and others as any other article. Even if reliable secondary sources can be found for all this information, which looks unlikely, it will not be useful as a navigation page for other articles or for the development of Wikipedia. I can see no other use for it than as a directory. Ten Pound Hammer asked a legitimate question there.--Charles (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for lists is the same as it is for articles, by which it refers to the scope of the article, not every entry within it. See WP:LISTN, "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group." I doubt that you're claiming that Army Cadet Force should be deleted as non-notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the article is the listing of the units. Has there been significant coverage in several sources of listing the units? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) B music ian 03:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Training Corps squadrons

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

Does this list serve a purpose? It seems indiscriminate to me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - like many other lists (including the ACF list), it is of interest to some, and Wikipedia readers do gain pleasure from seeing the range of members of such things. People in an ATC may certainly hope to consult WP to find which other ATCs there are. The situation on sourcing for lists seems to be rather different from normal articles - certainly we seem much more laid back about the requirement, not least because lists naturally act as collections of pointers, and the other pages do have sources, so why copy them en masse... it's a grey area, certainly, but the status quo does seem sensible. Indiscriminate? Well, lists inevitably are, but then the criterion for membership is in the list's name - and being an ATC is like being pregnant - you either are, or you aren't... Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "It seems indisciminate to me" doesn't sound like a deletion rationale soundly based in policy. The list is distinctly discriminate and states its non-indiscriminate status in its very name: it is, in fact, a list of squadrons of the Air Training Corps, exactly what it says on the tin. It is no more indiscriminate than List of United States Air Force squadrons; if the list is too long, it can be split up into sublists as that list was. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly acceptable list with defined scope. No reason whatsoever for deletion. How on earth can it be indiscriminate? Not sure the nominator really knows what "indiscriminate" means. -- Necrothesp (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An esoteric list, to be sure, but probably of service to military historians. Limited in scope, logically constructed. Carrite (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A list article with a specific, discriminate topic focus. A useful article for Wikipedia to retain. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any actual policy based reasons to delete, or are all of you just going on your own whims? All I see above is WP:ITSUSEFUL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you meant to say keep there - although the slip replacing "keep" with "delete" is ironically approprate as there is no policy-based reason to delete. (And dare I trot out the "it's just an essay" argument I see used so often, with regards to WP:ATA?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. You can't propose an article for deletion with no policy-based reason except an opinion and an incorrect claim that it's indiscriminate, and then insist that those voting to keep have to put forward policy-based reasons! That's just hypocritical. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This list needs to exist, because the subject Air Training Corps meets WP:GNG. Admittedly, the contents of this list may or may not be notable enough on their own to require their own article, as opposed to including the list in the main article (and I have no opinion on that question). But it seems to me that the list is too long for it to be merged into the main article in a practical fashion, so I say assert that leaving it separate is in accordance with WP:COMMONSENSE, regardless of the list's independent notability. - Jorgath (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Free Independent Traveler

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

The article has existed for close to three years with only one attempt at a citation (that link is now dead). A Google search for "Free Independent Traveler" initially yields either Wikipedia pages or what I'll call "Fakepedia" pages (i.e. sites that simply copy Wikipedia pages). A bit more digging offers a few other links mentioning the phenomenon, but one of the links (from acronymfinder.com) notes that "This definition appears very rarely" for the relevant acronym.

There have been some attempts by governments to attract the sort of business that this article describes, but the term does to appear (particularly in a capitalized state) to be in more than passing use in most cases, and as far as I can tell there is no movement to self-identify with the term.

In short, as it is written now the article does not seem to refer to a significant phenomenon. The article has had approximately 30 months for improvement, and as such I believe that it is a good candidate for pruning. Tyrenon (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect per nom. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like an attempt at a neologism, possibly from an obscure book on marketing. Gigs (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete something between an ESSAY, a DICDEF, and a marketing term popular in the travel industry a few years back. It's real enough - people tend to book their own hotels and flights rather than buying packages - but not convinced the name is worth much. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This thing had me scratching my head over potential copyvio, there is a real cut-and-paste feel to this, but a Google check for a phrase only returned a wave of mirrors. Still, this one doesn't smell right. Outside of that we've got an essentially unsourced piece about a neologism that is undoubtedly a fork. Carrite (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does feel copied, most likely from a travel company's Intranet. Most likely, we'll never know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete as dicdef, neologism, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I've been working on a software package for the tourism industry and I keep hearing my clients throw around the term FIT. Until I found this article I did not know what it meant or what it stood for. It seems to be widespread enough that even in non-english speaking countries (I'm in Israel) tour operators use the term. Joe407 (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Wong (actor)

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

No indication of notability, no reliable secondary sources, no significant coverage found via Google using all three variants of his name (Stefan Wong, Stephen Wong or Stephen Huynh, but don't confuse him with Stephen Wong Ka-lok). Unfortunately the article is too old for WP:PRODBLP. Huon (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per talk page request. A notable actor for TVB, a free-to-air channel in Hong Kong and its programmes are available through satellite or cable channels in Malaysia, Australia and Canada. He's more well-known as "黃長興". 218.250.159.25 (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Expand and add sources. 119.237.206.184 (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC) — 119.237.206.184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Detailed biographical coverage in the following news sources: [12] [13][14] (all major Chinese-language newspapers); also this result in English [15]; and many more less in-depth hits from GNews. Der yck C. 22:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above provided sources. Cavarrone (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Meets WP:ENT and WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Non-English sources are quite fine when English sources are not available. We do not expect nor demand everything notable to be sourcable only in English... and indeed, such is to be expected for someone determinable as notable outside the West. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cullberg

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

Non-notable artist. Another in a series of pages created as part of a campaign to promote a particular South Africa art gallery. References are either directly from that gallery or press releases created by them. Vrenator ^talk 14:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I had seen this article as part of the author's campaign to promote this gallery, but I didn't nominate this article for deletion because, despite the creator's ill intent, the artist appears to be somewhat notable, based on the significance of his contribution to permanent public collections, including the collection of the Swedish Parliament. This fact is cited in at least one independent review of the artist's work, which one can hope means that the fact has been vetted by an editor somewhere along the line. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ill intent might be too strongly worded. Misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works maybe, but there is no reason to assume that the author understood he was doing something against our practices, and carried on with it for greater evil. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Point taken. Author's intent was contrary to Wikipedia's policies, but as Martijn has pointed out, was not necessarily malicious. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This looks like the most notable of this batch of promotional articles. I added another source — a local newspaper, but from a significantly earlier period in his artistic work than the article previously discussed. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have found these two references, which seem to indicate a level of notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprising Cambridge

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

I found no significant coverage for these local events. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Single local event with no lasting news impact. Git2010 (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete transient event; marketing campaign; soon forgotten. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Chiswick. Simply fails to meet our N guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Emsley

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

Non-notable artist. Article created as part of a campaign to promote a particular South Africa art gallery. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems less notable than Beth Armstrong and I can't find any WP:IRS. Sionk (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell from his web site he has only exhibited locally and in galleries, which isn't enough for WP:ARTIST, and the promotional pattern and lack of reliable sources are also big problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Technically, can be deleted without this relist. Still, just making sure... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was delete. henrik•talk 19:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Rhodes

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Criminal acts. GrapedApe (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough reliable sourcing, did a search and find that this case has achieved plenty of media attention. does not fail WP:CRIME,.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not privy to BabbaQ's unspecified sources, but I couldn't find any. Specifically, what we need are sources that establishes that this does not fall foul of BLP1E, and I don't see how it is anything more than just another criminal. No evidence that anything changed as a result of the crime or the court case, etc. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename. If there is enough coverage of the incident itself then rename the article, otherwise delete per BLP1e.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Currently an unsourced BLP. If someone wants to write a new article with reliable sources then go for it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael T Cammarata

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

No references supplied in an article about a living person. No sources supplied to indicate notability. A quick Google search did not reveal any reliable source discussing the subject. SQGibbon (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources to establish notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a reference for the first section of the article, and I've added two external links. Cammarata was only 13 years old when he first emerged as one of the early innovators in monetizing the Internet Advertising marketplace. The article could use some cleanup work, especially with certain content that needs further verified. I will assist further as best as I can should the article survive this afd. SaveATreeEatAVegan 07:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two external links you supplied appear to be press releases (the one from Red Orbit pretty clearly so and the other one seems likely) which do not go toward establishing notability. The reference you supplied does not appear to be a reliable source (from what I can tell it collects stuff from all over the Internet in order to help members learn English) and is a copy of the lead paragraph of the Wikipedia article (complete with the footnote superscript rendered as "[1]" instead of a superscript). I've removed the reference for now. SQGibbon (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge process outsourcing

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

Contested proposed deletion, not mine. Original research about a non-notable neologism used by consultancy firms in information technology outsourcing. Seems to be intended to sell the idea:

IT outsourcing is strongly focused around technical professionalism, and the migration to business process outsourcing introduces this extra dimension of application professionalism. Ever more complex services, as implied by KPO, demonstrate this very well. The profile of people being hired to serve within KPO service companies are more diverse than just being drawn from technical IT services – these are people with MBAs, and medical, engineering, design or other specialist business skills. KPO delivers higher value to organizations that offshore their domain-based processes, thereby enhancing the traditional cost– quality paradigm of BPO. The central theme of KPO is to create value for the client by providing business expertise rather than process expertise. So KPO involves a shift from standardized processes to advanced analytical thinking, technical skills and decisive judgement based on experience.
Comprehensive IT solutions are offered by vendors who provide solutions covering the entire life cycle of a market research project. Smaller firms can also benefit from these solutions as they are cost effective and remain within the budget of smaller organizations.
KPO is claimed to efficiently increase productivity and increase cost savings in the area of market research. Advocates claim that the trend is likely to prove increasingly popular in the global market research industry.

Possibly worth a sentence in outsourcing, but this appears to be entirely original research and devoted to promoting a neologism for a business model. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NEO, marketing/management gobbledyspeak. (How did I know who surrogate Nom would be without even looking... must be magnetic attraction to topic) Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim of the nomination that the topic is original and not notable is blatantly false. For example, see Methodology of Business Studies which provides independent and detailed coverage of the topic. Warden (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That book is apparently a print to order textbook assembled "For the First Semester B.Com Course at Mahatma Gandhi University".[16] While it might indicate some level of academic interest in the buzzword phrase, I'm not sure it would get to notability, even if the text currently here were an actual article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That the source is a university textbook seems to be a good thing. For a wider assessment of the general level of academic interest in the topic, you merely need to click on the search link to Google Scholar above which lists hundreds more sources in this case. If you have not already done this, then you are not properly following the process described at WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep KPO has been covered by more than a few business journals

http://iospress.metapress.com/content/3f9gxb89j8h81k3q/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237307001211
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00944.x/full
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/539
http://vis.sagepub.com/content/12/1/19.short
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1634390&show=abstract

trakesht (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's subject is notable (see Warden), while the article itself is very, very poor. It's no WP:OR but has to be improved (references!). --Tom1492 (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not wholly convinced that academic discussions or proposals for new business models automatically make them notable. But if the consensus of the community is that this subject is in fact substantive enough to deserve coverage, I'd propose stubbing this and replacing its text entirely with a brief paragraph condensed out of Warden's source, which at least is semi-intelligible and not paywalled. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TOPIC is notable, ARTICLE is terrible. Someone should really rewrite it... My2011 (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Used to disamiguate another page, but now clearly redundant. Fences&Windows 20:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canola (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary; only disambiguates two pages, Canola, clearly primary, and Canola (mythology).Novangelis (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was mixed bag. Delete Religious coercion in Israel without prejudice to recreation as a redirect to a properly sourced section at the broader article. Keep the main Religious coercion article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religious coercion in Israel

Previous AFD for Religious coercion:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious coercion

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

I'm also nominating Religious coercion. Both articles seem to be written from a non-neutral point of view. It's true that some laws in some nations (not just Israel) are written and enforced for religious reasons. However we would not have an article on highway speed limits titled "Traffic safety coercion," or even one titled "Economic stimulus coercion." Borock (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC) *Delete both as original synthesis. There are also serious problems with the neutrality of both articles, and reliable sources are not referenced in either. --He to Hecuba (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)this is a sock of a banned user Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – perhaps a redirect to Forced conversion? Regards, RJH (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV fork of Religious relations in Israel. Marokwitz (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, unsourced, massive WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems. Those could be solved by editing, but a) notability is not established in the first place, and b) cleaning up the articles' problems would amount to rewriting them entirely. Huon (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are other articles which could incorporate some of this material (if attributed to sources), but not here and especially not under this PoV title. • Astynax ^talk 22:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SYN, OR, NPOV. I was going to leave a comment but allow me to be more decisive. Marokwitz, you're funny because this article predates your article, which I think is also a valid candidate for AfD. If this subject was a quantifiable issue, it would be valid but it is merely a collection of isolated historical events which have in common only that they were media campaigns or political controversies. At least the HE WP has the 'balanced' religious coercion and secular coercion articles. --Shuki (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commentnote that Religious coercion was kept at AfD under a month ago. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AfD tag at the top of the Religious coercion article is leading to this AfD page. Please fix the tag. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator said, he nominated Religious coercion as well, for the same reasons. This is the discussion for both; the tag is correct. Huon (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Religious coercion is a notable topic which has been the subject of substantial works such as St. Augustine's Attitude to Religious Coercion. It has occurred in a variety of contexts and modern Israel is a notable example. For an example of a source discussing this particular case, see Law, politics, and morality in Judaism which states that "The most controversial issue in Israel today is religious coercion.". It will, of course, be difficult to present a controversial topic in a NPOV style but it is our editing policy to improve such notable topics rather than deleting them. And it is also our policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Warden (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If religious coercion is the most controversial issue in Israel today, that can be covered in the Religious relations in Israel, there is no need of a fork. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a deletion issue. The source demonstrates that religious coercion is a phrase commonly used used to describe the issue. It should therefore be a blue link not a red link. How we present the issue among our mix of articles is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being a common phrase is not enough to establish notability. See textbook example. aprock (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a common phrase; it forms a significant part of the title of scholarly works such as Religious freedom and religious coercion in the state of Israel and Religious Coercion in Israel. There was a political party in Israel called the League to Prevent Religious Coercion in Israel. This is clearly not an arbitrary phrase. Warden (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Religious coercion, Delete Religious coercion in Israel The Religious coercion article should be kept per the same rationale I gave in the first AfD. The Religious coercion in Israel article is a POV fork of Religious relations in Israel, so delete it and merge anything useful into the later. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merger and deletion are mutually exclusive - please see WP:MAD. Warden (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both Religious coercion and Religious coercion in Israel - Religious coercion and specifically Religious coercion in Israel are both notable topics which in my opinion should not be censored from the English Wikipedia. This is a widely covered topic within the Israeli society (anyone whom is familiar with the Israeli society could confirm this claim), which has extensively appeared in academic research as well as in the Israeli media. Just the existence of the parallel expanded and well-sourced article in the Hebrew Wikipedia should indicate by itself that this is not a fabricated topic but actually a very notable topic within the Israeli society. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both*: Religious coercion was unsourced original research from the beginning. Even after the first AfD that article still has no sources which discuss religious coercion, let alone a source which establishes notability. Based on reviewing Religious coercion in Israel, it is a fork of Religious relations in Israel. Any content not in the relations article should be merged, and both coercion articles deleted. aprock (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both The AFD for Religious coercion ended in keep on 24 January 2012. Honestly now, what could've possibly changed? Ample coverage was found about this. And why are two totally different articles having their AFD together? Both get coverage in reliable sources. Dream Focus 16:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is obviously notable, whatever one's views on the issue may be: [17][18][19][20] etc. That being said, it is a very bad idea to have unsourced articles on contentious religious/political topics. I'd be more than willing to vote Keep if someone went and sourced this, but if this is deleted, it should be without prejudice to the recreation of a sourced version. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~We already have a sourced article on the same topic at Religious relations in Israel. This is a POV fork. He to Hecuba (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Religious relations in Israel was created about 7 weeks ago while the article in question was created nearly a year ago. Religious coercion seems a much more precise phrase than religious relations which seems too vague and ill-defined for a controversial topic. If there has been any forking, then the answer is merger, not deletion. And the older, more precise title would be the merge target. Warden (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how one would merge a general topic (relations) into a specific topic (coercion). aprock (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One might merge everything into Religion in Israel — presumably that's where all this stuff was before these new articles were created. But none of this shuffling the content around between titles would require deletion. Our editing policy is to avoid unnecessary deletion. Warden (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - It seems to me that Religious relations in Israel is a bit broader topic than Religious coercion in Israel, so this certainly could be included in the broader article. I could see justifying a spun out article on coercion, but it would have to be sourced and NPOV, of course. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Religious coercion in Israel as a clear POV fork of Religious relations in Israel. Keep Religious coercion per previous AfD debate. --PiMaster3 ^talk 06:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VisualCron

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

The article about task scheduling software with no indication of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: actually it seems that I missed quite a lot of references: [21], [22], [23] and [24] to name a few. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MCWF

AfDs for this article:

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

Google News comes up with nothing useful in a news search for MCWF, therefore this either is a hoax or just not notable. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per A7 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perpectual motion machines

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

WP:OR (admitted by author in article). Doesn't duplicate Perpetual motion so not tag-able as CSD, and didn't have any faith that the author would not remove the prod so here we are. Syrthiss (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Perpetual motion. The correct spelling, Perpetual motion machine, already redirects; not sure if we should consider this a likely spelling mistake or not, but there's no place in the encyclopedia for the article as is, because its practically unreferenced and a mass of original research. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essayish and incoherent. --He to Hecuba (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've declined (regretfully) a speedy for nonsense as the wording is clear enough to me. The concept is still in the development stage, and so fails WP:CRYSTAL. As I feel (from what is stated here) that this concept will never get a patent, this looks like a long term fail. Patents are not granted on perpetual motion machines unless accompanied by a working model - that is the hard part. Before I'd learned about friction (and other) losses, I'd 'invented' several ways of getting free energy myself. At present, only the passage of current in a superconductor seems to be free of losses - certainly no mechanical system comes close. Peridon (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inventor and scientist, user Aman shah wants to share with the wiki community: "Some have been imagining about Perpectual motion Machines,and they are excited about it!However,Perpectual motion Machines are impossible!Some people claiming to invent Perpectual motion machines are cheating society ,but that doesnot mean that gravity engines and Magnetic engines are impossible. These are possible ,but difficult to make! Yes, the laws of thermodynamics do pose some difficulties here, and since this fellow's invention of a perpetual motion machine is one of many such impossible claims, I'd say this qualifies for speedy deletion as a hoax. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DVDx

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

I found no significant coverage for this DVD ripper. SL93 (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable software. oyasumi (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found at least three products under this name, with another one being possibly notable (though I'm not convinced enough event to post it to WP:AFC). There is so many DVD rippers out there, that I don't think this software has a chance to become notable one day — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no reliable sources, and there is nothing to suggest that this is any more notable than all the other DVD ripping software. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The problem has been fixed. Remember, AfD is not cleanup. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abood v. Detroit Board of Education

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

It's an article with only an infobox, what's the point of this being here? oyasumi (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem fixed.--Carwil (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With no objection to userfication, or possible recreation if and only if independent reliable sources that give significant coverage to the software itself can be found, which seems possible, though not likely, because of the dificulties in finding sources in other languages Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TlosLite

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

This page was recently speedily deleted for being advertising. Its recreation doesn't overtly pimp the product but I believe this software fails WP:GNG and the criteria of WP:NSOFT. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

could you please clearify your toughts about our products page deletion ? Serkan tas (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another lightweight IT Job Scheduling software. No reference in article, and Google News draws a complete blank. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What you mean by no reference ? Serkan tas (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdis of Tlön's rationale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ???? Serkan tas (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article lacs references to the reliable sources in contrast to the WP:Citing sources guideline. The cause of the lack of sources (suitable for establishing topic's notability) is identified as the lack of such sources in the wild, as no one among the editors researching the topic's coverage could find anything suitable. You might want to read the pages we are wikilinking to in order to understand the arguments. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found downloads websites and unreliable websites. SL93 (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You should check product's official web site www.tlos.com.tr for download but you have to register. What you mean by unreliable ? Serkan tas (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification - For Wikipedia's working definition of "unreliable", see our page Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (click on the blue link and it will take you to the page). When I stated the software as "failing WP:GNG", I was referring to our General Notability Guidelines: a topic should receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject if it is to have an article on Wikipedia. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable - So do you think tlos.com.tr or tlosscheduler.com is reliable ? Serkan tas (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tlos and its creator Likya Teknoloji has been mentioned on this article at BT Haber, which is a popular weekly ICT magazine in Turkey. http://www.bthaber.com.tr/?p=12211 — Oztase (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
- I'm no sure this reference is usable at all for this article. As I get from automatic translation, it discusses the firm, not the software, with TlosLite appearing only in passing mention. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The software Tlos Lite is not a well known widely and worldwide famous product. We are trying to make it so. We have local customers well-known worldwide. If you require i may send you the names of the companies. But we need some time to make the software discussed by valuable amount of professionals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serkan tas (talk • contribs) 07:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed because of speedy deletion of article. Peridon (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Deutschmann

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

Shanmugamp7 (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There are some concerns that this nomination fails speedy keep criterion 2.3. Since we're here anyway at the end of a normal AfD period, I don't see any cause to still speedy close the discussion. I will not be taking those opinions as full keeps, as they have not gone in to the notability issues brought up, but they certainly don't argue to delete the article. The nominator himself seems content to merge to Farnham, which leaves Bob Re-born, Dominus and Purplebackpack with arguments to delete, of which Bob Re-born seems to be prefering alternatives like refocussing or merging. Problems with that have been pointed out by warden, but would be out of the scope of this discussion. All in all I see consensus to keep here, though it is not completely clear if a refocus or merge would be out of order. These are editorial decisions that won't be precluded by this keep close. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edgeborough School

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dahliarose (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Standard non-notable proep school. No sources in Gnews or Books other than persons who attanded the school. I didn't want to nominate but tried the merge procedure only to be continually reverted by Dahliarose. Suggest article should be Deleted. If necessary merge relevant and referenced information to Farnham#Education

Delete. Non-notable primary school. No assertion of notability. --Bob Re-born (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - coverage in The Illustrated London news, Volume 255, Issue 2, and this biography of Keith Douglas: [25] suggests notability. I'm pretty sure there will be decent offline sources for this school. --He to Hecuba (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An ILN photo establishes notability? Really? Lots of people, including some notable subjects attended the school,. But that doesn't establish notability. It's not inherited. Fmph (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fmph (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Fmph (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second source provides a few pages of coverage, which would be sufficient to write a short article on the school. I'm not really opposed to a merge, but I think the subject probably has the potential for a proper article. While notability isn't inherited, it seem unlikely that there are no available good sources for a school which goes back to the 19th century and has several notable former pupils. --He to Hecuba (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've made a start on expanding the article and adding references. It easily satisfies WP:N. There is plenty of scope for further expansion, but a lot of the material is in books which are not accessible online. See here The school also seems to have a few other notable alumni. There's a John Strachey who went to the school but I can't tell from the book snippets which one he is as there are a number of notable people with this name. Dahliarose (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what part of WP:N does it now satisfy? The school certainly exists. Some notable people went to school there. Some people used it during the war. Some other people went to church there. I still don't get the notability part? Is that it? Fmph (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We presume that there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. In the same way as we presume species and places to inherently encylopaedic, a historical school with multiple notable former pupils is very likely to be notable. --He to Hecuba (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the existence of multiple reliable sources that demonstrate notability. To my mind the school has an interesting history. Whether someone finds the article interesting or not is entirely a matter of taste. Dahliarose (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. He to Hecuba (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable elementary school. Nothing in first 200 Google hits that even comes close to establishing notabilty: mostly listings in directories, job offers, and other routine, trivial and tangential mentions. Sources listed by User:He to Hecuba above fall far short of establishing notability. Schools do not inherit notability from their alumni. User:Dahliarose's argument that they find the school's history "interesting" is sweet, but woefully insufficient for giving the school its own article in WP. Nor is the age of the school particularly noteworthy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have not actually looked at the article since I added content and sources or the additional sources that I found relating to Frensham Place. The history of the school building is well documented in multiple reliable sources at both local and national level. Whether the history is interesting or not is neither here nor there it's the sources that count. Not all sources for historical buildings are easily accessible online. Please not too that it is not an American elementary school but, as the article clearly states, an English prep school catering for children up to the age of 13. Dahliarose (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an elementary school, pure and simple. And the history of the building is not all that notable. There are doubtless thousands of such buildings in the UK. Your satements about the breadth and depth of coverage are highly exaggerated, and weaken your case. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are significant differences between a US public elementary school and a private, UK prep school. The latter is much more likely to be notable. --He to Hecuba (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The type of school has no bearing on the discussion as there is no guideline that states that articles on prep schools are not permitted so I'm not quite sure why you're bringing that up. In any case, as far as I understand it US elementary schools do not provide any secondary-level education and only teach up to age 11 so you cannot compare a prep school (in this case providing 10 years of education) with US elementary schools. it helps if the correct terminology is used to avoid any confusion. There are indeed numerous other historic buildings in the UK but that is again entirely irrelevant to this discussion. They would all equally merit an article if sufficient sources existed. Have you actually looked at the numerous sources I've found and the article as it presently stands? Dahliarose (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any differences are immaterial: an elementary school is an elementary school. What counts is substantial third party coverage in major publications. I see nothing of the sort here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Hecuba - how is a prep school likely to be more notable than an elementary/primary school? --Bob Re-born (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Dahliarose - the assumed notability guidelines for secondary school apply to those awarding higher level certificates e.g. GCSE or High School Diploma. This exemption from the normal notability rules has never been applied to middle schools, junior high schools, or elementary schools that go to age 13/14. In fact if you look at the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools you will see a number of instances where Junior High Schools (which go way past age 11) have been deleted and redirected to the local settlement. --Bob Re-born (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prep schools have pretty high fees, so historically they have predominantly taken upper-class children, leading them to have a sense of prestige associated with them which would not be associated with a elementary or "Junior high school" in the US. Many prep schools, such as the Dragon School], are notable due to their history. --He to Hecuba (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that contributes exactly jack shit to notability. Significant coverage in widely read independent sources is what is required, and what's missing here.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the quantum of a jack shit?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Dominus: Can you please explain what a jack shit so that the issue can be addressed? There are already plenty of widely read independent sources cited in the article. How many more do you want? Not all the sources are freely available online. There are references in the British Newspaper Archive which I can't access without paying a fee for instance. [ http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results?basicsearch=%22frensham%20place%22&frontpage=false] None of the books that the school and building are mentioned in are out of copyright so a local editor is required to check those sources. Dahliarose (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Bob Re-born: There are lots of essays on the notability of schools but nothing which is policy. The whole subject is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy). You can't use the type of school as a measure of its notability. Generally speaking the older the school and the more notable alumni, the more likely you are to find references to establish notability. Dahliarose (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expect at least the equivalent of two substantial feature articles in a regional or national (not local) newspaper or magazine, or chapters overwhelmingly devoted to the subject in two serious books, or two MAJOR prestigious awards awarded by the government (not local) or a MAJOR educational organization. The sources you have provided do not represent SUBSTANTIAL coverage of the school itself. They are either routine, trivial, passing, tangential or of limited readership or impact, and thus of little value in establishing notability. Oh, and "jack shit" means "absolutely nothing at all". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an expectation well above that of our notability guidelines. I don't consider "readership or impact" to be important, or expect chapters dedicated to the school. A few paragraphs of coverage in two or three reliable secondary sources is fine by me, as long as the contents of the article are verifiable by reliable sources, primary or secondary. Your expectations also seem largely based on US public schools (there are no "prestigious awards" from the government for private educational establishments in Britain) and thus do not translate to this case. --He to Hecuba (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is part of the biographies of famous people to know about their education, and I find it to be an interesting link that B. H. Liddell Hart, the eminent British military historian, is among the alumni. I would say that American readers should bear in mind that "prep school" in England, in this instance, means ages 2-13, not the typical American prep school of 13-18. The article has several new inline citations, but if it is not kept, then some of the material should go into Farnham#Education instead. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A clearly notable school from a historical perspective. WP:ORG states that the historical value of the subject of an article be considered for claims of notability (besides the obvious high educational value, which are also pretty clear). WP:NRVE states that citations detailing notability don't need to be extant in the article, but it is pretty clear that such citations would exist. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Dominus Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dahliarose has done some really great work rescuing this article. Now I'm torn. As an article about a building it is well referenced and and an interesting read. As an article about a school it is still non-notable. So although I am not changing my nomination as such, I do think that the article should be kept as "Frensham Place", an article about a building with a long history that most recently includes use as a school. The school itself could redirect to the article about the building and could still contain a reasonable amount of information about the school. --Bob Re-born (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that having a Frensham Place article is a gr8 idea. There seems to be a real issue with the idea that 'old' schools are somehow notable. An article about a school should not be focussed mainly on the history. It should be about the school, the people, the students, the curriculum, its wider community. In many of the recent 'contentious' AfDs we have had instances of the referenced history section covering entirely different schools. The current references are not about the school.Fmph (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with these contentious school AfDs is that people have been voting delete purely on the basis of a school being a "primary school". It's not that we are writing about different schools. It is just that schools have evolved over the years and the names often change. Primary schools are a relatively recent innovation. In the past, in the UK at least, there was normally just one or two schools in each town or village that all children attended up to the age of 12 or 14 or whatever the school-leaving age was at the time. With a growing population the original school buildings outgrow their purpose. New secondary schools get built and the old school building gets a new use as a primary school. Nominators are failing to understand this and can't find sources because they're looking under the wrong name. The history of schools is often the most interesting part of the articles, and probably the most encyclopaedic and useful information. Dahliarose (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact create a page for Frensham Place redirecting to the school a few days earlier. It is indeed the history that gives the school its notability but as the building is currently used as a school then I would have thought it would make more sense to have the school page as the target rather than the house. There is actually a lot more that could be written about the present-day school. There is a lot of source material in the inspection report. The school won a county athletics championship (county in the UK being equivalent to a US state) and several medals in national preparatory school competitions. The alumni also really need to have a home on a school page. Dahliarose (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A UK county is not the equivalent of a US State. It's the equivalent of a US county. England, Scotland Wales and NornIron are the UK equivalent of a state. The idea that winning one county athletics championship makes a school in any way notable is farcical. The alumini can quite happily have a category of their own which is all they would need. Honestly Dahlia, you need to bring some perspective to this. Fmph (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not farcical at all to compare UK counties with US states, at least in terms of population. Surrey has a population of 1,127,300, which is significantly greater than the populations of some US states (Alaska, Vermont or Wyoming, for example), and winning a county championship is a relatively big deal in UK school sports, even at a prep. school level. --He to Hecuba (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you compare one of the largest UK counties (populationwise) with the smallest in the US? And you think thats a reasonable comparison? And surely if such competitions were significant, they would have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, wouldn't they? Which they don't. And the reason is obvious to anyone who looks the issue. The simple reason is that there is not a universal buy-in to such competitions across the county.

An inspection report is a reliable source. These were the key sporting achievements highlighted by the inspector. Surrey, being in prime commuter belt, must have the highest number of private schools in the country so winning a county-level championship is a major achievement. Winning medals at national level is also a significant achievement. I've just added another interesting little story to the article. A former pupil from the school featured on TV in the Antiques Roadshow and the story was reported in the Daily Mail. I don't see the point in having a whole page used by with a category for just a handful of alumni. The article as it now stands is already substantial enough to warrant a page in its own right and is supported by a wide variety of both national and local references. Don't forget that many of the key resources such as the archives of local newspapers are not available online and many of the key national newspapers are behind paywalls. Dahliarose (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is another possible explanation, and one which I believe is far more likely. They were not the key sporting achievements. Rather, they were the only sporting achievements. The 'championships' referred to are not countywide at all. The are the "West Surrey athletic championships" which are run by the Independent Association of Preparatory Schools. Now, IAPS are not in any way noted as an athletics governing body. No, they are in fact a business whose survival depends on members subscriptions, their members being the fee-paying prep schools of West Surrey and England. And, as anyone who knows the area should know, West Surrey is a rather nebulous concept which seems to have been dreamt up by IAPS. It's not an administrative region in either local government, education management or sports administration. In fact a google on the term gives a total of 6 hits. Thats how notable these 'championships' actually are. Please lets stop pretending there is something notable about this. Fmph (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And while we are on it, lets be clear that access to and entry into these championships will be restricted to those children whose parents don't want them to mix with the really athletic oiks down at the local comp. So the standard of competition is unlikely to be very strong.Fmph (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK 2.3 "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". The nomination tells us this quite clearly: "I didn't want to nominate but tried the merge procedure only to be continually reverted by Dahliarose.". Warden (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise - I have been convinced by Fmph that the school does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirement. Therefore I suggest that we merge the content about the school to Farnham (only one or two sentences is required). Then an article about the school building, which I think most of us would agree is notable, can be created at Frensham Place, which will cover the school briefly as well. In this way we can give the school the same level of coverage while having an article about the arguably more notable buildings instead. The problem with keeping this article is that while there is a lot of verifiable information about it, nothing (perhaps apart from the ILN article, which is outdated) goes above the significant coverage bar. The alumni will be well served by a category. --He to Hecuba (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely worded. That's pretty much what I suggested but you said it so much better and I fully support the idea. --Bob Re-born (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent ISI report on the school is 17 pages long and contains masses of detail - ample to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. The suggestion to merge into Farnham is not sensible because, during the pre-war period, the school was located elsewhere - at Guildford. The proposal would thus not be a compromise but would just mung the contents for no better reason than to satisfy an arbitrary hatred of articles about schools. That would be contrary to policy. Warden (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the problems I've found in researching this school is with the name. It seems to have been known mostly as "Edgeborough" rather than "Edgeborough School" which rather complicates the searches. I've now uncovered a number of other quite distinguished alumni from the time when the school was in Guildford. The quantity of alumni is now such that there really ought to be an article about the school that they all attended. One of the alumni was the recipient of a Victoria Cross and as far as I can gather the medal is now owned by the school. I feel sure that local sources must exist. The problem is that the school was most notable in the earlier part of the twentieth century for which online sources are not easily available. If it was the 19th century I could search the British Library newspaper collection. A local editor is really needed with access to all the books and local sources. Dahliarose (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, none of that affects its notability one shred given that notability is not inherited. Presumably you have added this alumni information to all the bio articles concerned, which is where this information is normally kept on Wikipedia? Cant you find anything about the school itself, rather than the pupils who attended it when they tiny children? Fmph (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult to without access to local sources. I'd suggest my/Bob's compromise for the moment until someone gets round to doing some research on the school's history. --He to Hecuba (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have access to local sources, and I cannot find anything substantial about the school in any of them. Have you particular local sources in mind that I can go and check? Fmph (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Local newspaper archives would be a good place to start, + any local history academic publications. --He to Hecuba (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fmph, perhaps you could tell us first which local sources you have checked which have produced negative results. When researching it's always important to keep a note of negative searches so that other researchers don't have to duplicate the work. Local newspapers are largely unindexed and searchable only on microfilm in in the relevant reference libraries so this would be a major undertaking. Dahliarose (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked both local newspaper archives and local history group but without success. As Dahlia points out the local newspaper archives are on microfiche, unindexed and incomplete. Which is why I was asking for some hints as to what I should be looking for and where. But let me be clear, I'm not sitting for hours in front of a microfiche on the off chance. You may be right. There may well be references in those archives. But there may not be. There may be references in the archives to other far more notable subjects. So where do we pitch our limited efforts? Fmph (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had never heard of this school, but now that I have read the article it seems quite interesting, and I notice that no fewer than four of its Old Boys are/were rather famous people. That alone makes it sufficiently notable as far as I am concerned. Surely the history counts for something, however minor the school may be today. I never understand why some people seem so keen to delete stuff that is not doing any harm. I also find the sneering, aggressive tone of some people here offensive: please read Wikipedia:Civility. -- Alarics (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To He to Hecuba - From an editorial point of view it does not seem logical to make Frensham Place the focus of the article. Frensham Place is just one of the many school buildings. The business listings actually list it as Frensham Place within Edgeborough School. The problem with the article as it now stands is the over-focus on Frensham Place. There is however plenty of material that could be added about the school from reliable sources. This is mainly in the form of descriptive encyclopaedic material that we include in all school articles, eg, a description of the school and its facilities and something about the curriculum. I will have a go at doing this when I have more time. The alumni just wouldn't work editorially as a category. The alumni are usually the key focus of any school article. If you read any newspaper article on a school they invariably cite the the famous alumni if there are any (or at least the British press do). The reader wants all the alumni together on the same page. If they're on a category page you have to click on each person in turn to find out who they are. I'm not quite sure why we have categories for alumni as they seem somewhat redundant. While notability is not inherited the cumulative effect of multiple notable alumni is important because the more notable people who attend a school the more likely it will be written about. I think we all agree that local sources for a large school like this will exist to enable the article to be further expanded. Here's a good example of what can be done when a local editor is able to research a school from local sources Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyde Park Junior School (2nd nomination). Even without any additional material the school still satisfies WP:N as it currently stands, and is already far more notable than many of the bog standard high schools and secondary schools on which we already have articles. From a purely pragmatic point of view there seems little point in cutting an article up in the short term when there is clearly scope for expansion. Dahliarose (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:famous people went there argument...remember that notability is not inherited Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem to me right that "notability is not inherited" should apply in such as case as this. The notability guideline at WP:ORG (which doesn't appear to say anything specifically about schools) says of this doctrine: "If a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not "inherit" notability from its owner. If a notable person joins an organization, the organization does not "inherit" notability from its member." That does not seem to me to be the same kind of thing as several people attending a school who all went on to become famous in adult life, making the school retrospectively notable. -- Alarics (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep 2.3 I agree with Warden that SK2.3 is the best outcome for the encyclopedia here. AfD is for articles with serious problems, and given that editors are here because of a content dispute, I think that we want to discourage the use of AfD for such. Three editors have written down the word "delete" in bold without providing reasons to justify the removal of the edit history for this material. In other words, in all cases, even with the arguments made, we want to keep the redirect and the edit history for this material, so there is nothing to delete. As for the nominator's WP:Merge and Delete preference to bring an end to the content dispute, "The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Document License (GFDL), which Wikipedia uses to license all of its content, both have provisions requiring that the attribution history of an article be preserved." Unscintillating (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - historic school that now meets WP:OR. Kudos to Dahliarose for some great work! TerriersFan (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now added a further section to the article, backed up by several sources, to give an overview of the school to redress the problem of the article being over-focused on Frensham Place. The article satisfies both WP:N and WP:ORG. Dahliarose (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Id have to disagree. IMHO, both references count as self-published sources. The 2nd is the annual report of the charitable trust who actually owns the school and the first is its profile on the ISC website. The ISC is a trade body and these profiles are written by the schools themselves. ISC do not send teams of inspectors out checking all the facts. This is the private education business. If the want to spin their profiles in as positive light as possible, they will. Fmph (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. A self-published source would be the school's own website or a newsletter published by the school. Such sources have to be used with caution but can still be used as a source for certain types of information. The two sources I've provided in this section are independent of the school. The second report is the charitable trust's report to the Charities Commission, the regulatory authority for charities in the UK who are required to ensure that charities are run effectively: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/. It is a reliable source for the type of information provided, as is the Independent Schools Council. Why should you possibly think that such responsible third-party organisations would publish inaccurate information? Dahliarose (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic (water)

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete adv, no sign of notability, and as nom says, hard to see how this could improve. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found very little coverage - none of it significant. SL93 (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sublime with Rome Tour

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

Non-notable tour of a minor band; see Talk:Sublime_with_Rome_Tour and Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard/Archive_2#Sublime_with_Rome_Tour and Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Concert_tours - I have suggested a merge (more than a year ago), but, this page just needs to go. TuckerResearch (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sure "minor band" is correct, but I don't think this tour is independently notable. Shadowjams (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real evidence of independent notability. This is largely confirmed by the article's content, which (aside from the exhaustive tour date list) is as much about the history of Sublime With Rome's formation as it is about a specific tour. I think a formal merge is unnecessary -- this article's content can be summarized within the band's article in a sentence or two. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by User:Jimfbleak (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: no evidence of notability.) Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 07:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GiftCity

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

Non-notable musician, the speedy tag was removed, so we have to do this. I would prefer speedy deletion. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As the person who placed the removed CSD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne Sin

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:MUSIC. I am unable to find significant coverage of this singer in multiple reliable sources. Google search for the name brings up homepage, Facebook, Twitter, some forum postings, YouTube, an entry on Reverb Nation, a user review on Sputnikmusic, and a blog post on MetalSucks (neither of which are complimentary). Other than that there's mentions in blog posts but nothing significant. ... discospinster _talk 04:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After spending much time googling this musician, I've concluded that even though they appear to have a rather active on-line fan-base, they currently fall far short of the requirements and expectations of WP:MUSICBIO. Lots of social media and fan-promo, but severely lacking in WP:RS coverage. -- WikHead (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - Should this article be deleted, all but one item in the creator's contribs (as of February 13) would automatically become speedy deletable. -- WikHead (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm finding mentions/listings at various social media sites, online retailers and blogs, but no significant coverage in reliable sources (as nom noted, the Sputnikmusic source does not qualify as it is not a staff review). Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. I agree that the related pages - Etienne Sin discography, The Art of Stealing Hearts (album) and A Beautiful Agony (EP) - should be deleted as well. Gongshow ^Talk 22:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Along with The Art Of Stealing Hearts (album) and A Beautiful Agony - EP redirects. -- WikHead (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and those too. Thanks. Gongshow ^Talk 22:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southies

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This failed television pilot fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Neelix (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:Notability_(media)#Programming "it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any significant media coverage.". Can not find any news articles and it has been removed from Adults Swim's website (except for an old interview) Cimorcus talk 03:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 04:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This Boston Globe article, which is behind a paywall, briefly mentions the series; it was published after the show appeared online but long before the lone television episode was broadcast. In my opinion, that article doesn't even count towards significant coverage. I think this subject pretty clearly fails the general notability guideline. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ang Mo Kio#Schools in Ang Mo Kio. Wifione ^Message 16:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Mo Kio Primary School

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

Delete. Non-notable school. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No refs provided which would satisfy WP:ORG. Mere existence of a primary school does not justify a Wikipedia article or even a redirect to the locality. Edison (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ang_Mo_Kio#Schools_in_Ang_Mo_Kio. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Convention with schools such as this primary school is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable, given the lack of substantial multiple coverage in RSs in gnews and gbooks. It does exist, and has run-of-the-mill coverage, but that does not suffice.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ang_Mo_Kio. The existing article is a case study in what not to include. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Closing per this comment on the help desk. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Curtis

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't find significant coverage about him, except for the Dokes/Weaver fight, and that seems like WP:ONEEVENT. The only source in the article is his obituary, which was the only source at the initial AfD 5 years ago. He doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG and I don't know what the notability criteria for referees are. He is not in the International Boxing Hall of Fame (see WP:NSPORTS#Boxing), according to their website.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: NYTimes profile, other NYT reference, another NYT reference, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eigth, mention in the Chicago Tribune, second mention in the Chicago Tribune, third mention. Probably more sources available in American newspaper databases. (I just lack access.) He appears to be mentioned in several books. --LauraHale (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. I had found many of these, but most dealt with the Dokes/Weaver fight and the rest are one line mentions of him as being the referee of a particular fight. I wasn't convinced of notability, but your search caused me to look harder and I think there's enough to show notability. I even found him mentioned in some lists of worst boxing referees and decisions. All of which convinces me has passes WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The issue of renaming/repurposing can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nexcite

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], and [33]. SL93 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SL93 above. Note though that some of those references are about the company, and at least one is a copy of a press release from the company. There does appear to be RS establishing it as notable. Preferred outcome would be redirect to company per WP:Product. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The company is also named Nexcite so the page could simply be repurposed as a company page. That seems reasonable. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 16:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Evil Monk

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. No indication of wp:notability, and that's after the article being about 5 years old Notice that it doesn't even say who makes it. The web site for the product doesn't even have a company name, address or phone number, just an individual's email address. Looks like one person trying to get a product going, probably from home. I wish them success followed by wp:notability which it doesn't have now. North8000 (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From what I could find, the name of the company is also the name of the drink (The Evil Monk) and despite the company's claims that they're the first alcohol made in Kansas since prohibition (which I doubt, legal or otherwise), there's just no reliable sources out there to show how this drink or company is notable. It looks to be an independent and small business that supplies alcohol to local stores, but hasn't managed to go beyond that at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete - theevilmonk.com, states under the section "story" that the liqueur is manufactured by High Plains Distillery, so I visited their website and found that the product isn't even listed there. The creators of the product also claim that on June 15, 2006, their product made history by becoming the first liqueur made in Kansas since prohibition. Great claim, too bad they have nothing to back it up but their own word. SaveATreeEatAVegan 04:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (Nomination withdrawn). No arguments have been made for deletion except by the nominator, who withdrew the nomination. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slush Puppie

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quick GNews search turned up the following significant news stories:
- "Frozen in time: Slush Puppie still hot after 27 years, Cincinnati Enquirer, January 18, 1998.
- "With marketing, new flavors, Slush Puppies do hot business", Associated Press in The Vindicator, January 26, 1998.
- "Cadbury Buys Slush Puppie", BBC News, 21 December 2000.
- "Drink Mogul Soaks Up Rural Life ; A Conservation Deal Lets Will Radcliff Of Slush Puppie Fame Stay On His Beloved Fly'n R Ranch." Orlando Sentinel, December 6, 2004 (pay wall).

-Arxiloxos (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like it has wp:notability but needs an editor to put those sources in. North8000 (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I pasted in Arxiloxos's listing into the article as a "further reading" section. North8000 (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable product by WP:N, because of sources added.Borock (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - (e/c) It looks like this one was lazy on my part, thanks for the quick sourcing. If no-one objects I'd like to withdraw this nomination. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 05:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Powershot

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is too short and gives no context. Product may not be notable. Kinkreet (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability whatsoever. 71.246.200.190 (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flora of Romania

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

Indiscriminate, barely sourced. Seems to be verbatim from the one source that is used. Tagged as "better in list format" for years but of course no one cares. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article looks horrible, but the topic is viable. So I'm definitely undecided. Tigerboy1966 02:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete The article is just a list of species. Really raw data. It would be better to have an article on the plant life and ecological zones in Romania written so that it's understandable to a non-botanist. Borock (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually an article on the plant life of all Europe and a section in each country's article would be better. Borock (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rework - Indeed, the article is just full of species. But per Borock's suggestions, it should be rewritten to focus on plant life and ecological zones in Romania, instead. I don't think it should be just deleted. There is already a Category:Flora by country with some examples like Flora of Ireland and Flora of Italy. Maybe some content can be taken from Romania#Natural environment and Protected areas of Romania to start with. But there is plenty of stuff to write about Romania's flora for sure. Romania is certainly lucky to have more diversity than many other countries.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Codrin.B, this is a suitable topic. It's a pity that "no-one cares" about the poor presentation of the information in the article, but there's WP:NODEADLINE, and the extensive list present may be useful to someone intending to write an article on the topic later. --He to Hecuba (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stub and keep Flora of X articles (were X are countries or large subdivisions) are inherently notables, as long as they are not lists of species which are best handled via categories. Circéus (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nom presents no valid rationale for deletion other than WP:Indiscriminate which in this case is easily refuted via WP:NOTESAL, the list notability guideline. The following sources discuss flora of Romania as a group.
- Flora, Vegetatia Si Potentialul Productiv Pe Masivul Vladeasa (Flora, vegetation and potential productive Vladeasa Massif), Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania,, Bucharest:, 1970
- Bulletin de l'Herbier de l'Institut Botanique de Bucarest., Bucharest:, 1902, VLADESCO, M.C., EDITOR
- Flora and Fauna, Ministero della Cultura,, Mosca, 1963. Cartella filatelica tematica, raccolta completa: 63 veri francobolli viaggiati, applicati con linguetta su 4 tavole (misura 27x21 cm), da vari paesi: Cina, Polonia, Mongolia, Romania, Bulgaria.
- Mic atlas de plante din Flora Republica Socialiste România. (Small plants of Flora atlas Socialist Republic of Romania.), Bucarest, Editura Didactica si Pedagogica, 1968.
- Cormophlora of Romania, LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 2012. The book presents spontaneous and cultivated cormophytes in Romania according to the Flora Europea. There are over 3800 taxa with ecological indices (humidity, temperature and soil reaction), coenotical classification and number of chromosomes.
- THE RED BOOK OF VASCULAR PLANTS OF ROMANIA-A monographic book “The Red Book of Vascular Plant of Romania” has been published in 2009 at the Publishing House of the Romanian Academy. This book, of national and regional Balkan interest contains, in more than 600 pages, the description of 548 taxa (species and subspecies). A micro-monography is presented for each taxon, with information concerning the description of the taxon, conservation status, taxonomy (with iconography), chorology (including the map of distribution at national level), area, habitat, cenology, biology, importance, limitative factors, conservation measures, and references. Page 29

--Mike Cline (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is certainly good and notable. Not sure about the content and sources. North8000 (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keepp This isn't article clean-up. Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stub and keep per Circeus. Someday there will be an interesting article at this title.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is this an encyclopedic topic? No question. Is this a way that people would normally present this information? Of course not. Is this presentation more useful than a normal-style encyclopedia article? Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure there are specialists who would dig it. Is the fact that this article is non-standard a valid rationale for deletion? Emphatically NO — this is an editing matter to be handled through normal content debate and resolution processes. Carrite (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bad article, obviously notable topic. -- 202.124.75.53 (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted above, bad article, but obviously notable topic; ok if marked as a stub. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic; perhaps the list could be replaced by a translation of the Romanian wikipedia article. --Melburnian (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominate states it is indiscriminate, but in fact it only list flora found in Romania. And of course, no one cares about pointless tags. If you want something done, do it yourself, don't just toss down a tag and expect someone else to do what you want. This is an obviously encyclopedic topic. Other sources can easily be found, as Mike Cline has proved up above. AFD is not cleanup. Dream Focus 16:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think every person commenting here here, probably including the nominator, feels like an authentic encyclopedia article on this topic is appropriate. I just want to make the quick point that in that eventuality this should be retained as a sub-page List of Flora of Romania — which is really not a bad name for the piece even now, come to think of it. It's a fantastic piece of work in its own way, although probably of extremely narrow utility to all but a few botanists. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the existing article should be split into a stub containing the four paragraphs of text, and a separate list article. -- 202.124.72.68 (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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