Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 24 January 26 January >

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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel (UK & Ireland) Events

[edit]
Disney Channel (UK & Ireland) Events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article found in the course of the AfD nom of Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland) Events 2012 which was mentioned by a keep rationale as a reason why that article should be kept, when this article is even more painful than that. It exists mainly as a advertisement for Disney Channel, reads as violating WP:NOTTVGUIDE, has zero sources to be found, large portions of it sound made up, and it describes humdrum episode premieres as big events, a heavy trait among kid's network article crufters. Confusing to read and decode (colour boxes?!), and zero WLH numbers to actual articles. Nate • (chatter) 23:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Nate • (chatter) 23:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nate • (chatter) 23:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Nate • (chatter) 23:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gjertrud Fitje

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

I don't see any notability. Geschichte (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawal. While I still personally believe that the article fails certain notability guidelines, it is clear that consensus is against me when the only user siding with me in over a month thinks that the topic is notable but the article simply beyond repair. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Bennett Guitars

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

Coverage only consists of a couple of reviews and some incidental mentions. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG. PROD was contested by an anonymous editor editor (who, going by his edit history, appears to be a SPA). When I asked for his reasoning, no response was given. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 20:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 02:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have to say that I think this article is beyond repair. A quick look at the issues brought up in the banner was enough to persuade me of that. This article needs to be deleted as soon as possible, then I will submit a request in WP:GUITAR for the article to be started again, as I think it is important enough to solicit it's own article. ~User: Sebread
  • Weak keep. I would have said delete but if someone thinks it's notable enough that they'll create the article immediately afterwards - then it should simply be rewritten and not deleted. No article is beyond repair when one can simply brush the slate clean and start writing. --Ifnord (talk) 21:00, 25 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, Deryck C. 21:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No one except the nominator advocates for the deletion of the article. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 00:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stacked (TV film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. The fact that it exists is not a valid reason for inclusion. PROD was declined by author. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If the claim it won a contest to be screened is true, then some notability could be established. Lugnuts (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete keep - I posted the original prod, saying "WP:NOTABILITY; the only thing beyond database listings I find for this (searching for Stacked Bazeley, being the name of the first listed actor at IMDB) is the site of the writer's company, which claims it won a contest to see air." Since then, another editor has found this paywalled article, which may contribute to notability (I've not paid for the paywall), but even then it's a single article. It doesn't look like this contest qualifies for the "major award" descriptor at WP:NFILM, and so doesn't generate sufficient notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Switched to the keep column later, per discussion below. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How weird: if I Google on stacked "channel 4" 2008 I get the full text without paying for it, but if I save the URL, as above, it hits the paywall. (Add "Eureka" to the search and it comes out as first hit.) PamD 00:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if I try to paste the Google link to the article here, I get the edit filter. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the tips. Having now seen the article, it's one sentence written by the paper, then Stacked's writer/directors answer to a questionaire, and the show's pitch. So it gains a little notability from place of publication, but I can't say that Broadcast showed that it was worth putting effort into. I maintain my "weak delete" stance. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 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, Deryck C. 21:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an Article Deletion Squad canvass board where I can canvass deletionists? Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Eagles it is called "Articles for Deletion"! Now seriously, why not respond to my point about the three additional sources I found, they seemed to be significant to me and were not at your disposal when you made the nomination. This AfD went a full 7 days without drawing strong support and some questioning whether it might be notable, which is why I investigated it.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a game, and especially not a zero-sum game - if "the inclusionists win" that does not mean "the deletionists lose" - it means we have a worthy article in our encyclopedia. Which is the goal of all of us. Right? Sometimes I think some people forget that. Thanks again, Milowent, for finding good sources. --GRuban (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand the term canvass. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first source ([2]) is very good. The second source ([3]) is a blog post and may or may not be a sufficiently reliable source. The third source ([4]) I am unsure about, as I do not believe it is independent of the subject. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "blog post" is from a newspaper's blog, and those are generally accorded the same reliable source value as the paper itself - although I'm not familiar with this particular paper (a free daily?!?), but it seems to be of enough circulation to indicate that it can suggest significance. With others found, I'm sliding my stance to a weak keep. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re ScottishScreens cite -- "I do not believe it is independent of the subject" - how so? It appears to be official publication of the scottish film industry organisation, who apparently felt it appropriate to devote a page of coverage to the project.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:32, 1 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.  Sandstein  22:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paydar Records

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

Searching for the name of this record label plus the name of its founder, in both English and Persian, I can't find substantial RS coverage of the label. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 16 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, Deryck C. 21:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Reno, Nevada#Environmental factors. And delete.  Sandstein  23:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caughlin Fire

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

As per WP:NOT#NEWS. While the event appears to be newsworthy there is nothing to indicate it is of lasting notability. The only source supplied is the results of a Google search about the area some of which mention the fire, but again, nothing to indicate the lasting notability of the fire. SQGibbon (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 16 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, Deryck C. 21:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Davies

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who has not played in a professional league game. He fails WP:NFOOTBALL criteria. PROD was contested on the grounds that Mr. Davies had signe for Melbourne Victory FC. This is insuficient to establish notability. Until he plays a match for Melbourne or another fully pro club, he fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources presented.
These references occur over a multiple year period and more easily exist. Appears to meet WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Davies' incredible journey from refugee camps to top of the world". The Sydney Morning Herald.
  2. "Julius Davies – the boy with no country". The Daily Telegraph.
  3. "Teen seeks club stint on way to Socceroos eligibility". The Sydney Morning Herald.
  4. "Perth Glory chasing Bayern Munich whizkid Julius Davies". Yahoo!7.
  5. "Australia Keen On Born Bayern Munich Youngster". AllAfrica.com.
  6. "Victory signs Davies until season's end". The Canberra Times.
  7. "Davies could still end up a Socceroo". The Canberra Times.
  8. "All-Australian?". The Sydney Morning Herald. (scroll down a little)
  9. "Julius Doe Davies Eyes The A-League". Australian FourFourTwo.

—Jenks24 (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  22:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Index of architecture articles

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

Following a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture#Expert needed I am nominating this for deletion as members of the WikiProject seem to agree that this index is not useful. As it stands the index contains only a small and haphazard fraction of architecture related articles (ca. 1,200 of 22,000), and is rather confusing than helpful (barely notable items included while highly notable ones left out). There doesn't seem practicable to maintain an index of such a broad scope and the very low number of views indicates that interest is also very limited. The view is that Outline of architecture and Category:Architecture are more useful, and this index does not add anything significant to them. Elekhh (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. --Elekhh (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  23:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Data Hub

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

No evidence for notability, PROD removed by original editor with no comment, is a component of a larger (non-notable?) system and should be at most a redirect to that article. PamD 21:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  23:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nine_Pearls

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

Page is uninformative nonsense and has not improved since 2007 Bossk-Office (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - The fourth paragraph is patently OR and of no great use. The remainder is not too bad, but I'm still not entirely sure what these gems signify. Maybe they are significant, but the online sources are of dubious reliability and the only reference in the article is vaguely to something in The New York Times. Effectively its of dubious notability and of no great use to ayone who reads it. Sionk (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  22:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson Reuters Enterprise Platform for Real-Time

[edit]
Thomson Reuters Enterprise Platform for Real-Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources except product website, no evidence of notability, appears promotional, PROD removed by original editor with no comment. PamD 21:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Original editor responded on his talk page to the PROD. PamD 22:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ... and also replied there to this AfD nomination. PamD 22:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Original editor responded on talk page Bryanteadon (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: There is no article which describes this software or the marketplace which it sits within, how this inter-operates, these are all scattered across the web on buried in documents. I want to get this information to be more accessible. Sources have now been added. Not promotional. I made a mistake by removing PROD since I am new to editing articles. Bryanteadon (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ekso Bionics

[edit]
Ekso Bionics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aimal Qazi

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

This man is only notable for one event and this is basically a duplicate article of 1993 shootings at CIA Headquarters which is what is actually notable. LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Note the article was created by a blocked editor for abusing multiple accounts.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could the Execution and burial section of the article show that Aimal Qazi is notable not only for the attack? Apokrif (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was executed for this one event, dying isn't notability.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was mainly referring to the circumstances of his funeral: "his funeral was attended by the entire civil hierarchy of Balochistan, the local Pakistan Army Corps Commander and the Pakistani Ambassador to the United States". Apokrif (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure that he is what we would call a low-profile individual, who we expect to remain such. The event is significant. His role within it is both substantial and well-documented. The significance is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. We have hundreds of articles that discuss him, and coverage has persisted for years -- though one should note that there are various spellings of his name.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is not for editing concerns -- those can be addressed on the talkpages of the articles.
As to WP:BLP1E, in pertinent part it says "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented ... a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Here, the RSs that you can read by clicking the above links (leading to thousands of articles and books) appear to me to reflect such persistent coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  23:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Klute (Nightclub)

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

This nightclub has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as is required to meet either the general or business notability guidelines. The only claim of notability that has ever existed is that it was supposedly voted the worst nightclub in the world, but as discussed on the talk page this is almost certainly a hoax. I can't find anything about the club in google books, google news or factiva. SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As someone who lives in Durham, I can assure you this is a genuine nightclub which is very well known in Durham, either with affection or notoriety. The rumour about it being called the second worst nightclub in Europe is certainly a very widespread rumour. I suspect this story has been embellished over the years, but it's certainly not a hoax made up for Wikipedia. Not sure if this qualifies for notability of Wikipedia - I'll do a bit of digging when I have some more spare time and see what I can find. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing of note, couldn't find anything of real importance about the place. After some hard digging I found that it's dj did a gig at a regionally popular music festival a few years ago, but that's the most exciting thing. Any disagreements? Guyinasuit5517 (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Speedy deletion was appropriate. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Science Club

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

This 1-sentence article has zero refs. Tagged for that for over 2 years, with no improvement. I cannot find substantial, non-trivial RS coverage in gnews or gbooks. Epeefleche (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Francis O'Doherty

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

An author of self-published books with no evidence of notability either in the article or that I can find elsewhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Evil Dead (franchise). (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Evil Dead (2013 film)

[edit]
The Evil Dead (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL WP:NFF lead actress just dropped out, this movie has been nailed with issues causing rescheudle/cancelation issues frmo the start. Textbook case for NFF. Merge back to series, recreate in the future if it pans out Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I changed my vote from an outright delete to a redirect to the franchise page. It would be something searched and a redirect would be a good idea. The information at present doesn't need to be merged, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Mitt Romney. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Following a request for me to look at this again, I have spent some time reviewing the decision. When I read through this, I saw that the general consensus was to keep the content in some form, either as an article or as part of the Mitt Romney article (although this is not a vote, 13 said to keep or to merge, 6 said to delete). However, the arguments for keep or merge are so close, that the only realistic way of closing this should have been as no consensus. I am therefore changing my close to such, with no prejudice against a speedy renomination. My apologies for not leaving a rationale upon the original closure. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus (dog)

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

Listing per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 17. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge -- Seamus (dog) is an article referring to the dog of Mitt Romney, which was involved in a controversial 1983 road trip where the dog was transported on the roof of Romney's car for 11 hours. Seamus was discussed extensively during the 2008 US President race, and the issue has been discused in this year's Presidential race. If you type in 'Seamus Romney' under Google, you will get more than 200,000 hits, including links to major newspapers such as the Boston Globe and the New York Times. When I initially created this article, I thought about naming it the 'Seamus incident' and linking it to the Mitt Romney article, but I didn't because nobody refers to the event as the 'Seamus incident'. It's simply 'Seamus', or in some cases 'Seamus Romney'. Furthermore, Seamus has had a much more lasting influence than many of the dogs of famous people which have their own Wikipedia articles. In the article for famous dogs, there are dogs which have articles only because of their owners. For example, Lou dog, owned by Bradley Nowell, and Diamond who may have been owned by Isaac Newton, each have an article independent of their human masters. That being said, I'm also okay with merging this article into the article on Mitt Romney if others believe that it the best option. Addendum -- After seeing how controversial it will be to merge the Seamus article into the Mitt Romney article (see discussion below under Tvoz post), I think Keep is the best option.Debbie W. 04:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (ie. Merge, but deleting the majority of content). Not notable apart from one incident, and even that wasn't a very notable incident. Note that Lou dog has appeared in multiple songs and albums and even so does not, in fact, have an independent article. Diamond is closer, but I think destroying 20 years notes of Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest physicist of all time, has a bit more to be said for it than making a minor dent in the campaign of one presidential candidate. There's also the BLP aspect, since the thing that Seamus is notable for is a negative issue about a living person. I think a couple of sentences in Mitt Romney should cover it. --GRuban (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I will put my cards on the table and stipulate that I originally deleted this article under {{speedy}} A7 deletion criterion. My view is that while Mr Romney is clearly notable, his former dog is not; the incident described in the "incident" is primarily about Mr Romney, not his dog. For the record "Lou dog" has a paragraph within Bradley Nowell, not his own article. A seperate paragraph with the article on Mr Romney about his dog would clearly be acceptable. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Mitt Romney or to one of its spinouts. If this dog were human, BIO1E would say that a stand-alone article is not warranted. However, this project seeks to cover everything that others have covered, and this dog has been discussed. The dog should get at least one sentence with the references in one of the Romney articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSCANDAL, part of WP:NOT, one of Wikipedia's core policies, which states that Wikipedia is not to be used for "scandal-mongering" and that "articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." 2012 is a major election year in the United States, and it's important that we keep a watchful eye on relevant articles, not only in order to prevent Wikipedia from being used for advocacy or promotion of particular candidates, but also to prevent it from being used to tarnish particular candidates. Wikipedia should not be used as an attack platform. This article exists solely to highlight an event in Mitt Romney's past – an event which has been used repeatedly to mildly embarrass and/or denigrate Romney since he is running for president. The event has by no means resulted in a significant scandal; it has just resulted in a series of negative jokes by Romney's detractors. And that's fine for them – but Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, and allowing this article would make Wikipedia into a sort of attack platform. It's not as though web-surfers, without this article, would have a hard time finding juicy gossip about Mitt Romney's dog. It seems that Gail Collins cracks unfunny jokes about the dog-on-the-car incident in nearly every one of her New York Times columns, and numerous websites clearly contain information about the anecdote. Wikipedia doesn't have to be one of them – and, per policy, it shouldn't be one of them. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not create this article to propagate a scandal. I created it because I saw a lot of news coverage of this issue, and I was surprised that it wasn't at least mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia. Just because something is negative against a living person doesn't mean that it cannot be mentioned in an article. It just means that we need to be careful that the information is not libelous, that it is presented with a NPOV, and it is not given an undue influence. WP:NOTSCANDAL says the following: scandal mongering, something heard "through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. The article is well-referenced, and includes both a quotes from Mitt Romney and individuals who criticized the incident. Whether the incident is given an undue influence is a trickier question, but considering the amount of news coverage of this incident in 2008 and 2012, I'd say no. I'm okay with merging this article into the article on Mitt Romney, but I wonder if the same concerns will arise that that this is just an attack???Debbie W. 04:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debbie, please note that I did not write that you created the article to propagate a scandal. My exact words were: "This article exists solely to highlight an event in Mitt Romney's past – an event which has been used repeatedly to mildly embarrass and/or denigrate Romney since he is running for president." The distinction is important. Your motives and intentions when creating the article are not as important as the effect of the article's existence. The effect is to perpetuate, accentuate, and amplify a negative anecdote about a candidate for public office, when the actual significance of the incident is probably enough to justify a mention in the article on Romney's campaign but certainly not enough to justify a separate article. The referencing is not the issue here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia reports on matters that have entered the public discourse, even if some editors think that the public shouldn't be paying attention to those matters. This has been widely written about; Romney was asked about it on television by Chris Wallace; and in the current campaign, one of Romney's opponents (Gingrich) included it in a TV ad. The incident has also been characterized as showing Romney's level-headed crisis management skills, and I'll try to dig up that citation and add it to the article. JamesMLane t c 21:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Addendum: I've now added the information to provide some balance to the article. It would also be reasonable to balance it by adding a report of any notable opinion deriding the whole flap as being intended solely "to mildly embarrass and/or denigrate Romney since he is running for president." JamesMLane t c 22:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • James, at the risk of stating the obvious, not everything that enters the public discourse is an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article. Whether or not I think the public should be paying attention this incident is not the issue (for the record, I don't mind them doing so). Your expansions of the article, while well-intentioned, do not resolve the fundamental issue here, which is that Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral, unbiased site. Including an article covering a negative anecdote about a candidate, when the scandal (or "non-scandal") is of little lasting significance, has the same practical effect as allowing Wikipedia to be used as a platform for attacking the candidate. This goes for any candidate of any party in any notable election. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Halperin quote certainly supports your position. However, comparing this anecdote with the Whitewater investigation is ridiculous; that was a full-fledged scandal, was the subject of far more press coverage, and eventually led to Bill Clinton's impeachment. The birther movement, nutty though it is, has also attracted more press coverage than this anecdote. A better parallel (involving a Democrat, as you desire) would be, say, the discovery four years ago that Hillary Clinton's claims of dodging bullets on the tarmac in Bosnia were false. There was a burst of media coverage at the time; it was an embarrassment for Clinton's campaign; and (although I cannot recall specific examples) it was probably mentioned for humorous effect much as the dog-on-the-car incident is mentioned to mock Romney today. And if you were to ask me whether we should have an article on that negative anecdote about Hillary Clinton, I would say certainly not. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's clear that Whitewater got more press attention than Seamus. My point was about your call for "lasting" significance; I don't think that notability needs to be permanent. Your comparison to Bosnia isn't perfect, either. The Seamus affair became public earlier than the Clinton-Bosnia thing, so it's clear that Seamus has demonstrated much more staying power in terms of media attention. As to a separate article about Clinton-Bosnia, I wouldn't say "certainly not"; I'd say "follow WP:SS." It's mentioned in her main bio article. If significant additional information were generated, such that putting all that information into the main bio would constitute undue weight, then a more detailed daughter article would be justified. That's the situation we're in here. Some people are saying "Merge" but, I fear, will be nowhere to be found when the attempted merger is resisted as undue weight. I appreciate your recognition of the import of the Halperin quotation, and I'll add this one, from a recent article in The Daily Beast that was cited in this article but has now been eliminated: "Topping anyone’s list of riveting dog stories has to be the never-gets-old tale of the dear departed Seamus. ... [It] has to rank among the all-time Great Family Stories in the annals of American politics. Talk about revealing a candidate’s character—could it get any better than this? ... But during a campaign in which even the Mitt-Bot’s hair seems uptight, this event also illuminates other important issues." JamesMLane t c 01:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, a merger would only incorporate key information from this article into the target article(s), so presumably undue weight would not be an issue. I think that if this is not deleted, it should be merged, and I will personally advocate for the information's inclusion in the target article if this AfD is closed as "merge." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two problems: (1) Given that some people didn't want any information about this in the Mitt Romney bio, we could expect lengthy edit wars over what qualifies as "key information". (2) Merger ignores the advantages of WP:SS. Some readers will want only the key information, but others will want more detail. A brief summary in the main article, accompanied by a wikilink to the more detailed daughter article, accommodates both groups. Another advantage is that the inevitable edit warring about what goes into the main article is more subdued if the excluded information is still available on Wikipedia. JamesMLane t c 22:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far I can see, you are extremely wrong in your interpretation of WP:NOTSCANDAL. Simply this (minor) event is not a "rumour" or "something heard through the grapevine", but is a well-covered and controversial event (unless you don't consider Time, Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times as gossip newspapers) and its veracity was confirmed by the same Romney. WP is neutral, but this does not mean that WP should censor (big or little) controversities that involve people, companies or organizations, please read WP:YESPOV to understand what means NEUTRAL in Wikipedia. Cavarrone (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cavarrone, I'm aware of the Wikipedia definition of neutrality, and I'm not suggesting that we should censor this negative anecdote about Romney. I'm saying that we should not give it a separate article, because that would perpetuate, accentuate, and amplify the negative anecdote in a way that is unacceptable for a neutral encyclopedia. I concede that WP:NOTSCANDAL was not the best shortcut to link, and I have changed it to simply WP:NOT, because the sentence that I quoted notes a principle that is very much ingrained in Wikipedia policy. Please read my whole argument. The idea of undue weight is also relevant here on a macro level, I think. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seamus's fame is assured. (Cf.: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinkerbell (dog)? ;~)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Mitt Romney per SmokeyJoe & Debbie W.--JayJasper (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has received extensive coverage in the media. Furthermore, according to Time magazine's political reporter, Mark Halperin, it has political impact: "So this issue of electability, for a lot of voters is a serious issue — I'm not kidding — Gov. Romney once putting his family dog on the roof of the car and taking him on a long trip." [6] Halperin made that observation in the course of asking one of Romney's opponents, Newt Gingrich, about the issue, which followed Gingrich's including it in a television ad attacking Romney. The calls for merger are chimerical. As one who put in considerable effort just to get a passing mention of this into the Romney bio, I see little chance that an attempt to expand the coverage there would succeed. Having a mention in the bio with more detail in a daughter article is the correct approach under WP:SS. JamesMLane t c 21:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I'm okay with the concept of merging the Seamus article into the Mitt Romney article, I share the same concern. I initially made a minor reference to it in the Romney article, and it was removed. Specifically, I mentioned it as an issue (among many) that came up during the 2012 primaries, and I was told that by another editor that they weren't sure how they wanted to handle the dog issue: "2012 presidential campaign: however we handle the dog story, this won't be it"Debbie W. 22:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Already deleted once and I don't see how it is any different now than it was a couple of weeks ago. This dog did absolutly nothing of note, and no one has provided any evidence why the dog itself is notable in any aspect other than having been owned by Romney and riding on the top of his car once. Arzel (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would redirecting to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 be the best option? All the press concerning the dog is a by-product of the campaign, after all. Certainly, the issue would not have sparked anywhere near the publicity it has received if Romney were not running for president.--JayJasper (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable as a dog, Only notable as a subject of a single anecdote, and we all know just how wondrously accurate anecdotes are as sources for fact. An anecdote is always presented as based on a real incident[1] involving actual persons, whether famous or not, usually in an identifiable place. However, over time, modification in reuse may convert a particular anecdote to a fictional piece, one that is retold but is "too good to be true". Collect (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Mitt Romney, or Keep and Rename. The article is well-referenced and the subject appears notable, but with the current title and in the current state seems to meet WP:BLP1E. Cavarrone (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm okay with the idea of keeping the article but renaming it, either the "Seamus Controversy" or "Seamus Incident" There is some precident for that -- for example there is an article named Chappaquiddick incident linked to the article for Edward Kennedy. I did a Google search, and I got very few hits for "Seamus Controversy", but I did get a number of hits for "Seamus incident", in reference to Mitt Romney.Debbie W. 12:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Mitt Romney. The subject is funny, and notable, but I consider it a side-note in a representation of the character of Mitt Romney and his family. Since biographies should include anecdotes to represent character traits of the subject, this story is apt.TheThomas (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per JamesMLane - the fact is ludicrous as it is, this matter has gotten a great deal of attention, and people come to Wikipedia for illumination on matters in the news. I would be ok with it as a redirect to a section in Mitt Romney, but that article has a lot to cover as Mitt has had a varied career, and that article probably can't support more than a mention with a link here which as JamesMLane reminds us, is appropriate under WP:SS. As to whether the "anecdote" is a source for fact - I haven't seen denials from the Romney camp. they just spin it differently. Tvoz/talk 00:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What spin? This event happened over 25 years ago and until 2007 was never an issue as far as I can tell. The only "spinning" if from the left trying to make this into a political issue. Arzel (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The story took place in 1983 but only became public in 2007 when the Boston Globe included it in their biographical series on Mitt. As Tvoz says, the facts aren't in dispute. And it hasn't really been a left vs. right issue, but rather has captured the interest of those who think he mistreated the dog (but if so, it was clearly out of a lapse in judgement not malice) and those who think it illustrates something psychologically telling about Mitt. See this recent follow-up piece in the Globe for more on that angle.
      • Also note that the Seamus story is already included in the Mitt Romney article, via a quick mention in one sentence and an explanatory Note with more detail. So the "merge" option isn't really relevant here; adding anything more to that article would be giving it undue weight. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • More and more, I think that the merger of Seamus article with the Mitt Romney article will be extremely contentious. If a large amount of detail is given about the incident, it will be challenged as undue weight. On the other hand, to only give the incident one sentence in a footnote marginalizes an incident for which there has been a lot of media coverage. I agree with Tvoz that people come to Wikipedia to get more detail on issues that are in the news, and I don't think that Wikipedia can provide that level of detail unless this is a standalone article. Because of that, I feel that this article should be kept.Debbie W. 03:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see any problem in merging the current article in a section named ie "The Seamus Controversity", expecially if the merging is supported by consensus in AfD and has a strong and substantial support of reliable sources. On the other hand, some parts of the current article (the lead, the supplementary information section) could be easily cut off. Cavarrone (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Cavarrone, you don't see a problem, but the editors of that article may not see it the way you do, even with an AfD consensus here - see the extended discussion on Talk:Mitt Romney that JamesMLane alluded to above, for example. The current approach seems the most acceptable all around. We do need to be concerned about questions of undue weight in the main article which, again, is supposed to be a bio of the man's whole life and career, and can't really support a section on this matter while balancing the presentation of his multiple careers, family & background, etc. Tvoz/talk 08:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • If those above are worried that a merge would result in undue weight then they are acknowledging that the current article is nothing more than a POV Fork and should not belong at all. If such detail could never sustain itself in the primary article than a POV fork is clear. Arzel (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I seriously disagree that a separate article for Seamus constitutes a POV Fork. A POV fork refers to a separate article to reflect a point of view that is so non-mainstream that it cannot be added to main article on the topic. The article on POV forks gives this example: If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as patent nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory. The article on Seamus has nothing to do with points of view, since everyone agrees with the facts of the incident. It's just an question of how important the incident is, and how much weight we give it.
The Seamus article should be viewed as a spinoff article from the main Mitt Romney article, where the Mitt Romney article very briefly mentions the Seamus incident, and the Seamus page discusses it in detail. Wikipedia strongly endorses this practice: Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article.Debbie W. 22:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would only classify as a spinoff if it were ever mentioned at any length within the primary article. This level of information could never exist in the primary article because of weight concerns, but the description of WP:CONTENTFORK this article is clearly a way to present this information that would never be incorporated into the main article. Arzel (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every "more detailed article" that's created per WP:SS has a "level of information [that] could never exist in the primary article because of weight concerns...." That's precisely why we use summary style. JamesMLane t c 04:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chicken and the egg. The assumption you make is that any level of detail would be included as such in the main article. In which case this article should be "Mitt Romney Dog Incident" since by your arguement it is the incident that is notable and not the actual dog. What exactly did the dog do? Arzel (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for renaming, not deletion. I'd have no problem with a move to a different name (although, in light of our article title style, your suggestion should be modified to "Mitt Romney dog incident" without the caps). Also acceptable would be "Mitt Romney dog controversy", given that some people think the incident reflects favorably on Romney for his level-headed crisis management. JamesMLane t c 16:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with the concept of keeping the article, but renaming it. My suggestion would be the "Seamus Incident".Debbie W. 16:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seamus didn't do anything, other than to crap on the car. If that is the story than I have a ton of really good dog stories. Arzel (talk) 17:17, 2 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. Despite attempts to confer notability, the keep !voters have failed to meet the very basic guideline of WP:GNG. Two keep !votes arn't even based on any sort of policy, simply asserting "It's notable" and one of the keep !votes asserts that one source confers notability. Our guidelines are very clear that we require multiple sources. DGG's keep rationale is interesting because it suggests that there should be a lower threshold on Wikipedia where there is lower interest by mainstream media such as in the open source world. I might sometimes agree, but notability guidelines do not support this and certainly do not support forums. On the subject of the Wiki, I'm convinced that if it truly is a Wiki of experts, then WP:RSN might make an exception for it. However, no effort has been done yet to take the source there. I strongly suggest that any WP:DRV do their homework and take that Wiki to WP:RSN first. All other arguments for keep in the varying paragraphs are largely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The delete !voters make it very clear that this article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. They nominator also questions the factuality and neutrality of 'this software is used in 5000 hostpitals worldwide' and hints that there may be COI or at least NPOV issues. Although COI and NPOV are not reasons for deletion, they certainly strengthen the argument that this article is not suitable for Wikipedia. If there is ever a recreation, I suggest a new draft that cites controversial statements. v/r - TP 20:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PatientOS

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

Non-notable software package. This may be a symptom of the open-source community, but google mentions seem to be blogs and forums. I'd like to see an independent reference that says something definitive like 'This software is used in 5000 hospitals worldwide' or such. Previous version had been deleted by CSD (not nominated nor deleted by me), and article creator de-proded my prod (as is his right) so I am bringing it here for a wider discussion. Syrthiss (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sythiss, there is no free software suite 'used in 5000 hospitals worldwide'. Does this mean the whole list of software at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_healthcare_software has to be deleted? Dumol (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its 'Syrthiss', thanks. Possibly. Certainly if they cannot establish their notability, they should be. You may want to review WP:OTHERCRAP. While it is not an official policy or guideline, the existence of other substandard pages is not the benchmark for your own substandard article to exist. It is usually more an indicator that those other articles should be removed as well. Syrthiss (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's weigh PatientOS against other software from that list such as FreeMED and OpenEMR, which have extensive Wikipedia articles. On the medfloss.org and fosshealth.org portals, users have voted PatientOS 31 times and 14 times respectively, while FreeMED and OpenEMR have a total of 6 votes (on medfloss.org) and 0 thumbs (on foss-for-health.org) cumulated. We need to have relevant free software medical software listed in Wikipedia and PacientOS is rather relevant in the field of open-source EMR, although not as popular on the Internet as older software. Dumol (talk)
NatGertler, are you serious? Do you think the pages dedicated to PacientOS in open-source medical portals are press releases? And the Health Informatics Forum, "A Social Network for Health Informatics Professionals and Students" is a wiki? LATER EDIT: Sorry for the misunderstanding, Nyaya Health uses a Wiki-type software to publish its articles on the Internet, that is true. However, what difference does it make as long as that Wiki is not publicly-editable? Nyaya Health "operates a hospital and mobile medical care services in Achham, a large district in Nepal", so their article on the subject of open-source EMR qualifies as a reliable source. Dumol (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you would think I'm not serious. The "press release" was this source you had used, which you can see the source for on the website of the company whose services it advertises. We don't know who all in Nyaya has access to the wiki and what sort of verification they may do on it, and they put some heavy disclaimers on it, so it's a somewhat dubious source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the tone in my previous comment but you were saying "copies of press releases" which means more than one. So I thought you were equaling the two listings in medical software portals as press releases. As for that forum entry which I have already removed, I thought you were mistaking that for a wiki, which I have already apologizes for and corrected.
As for the Nyaya disclaimer, this kind of disclaimers is common place in the world of software, no need to overreact. It is clear from it and the site's description that there is no public access to the editing functions of this wiki, which makes it rather irrelevant that it is a wiki and not a static site. Thanks! Dumol (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Next to zero sign of anything that might show notability. All I can see are self-published sources, forums, blogs and other wikis. As per nom, if no open source healthcare package is notable, then delete the lot! Wikipedia isn't here to help establish or do the marketing leg work for software developers. Equally, I believe that we shouldn't lower our inclusion criteria because it is free. If the software is really that good, coverage should follow. I'm inclined to suggest that if the 45 (total) votes on medfloss and fosshealth represents the opinion of the even just the IT system buying subset of the world's medical community then the subject isnt notable. If the low number of votes is because of the low patronage of these sites, then why are they being presented as evidence of significant coverage? Pit-yacker (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
45 votes from users of medical portals is a lot, don't downplay that. Dumol (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced one of the references (which could be seen as not reliable enough) with an academic reference, which lists PacientOS as being relevant among open-source EMR software over two years ago. PacientOS has seen much improvement since then, but I guess it's better to have a more reliable source, so I used this rather outdated report from the University of Cambridge.
As for the 'Nyaya Health Wiki', what does it matter that they use a wiki-type software 'to provide clinical and public health content to the public'? There is no open-to-all sign-up on their log-in page and the people that publish stuff on that site are professionals. Their English may not be great but it's not their native language.
So I'm calling on classifying this as 'notable' because 'the software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field' which is open-source electronic medical records. As required in WP:NSOFT. Thanks and sorry for misspellings and ignorance in regards to Wikipedia rules. Dumol (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whilst the Cambridge "Technical Reports" are a start, I think it needs to be noted that these do not appear to be "Peer Reviewed" articles. It appears the publication is an internal series published by the authors own institution. The following page notes that it is intended for "the long-term archival of results and descriptions that are not suitable for publication elsewhere, due to their length or nature". The primary author doesn't bother to list it in her list of publications. A google scholar search suggests only one of her real publications even mentions PatientOS at all. It appears to be a passing reference. However, I dont have access to verify this or the other publications. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised by the current situation. I myself currently work on an academic paper and an article for a medical informatics journal that will mention PatientOS among others. These documents will not be published on the Internet and are not going to be indexed by Google. The fact that PatientOS is a relative new-entry in the field of open-source EMR and the product of a single individual focused on his company doesn't help either. I just thought that PacientOS is missing from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_healthcare_software and that it should help others if I include it there and add a starting point for a dedicated article. That list of open-source healtcare software is pretty extensive and includes software that is less notable than PacientOS. Dumol (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I might suggest that if you have access to journal subscriptions, academic databases such as INSPEC, etc then you could do a search to find articles on the subject. Sources don't necessarily have to be publically available on the (free to access) Internet (and many of the most highly regarded journals arent free). They dont even have to be on the Internet at all - there have been occassions where I have had to go to a library to get information for an article - some books I have used are only available in a small number of libraries in the world. The references just have to be presented in a way such that someone reading this article would know where to go to verify the sources (i.e. Publication name, date, pages, author, etc).
If its the case that these sources don't exist yet, then I think its important to remember that Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and that a good proportion of research doesnt result in any notable application. However, if the page is deleted, there are options which may be available such as WP:Userfication. This might allow you to work on the article until such time as it is suitable for article space.Pit-yacker (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what do you mean by "a good proportion of research doesn't result in any notable application". PatientOS is a notable application by any standards, it is used in clinics and hospitals, there are third-party companies which offer commercial support for it, it is present at conferences etc. I have invested a bit of time in trying to do it some justice and include it in the relevant list of open-source EMR products on Wikipedia but it wasn't my intention to put more than a stub for PatientOS. I've just added two more academic references at PatientOS but this feels like overkill for a stub article. Dumol (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - So this stub article now references two academic papers, one book on the subject of Electronic Medical Records and an article written by a professional on an independent site. Is this notable enough? As required by WP:NSOFT 'the software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field' which is open-source EMR/HIS. Dumol (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The references are:
  1. a mention in a single sentence that this is one of three packages that the authors used to test a system
  2. a wiki entry that does have several lines on it, including noting that few if any folks are developing it
  3. a University of Cambridge "technical report" that does have about a page of material on it, and notes that the product is not yet finished, and the date for finishing not yet published
  4. The book Successfully Choosing Your EMR: 15 Crucial Decisions has three mentions in the text, and one in a grid comparing features of various software packages. Page 8 merely mentions it as an example of a package in its category ("Open source EMRs, such as PatientOS, which a one of the various incantations of the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA), are an alternative to be considered" - yes, it says "which a one"), page 162 mentions it once as part of a four-item list of products that meet certain criteria, then notes that none of the group are not legacy vendors and most would not be familiar to hospital IT folks. Page 362 is a single-sentence mention of PatientOS as one of two results that come up if you ask a certain system for certain criteria.
Item 1, while it serves fine as a reference for a specific fact, clearly does not denote notability. Item 2 is a wiki, albeit one editable by a private group; it is unclear to me what, if any, significance this carries; it is not yet clear to me if 3 is merely a formal but internal document; the mentions in 4 would certainly be too brief to establish notability on its own. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer if we debate this openly without distorting facts, I'll get to this in the following points:
  1. Item 1 proves that PatientOS matches HL7 requirements. How many EMR/HIS open-source solutions are able to claim that? This does help with establishing notability in the field of open-source EMR/HIS.
  2. Regarding Item 2, you are transcribing 'only has a few developers at most working on it' as 'noting that few if any folks are developing it'. Let's get this straight, PatientOS is actively developed and maintained and it had at least one active developer at any time in its history, it never was abandoned. The point with item 2 is that PatientOS is acknowledged as an 'EMR Option' by an independent group of professionals. Stop distorting this fact by saying it is a wiki, what difference does it make as long as it is only editable by its editors?
  3. Item 3 is a technical document that has an ISSN number of 1476-2986. Therefore it is not an internal document, as you say. The report is called 'Report on existing open-source electronic medical records' so the inclusion of PatientOS proves it is notable enough to be reviewed in this report. More so, it concludes that of the 12 solutions reviewed, only 3 were deemed 'appropriate for usage in a hospital intensive care' and PatientOS was among them already, two years ago! It mentions PatientOS was not finished at the moment and it is right, the current version at the time was 0.99. The current version is now 1.3, the software was marked as feature-complete by its developer at version 1.0, so yet another of your points are deemed irrelevant.
  4. Item 4 is a book on the subject of EMR that pits PatientOS against 30 other commercial alternatives. It uses about 42 different criteria for evaluating those solutions and the result is pretty good for PatientOS which AFAIK is the only open-source product in that list. Remarkably, only 4 of those 31 solutions are close to meeting MSP EHR Selector requirements and PatientOS is one of them. And MSP EHR Selector is not 'a certain criteria', it is a benchmark of around 700 criteria for assessing EMR solutions... So we have here, luckily available on the Internet, a book written by a couple of independent experts on the subject of EMR that proves PatientOS is notable by itself in competition with commercial alternatives. This proves PatientOS is a prominent option among the open-source EMR solutions, because they are typically behind in features compared to their commercial counterparts. QED!
The only thing you would be able to establish is that PatientOS is not a hot topic on the Internet. But why would it be? EMR/HIS is not something that many people are interested in, it is a specific medical informatics topic. I would rather argue in regards to PatientOS notability in the field of open-source EMR/HIS with someone knowledgeable or at least well-intended and not waste time in fighting half-truths and distortions. So, thank you Nat Gertler for your time and effort! Dumol (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks like this software is downloaded about 1200 times per month according to Sourceforge. That's actually very significant for an open source EMR package; this is equal to the GNU_Health project, which is an official GNU package. Does that have any impact on its notability? Bradygmiller (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The discussion here is not about the merits of PatientOS. It could be the best system out there, or it could be a complete turd. It doesn't matter. What matters is if it meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines which is usually referred to as "notability". This would be established by significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I am in agreement with Nat Gertler's assessment of the current sourcing. I'll add that my own searches for better sourcing have not turned up any significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not equal notability in a certain field with notability on the Internet. What we should establish is if PatientOS is a notable open-source EMR/HIS software. As per WP:NSOFT I think the already gathered info strongly shows that PatientOS is notable in its field. In Wikipedia, there is already a plethora of software suites listed in the dedicated page for open-source healthcare software. Granted, not all are that notable but if there's a place for open-source EMR/HIS in Wikipedia, then surely PatientOS should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumol (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per what I said previously and User:Whpq's comments. No one is talking about notability on the Internet. We are talking about notability in general. If there is significant coverage in reliable and independent sources anywhere (be it print, subscription based academic journals or on the general Internet) then the subject is notable. At that point Wikipedia should not lower its inclusion criteria for some subjects using reason such as "its free and Wikipedia must record all things that are free", "there aren't many sources on the Internet as its a specialist application", "there aren't many reliable sources because it is free" or "something similar is notable, therefore this must be", if only because it isn't necessary - something that is notable and/or "really that good" should attract coverage somewhere.Pit-yacker (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, but how did we get back to "no significant coverage in reliable and independent sources anywhere"? Can you contest what I have written in reply to Nat Gertler's argument in 4 points? Are those sources not reliable? Are they not independent? Is that coverage not significant enough? The Cambridge reports covers 12 open-source EMR/HIS and PatientOS was in the top three, two years ago. The book from 2010 covers about 40 EMR/HIS solutions and PatientOS seem to be the only open-source solution tested. More so, it comes out on top again when tested in a benchmark of 700 criteria. What coverage are you actually asking for? Dumol (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply I will point out that WP:NSOFT is an essay and not an official guideline or policy. I'll also go into a mini-rant on the use of the word "notability" on Wikipedia. It is perhaps an unfortunate choice of word to use as it taken in a pejorative sense when subjects are declared "non-notable". I deliberately used the term "inclusion guidelines" in my rationale for deletion. We are judging whether it a subject meets inclusion criteria in this discussion. The applicable guideline is WP:GNG, the general notability guideline in the absence of any other topic specific guidelines (and as I pointed out, WP:NSOFT is not an official guideline). I'll accept an argument that PatientOS has recognized merit in its field, but that needs to backed up with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. None of the sources offered so far represents such significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the general notability guideline for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The single paragraph in the cambridge report and passing mentions do not satisfy this. If this is an important piece of software, someone will eventually write about it, in detail, in a trade publication or book. – Pnm (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have actually written about this piece of software in detail in an academic paper last year but it probably will never be available on the Internet and it doesn't have an ISBN. Comparing PatientOS with the other open-source solutions listed in Wikipedia I find the current situation pretty sad. Some are much more notable per your rules (eg. FreeMED and OpenEMR) because of their long history but they are rather inferior to PatientOS in features. More so, other less-featured solutions from that list won't pass "inclusion guidelines" if submitted today, but there probably isn't enough manpower to actually make sure Wikipedia lives to its rules. So the whole picture of open-source EMR/HIS in Wikipedia gets distorted as a result of this 'deletionist' attitude that only applies to new entries. Dumol (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was it an academic paper in a peer reviewed journal? That would help to establish notability. I do agree with you that sometimes the coverage of things in Wikipedia isn't 'fair'. I know of several biographical articles on people that were created by their PR agents, and whose only notability seems to be the ability to meet our guidelines for notability. I am kind of at a loss on how to respond vis a vis the 'whole picture of open-source EMR/HIS in Wikipedia gets distorted'. A lot of things get distorted on crowdsourced projects (ie The Troubles, Israel / Palestine, Abortion) because people are editing for their own ends instead of trying to build a neutral account of the facts. What it comes down to is either you can work to make your project's the article's notability reflected in reliable sources to the current standards, or work to strengthen the guidelines for inclusion in this area, or WP:FORK and start your own crowdsourced list of open source healthcare software (which seems somewhat to have already been done on some of the sites cited in the article). Syrthiss (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you Syrthiss for your answer. Clarification needed: PatientOS is not my project. It just happened that I recently wrote my masters thesis on the subject of free software in the field of medical informatics with a focus on EMR software. However, my thesis received a bit of appreciation and as a consequence I was recently invited to write an article in a medical informatics journal on the subject of free software. I seriously consider to dedicate my article to PatientOS, this way the much-needed notability of my stub article on PatientOS will be self-fulfilled, it seems... :) Dumol (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
      • I think your masters thesis could be used as an external link if it were made available online (it would be better to suggest the link on the talk page than to add it yourself) but per WP:RS a masters thesis can't be used as a source unless it can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. It's not the first time I've seen this come up at Afd, and I regret that there isn't a good place to take informational content on open-source software which Wikipedia dismisses as non-notable or original research. I'd be interested in helping to coordinate collaboration between Wikipedia and such a project. However, expanding Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines to include such content would jeopardize WP:V and WP:NOR. These policies are essential for what Wikipedia is: an online encyclopedia. Rather than an exposition of all human knowledge, it's an exposition of human knowledge already published in reliable sources. When the article you're writing is published it would likely establish notability. Until then, why not ask to have the article moved out of main space to your user space (we call it userfy). – Pnm (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the whole text of this stub article is referenced from already published reliable sources. More so, those sources show that PatientOS is currently one of the best open-source EMR/HIS software suites. If there is a place in Wikipedia for info on open-source EMR, PatientOS should be listed and I think it deserves its own article. These assertions of mine do not require much knowledge in the field of EMR, just a bit of logic and some diligence in following up the references already included. However, if there is no place for open-source EMR solutions in Wikipedia, why don't you delete the list of open-source healthcare software and remove all the linked Wikipedia articles, there are already tens of them? Not that I would advice you so, I am not a deletionist. Dumol (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The wiki 2 does not qualify as a reliable source and should not be used to cite any facts in the article. The Romanian university article 1 – appears to be part of a book published by InTech. WP:SCHOLARSHIP asks that material be vetted by the scholarly community. InTech has an Editorial Board, but it's not clear that this is enough to qualify. The other two sources seem fine. (I noticed the article also plagiarizes its sources – three of these sentences are direct quotes.) – Pnm (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for your constructive criticism. I have re-edited the article trying to remove all traces of plagiarism. In regards to the wiki not qualifying as a reliable source, please see my reply to user A412 below. Thank you! Dumol (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Three of these sources do not fulfill our sourcing criteria:
  1. Passing mention.
  2. Wiki, not a WP:RS
  4. Another passing mention (The fact that it is open-source, although interesting, does not confer special privileges onto it.
But the third one does, as per the WP:GNG. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The mention is clearly not trivial (that would be a passing mention, while this is really a case study). A412 (Talk * C) 02:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The first passing mention assesses PatienOS as meeting HL7 certification. That is not something many open-source EMR software can claim.
  2. The Wiki is not a publicly editable one, what difference does it make that a group of professionals from Nepal uses a Wiki-type publishing system as long as its only editable by themselves? Nyaya Health operates a hospital and mobile medical care services in Achham, a large district in Nepal. That is a reliable, independent source. I know their English blows, mine is not great either, but they are professionals, please do not downplay their notes on PatientOS just because they use a Wiki-type publishing system.
  3. The mentions in the book on choosing an EMR solution acknowledge that PatientOS was tested against 40 different criteria, that it fairs well compared to its commercial counterparts and that when tested against the MSP EHR Selector (which consists of 700 criteria) it is one of only four to be almost feature complete when all 46 specialties are asserted. This amounts to much more than just a passing mention Dumol (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage should generally be in multiple sources. This is especially necessary here because the single paragraph is on the borderline, barely significant coverage. – Pnm (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my above arguments. Thank you! Dumol (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain why these do not meet sourcing criteria for you, Dumol:
  1. Even if PatientOS is the most amazing, unique software in the world, Wikipedia relies on inclusion guidelines: WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N. This is simply a passing mention, which does not count per WP:GNG.
  2. Because it is a wiki, we don't know who wrote the content. While it may be in fact true, this would not fall under WP:RS.
  3. Again, being open-source confers no special notability on PatientOS. A412 (Talk * C) 15:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Thank you for responding! However, I find it amusing to hear "because it is a wiki, we don't know who wrote the content". We use Wikipedia, I suppose we all know what a wiki is and how it functions when it's edited by private editors only... Weren't it better if it were a static page on nyayahealth.org? The editors say on the front page of the wiki: "We use this page to collaborate, upload files, and organize among our team members, and to provide clinical and public health content to the public. We hope that by publishing our operations in an open-access format, we can contribute to the growing community of practitioners working to improve global health delivery." And who is Nyaya Health? "Nyaya Health operates a hospital and mobile medical care services in Achham, a large district in Nepal" from http://www.nyayahealth.org . So, why is this not a reliable independent source on EMR software?
I think you got me wrong in regards to the book. The book is on the subject of choosing an EMR and it was written by a couple of independent professionals. So it is reliable and independent, AFAICT. Those professionals tested PatientOS against tens of criteria, please see page 386. This is not just a passing mention, they took the time to test PatientOS and they got tens of results, listed in the table on page 386. Besides mentioning that PatientOS is open-source, they have also tested PatientOS against the MSP EHR Selector, which is a benchmark of 700 criteria. Granted they didn't mention all those criteria in the book for every product because this is a well-known standard in this field. But qualifying this as 'just a mention' is like saying: Oh, look, in this book on baroque composers it says Bach is at least as great as Haendel ever was. But it only mentions Bach three times, so why bother? Haendel is still celebrated by anyone, while Bach is an almost unknown composer. (Please realize, Bach really was an almost forgotten composer for almost a century, he probably wouldn't have qualified as notable by your standards back in those days...). Dumol (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nyayahealth.org is a health organization, not a publisher. It would be considered a primary source. It could be used as a reliable source on itself – for example, to cite a statement saying which EMR it uses. Notability is about coverage, not attention or importance. It doesn't matter how much time the authors spent looking at it, it depends what they actually wrote about it. And according to that book PatientOS wasn't even finished at the time it was written. It reads like they were evaluating the specification for the software, predicting what it would become, and saying that it was off to a good start. – Pnm (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. In the very same page the Nyaya Health editors say Nyaya has currently customized a version of PatientOS for testing at its site. Moreso, at http://www.globalgiving.org/pfil/2286/projdoc.pdf they say Our clinical forms are downloadable from http://nyayahealth.pbwiki.com/Clinical_Records. We have customized the open-source PatientOS software (http://www.patientos.org/) for the electronic medical record that we are starting to use at both at the Sanfe Bagar Clinic and at the Bayalpata hospital. So, happy now? :)
And I think you are confusing the book on choosing an EMR with the Cambridge tech report that found PatientOS 0.99 not quite complete despite being one of the only three appropriate for usage in a hospital care and the only one to meet the 6-point clinical vision of the EVIdence group out of 12 open-source EMR tested two years ago. That amounts to much more that just a good start. In the mean time, PatientOS has continued its development and has reached version 1.30. Dumol (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my above arguments in reply to A412. Thank you! Dumol (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The coverage is sufficient for the subject. In this field, blogs and forums can be an exception to our usual rules on sourcing. We have to go with the way the RW covers the material. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Shall we do the same for other topics which are only occasionally covered in our usual RS's but are amply discussed on primary source or user-contributed-content sites, personal web pages, blogs, and Twitter, like Internet memes, viral videos, high school sports, or local restaurants? Shall we throw away WP:V and WP:N and just say, "if you think the topic is important, the material is on the Internet, and you think the material is trustworthy, the material can go in Wikipedia?" – Pnm (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
to a certain extent, yes I think the nature of the sources, but not the basic requirement for sourcing, can be modified according to topic. I think that's the case for some computer software, and for small political and religious groups, and for creative people in some countries . As most of you know, I do not extend it to topics of local interest, and have never supported articles on any but the most famous local restaurants or high school personalities. Internet memes is a specially difficult topic to judge--so much of it is nonsense, but I'm inclined to be flexible here also. On the other hand, I'd be more inclined to be stricter on topics where there is over-aggressive press coverage, like society figures, and those in many sports and some types of musical endeavors. The criteria should match the customary sources, not a Procrustean rule that seems almost designed to give the present weirdly disproportionate topic coverage. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:As previously discussed WP:NSOFT is a guideline. Personally, I don't like this idea that we should lower the inclusion criteria for some subjects with rationale such as "open source/free software doesnt attract coverage in mainstream sources". It sets a dangerous precedent for other subjects. I'm also inclined to suggest it isn't true, especially when you consider that some free software has whole books devoted to it. ~In my opinion the rationale is an excuse to justify keeping articles on non-notable subjects. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my above arguments in reply to A412. Sorry for all the spamming, I'm a beginner when it comes to debating in Wikipedia's talk pages. Thank you! Dumol (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To all Wikipedians who might happen to come across... I am not familiar with all the intricacies of Wikipedia and I am getting tired of this. It also seems none of you is into open-source healthcare software or EMR in general and this makes it even more frustrating for me. So at least help me solve this cognitive dissonance, please.

My reason for adding this stub article was that if there is a place in Wikipedia for open-source EMR, there should be a place for PatientOS. And there are plenty of software suites listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_source_healthcare_software, EMR being the largest section there. Maybe you are right and there is no place for PatientOS in Wikipedia and it is not notable enough by your standards. But why keep all the tens of articles on open-source healthcare software mentioned in the aforementioned list then? I think most of them wouldn't pass your draconian notability rules if submitted today...

If someone looks at the EMR section of open-source healthcare software as it looks today he/she gets a distorted picture on open-source EMR because one of the best options is missing, namely PatientOS. What I have already referenced in the stub article proves this and if you find a reliable recent study on open-source EMR that shows PatientOS is not one of the best I promise to buy you beer and have it delivered by your door. So why keep all that cruft and reject one of the best options in open-source EMR when Wikipedia's coverage on open-source EMR is so extensive? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumol (talk • contribs) 19:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our goal to be a recommendation engine, to chronicle what is most wonderful. There are probably plenty of unknown musicians who are better than (insert the name of your least favorite teen pop sensation here) who do not have articles when (inserted name) does, What we're wresting here is a question of notability (in its strange Wikipedian sense of notedness), not of quality. This is actually a fairly poor venue for recommending products, there are certainly many better - and it sounds like you are working to publicize the product in a more appropriate venue, which is good. Are there other packages covered here which do not deserve such coverage? Probably. If anyone tells you that Wikipedia is perfect, giggle. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not daring to hope Wikipedia will ever be perfect. It's just that it is beyond unfair to have so many obscure packages included in the aforementioned list of open-source healthcare software and not have PatientOS, which is one of the best products in this field, as acknowledged in (what I think are) reliable sources. Disclaimer: I am not involved in any way with PatientOS or its creator, I just happened to know a bit about free software in the field of EMR, having wrote a master thesis on this very subject, which also touches PatientOS among other five software suites. Dumol (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I find it unfit to compare software suites the way you compare pop musicians. The recognition of pop musicians is very subjective, so I understand the need for extensive coverage. But we have a few reliable sources that assess PatientOS as one of the best in the field of open-source EMR by evaluating it using some pretty significant standards in the field: HL7, the 6-point clinical vision of the EVIdence group and the MSP EHR Selector. PatientOS also comes on top when benchmarked against other 11 open-source EMR (in the Cambridge tech report) or 40 other EMR (in the book on successfully choosing an EMR). That is something that fits the first criteria in WP:NSOFT: The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. I think the book on choosing an EMR, the Cambridge technical report and the notes in the Nyaya wiki do qualify as reliable sources and all three of them show (directly or indirectly) that PatientOS is one of the best free software EMR suites currently available. Is that not significant enough in the field of open-source EMR? Dumol (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it seems pretty unfair considering a lot of the other applications out there. From another person heavily involved in open source EMR's, my initial impression is that any EMR that garners 1200+ downloads a month on sourceforge is important, but after reading others input, now agree this isn't equal to being "notable" by wikipedia standards. The things that do strike me as odd about this open source EMR project are barely any forum or mailing list activity, the lacking of a current public code repository and the apparent tight binding of the software with a "independent" company. If this article does stay, then would like to see these type of things discussed.Bradygmiller (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right on spot. PatientOS is open-source and free-software in a way more akin to Android, being developed almost exclusively by a company, with public releases from time to time. This doesn't disqualify it as FLOSS, the code is available from SourceForge and it is licensed under the terms of GPL version 3. But the way PatientOS is developed, not much noise is generated on the Internet. As for notability, as far as I understand WP:NSOFT, PatientOS would qualify, please see the comment I have just inserted above yours. Thank you! Dumol (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


After consulting WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N in addition to WP:NSOFT, I am resuming here, to the best of my understanding of these guides, the status of the four references from the PatientOS article:

1. A study on RFID Technology in eHealth that only has a passing mention of PatientOS which acknowledges that it is compatible with the HL7 standard and therefore it was used in a series of tests besides two other EMR solutions. This source, although reliable, doesn't have significant coverage of PatientOS, indeed. But it hints PatientOS is not just any open-source EMR suite, given its HL7 compliance.
2. Nyaya Health's notes on EMR options. This amounts to a passing note saying Nyaya has currently customized a version of PatientOS for testing at its site and a list of bullet points that summarizes the characteristics of PatientOS, this section representing a significant proportion of their notes on EMR options. Although this site uses a wiki-type software, it cannot be edited externally so it is not an open wiki as per WP:SPS, contrary to what someone started to insinuate above. The wiki is being used by Nyaya Health to collaborate, upload files, and organize among our team members, and to provide clinical and public health content to the public[7]. What is Nyaya? Nyaya Health operates a hospital and mobile medical care services in Achham, a large district in Nepal[8]. As published in a more recent document, Nyaya Health is now using this EMR suite and customized the open-source PatientOS software (http://www.patientos.org/) for the electronic medical record that we are starting to use at both at the Sanfe Bagar Clinic and at the Bayalpata hospital[9]. Although not explicit in their notes, it is evident that they have only considered open-source options. This seems to be a reliable source, with significant coverage of the subject of open-source EMR which suggests PatientOS is one of the best in its particular field. As per WP:NSOFT: it is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown.
3. The Report on existing open-source electronic medical records] from the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory. This 12 page tech report on 12 open-source EMR suites dedicates about a page to PatientOS and concludes that it is one of the only three appropriate for usage in a hospital care and the only one to meet the 6-point clinical vision of the EVIdence group. This source has an ISSN number of 1476-2986 and it is not an internal document, as the same someone has suggested above. The source is reliable, the coverage is significant and the conclusions show that PatientOS was prominent in the field of open-source EMR two years ago, although the three authors note that PatientOS is not yet finished. In February 2010, the publication date of their report, the current version of PatientOS was indeed 0.99. The first mature version of PatientOS (1.2) was launched a year later, in February 2011. The current version is 1.3, launched in August 2011.
4. Successfully choosing your EMR a book by Gash, Arthyr and Gash, Betty published by Wiley-Blackwell with an ISBN number of 978-1-4443-3214-8. This book assesses PatientOS and 40 other commercial EMR using 42 criteria, the matrix with the results is published at page 384 and following. The results indicate that PatientOS holds its own against commercial alternatives. More so, when tested against the MSP EHR Selector, PatientOS is found to be one of only four (out of a total of 41 EMR options) that come close to meeting MSP EHR Selector™ requirements when 46 specialties are asserted. As required by WP:SPS, the source is reliable, a couple of independent experts in the field of healthcare software writing on the subject of EMR in a book published by the respectable Wiley-Blackwell publishing house, which specializes on medical subjects among others. The coverage is pretty consistent given all the tests against which PatientOS was asserted. As required per WP:NSOFT, the results indicate that PatientOS is significant in the field of EMR even when pitted against 40 commercial alternatives.

I hope you reconsider your options now that I have better explained the reasons for adding the PatientOS article, this time hopefully using the complete and rather elaborate set of Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. I thank all who have challenged this article in good faith and give special thanks to all who have directed me to the inclusion guidelines. I'm not happy about wasting 10 times more time learning the intricacies of these guides than it took to actually add and improve the article on PatientOS. But I don't easily quit a cause if I believe in it. And if there is place for open-source EMR in Wikipedia, there should be an entry for PatientOS too, I do believe that.

Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated in any way with PatientOS or the company behind it. It just happens that I have recently wrote my masters thesis on the subject of free software EMR and I have also examined PatientOS among five other free software EMR options so I'm pretty confident in regards to its current significance in the field of open-source EMR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumol (talk • contribs) 19:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point about the Cambridge Report is chiefly that it does not appear to be peer reviewed - as one might expect such an academic article to have been. I will repeat the quote from the home page of said series which says "the long-term archival of results and descriptions that are not suitable for publication elsewhere, due to their length or nature". The fact that the article isnt long (The reports usually seem to consist of a several hundred page articles "based" on a student's PhD thesis) suggests here it wasnt published elsewhere for other reasons (because it wasn't suitable for a peer reviewed publication???). That leaves me with a problem as it tends to suggest that the research community might have had a problem with the research. I will also repeat my note that the author doesn't mention it in her publications list. So I'm left assuming she doesnt regard either/or the paper or the series as a serious publication. I might suggest that by "internal document" I actually meant one that has zero or no following outside current members of said Lab and alumni. That aside, I wouldn't object to its use as a reference, IF there was more coverage in other equally strong or stronger sources. The problem is, as is, it is the strongest source by some distance.
As I said yesterday, I have problems with some of the rationale put forward in WP:NSOFT and AfD for other Open Source software. In my opinion the rationale that inclusion criteria should be lowered to "reflect lack of coverage of the sector", is somewhat false. Numerous free and open source projects and applications have numerous books written about them. It leaves me thinking that the rationale is an excuse to keep articles on non-notable subjects.Pit-yacker (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply It seems your previous comment on this topic escaped my attention. I was actually referring to Nat Gertler who said that the Cambridge report is merely a formal but internal document. You have said that it appears the publication is an internal series, which at least leaves room for doubt. Well, one thing is for certain, it is not an internal document. The rest is just speculation, we don't know why it wasn't published in a journal and peered reviewed and why one of the three authors does not list this report in her publications list.
As for open-source EMR being a non-notable subject for Wikipedia, I am not willing to debate this. FTR, I am strongly leaning to being an inclusionist. But as long as there is a list of open-source EMR in Wikipedia, I believe there is a case for mentioning PatientOS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumol (talk • contribs) 21:13, 2 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

City Centre Coalition

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

This coalition exists, but a review of gnews and gbooks fails to yield multiple substantial non-passing references to it in RSs. Epeefleche (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Seem to be a group of letter writers which, unfortunately for the transport users of Ottawa, has attracted little notice. No-one has even bothered to update the link to their smart new website. Definitely no evidence of notability. Sionk (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomika Skanes

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

Vanity piece. Its only links are to personal sites. All I could dig up were press releases and Wiki mirrors; when I tried verifying interviews in magazines listed in the article, I couldn't even verify that these magazines exist, let alone that they're significant.

Article was previously AfD'd w/ no consensus. The "keep" votes (when they weren't I like it arguments) were based on her being a dancer/model in several notable music videos, which seems minor to me.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  23:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samaggi Games

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

Zero in gnews. Zero in gbooks. Zero refs. Zero independent ELs. Perhaps this article subject is non-notable. Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Cup of Coffee (book)

[edit]
A Cup of Coffee (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero refs -- for which it has been tagged for 3 years. Lacks substantial RS coverage in gnews or gbooks. Tagged for notability 2 years ago. Epeefleche (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  23:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Revolutionary Students Guild

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this students guild, in either English or Spanish, with or without the apostrophe following "Students". Zero refs. Tagged for that malady, and for being an orphan, for 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - can't find anything online that isn't a WP mirror. If someone does find something, or a Liberal revolution (whatever that is) takes place on the campuses of Honduras, then this stub could be quickly re-created! Sionk (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mulberry Chemicals

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

Unremarkable chemical company. Previously deleted at AfD for being, well, unremarkable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, agree with nom, fails notability guideline. FYI declined G4 speedy because the main deletion reason on the first AfD was spam and contributed by a blocked user. None of these apply here. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 18:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I would like to enlighten the users that there was note left on talk page i.e. [[10]] before creation asking for permission for creation of the said article. Also if people have noticed there was a note on the article saying [This is an article recently created by a new user. More editing may be needed to meet standards, but please be courteous and assume good faith, and consider leaving a constructive message on the creator's talk page if large changes need to be made.] The consideration of joining Wikipedia was taken after the blackout and support request last week, but if this is the treatment to articles I have completely misunderstood the concept of free will.

Also coming to Notability Issues the firm is a US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) recognised and narcotic raw material (controlled substance) manufacturer in India. There are very few in world. The companies like Dow Chemicals and Sigma-Aldrich are related. That serves the purpose. Also the main issue of earlier mentioned on deletion was - creation by a banned or blocked user. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| - and not notability. I would leave the argument with rest of users to decide. Good Day X*chemistry nerd (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you are clearly not a "new user". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mmm....chemicals. Mulberry chemicals. (And they could call themselves a solution provider and mean it.) The claim of DEA approval probably gets them to a claim of minimal importance, but unfortunately all the sources given are press releases and PR material, and both Google News and Books draw a blank on "Mulberry Chemicals". They also draw a blank on REVIB, which I gathered was a former business that Mulberry got its DEA permits by buying out. I also googled शहतूत रसायन निजी सीमित - nothing again. I just don't see any reliable independent sources here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment. Google scholar shows student research - [[11]] and books show cross border history [[12]]. But ofcourse I am not concluding a effective keep or even delete.X*chemistry nerd (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETED as hoax. postdlf (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hollyhurst

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

The article is probably a hoax. It has no sources, it can't be found on a map, and Google brings no results for a village of this name in Dorset (which is surprising considering it's supposedly "famous for its high murder rate"). Barret (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to A. P. Herbert. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Haddock

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

pseudonym article, where article about actual person already exists. Redirected. Reverted by creator. Content should be merged and redirected. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this is why people kinda give up editing Wikipedia. There is some information in that article, and actually other contributors have come in and added more, that make Wikipedia better by providing better search and more information. It isn't at the moment but this morning it was a redlink and searching by Google or Wikipedia's search for "Albert Haddock" would not lead you to A. P. Herbert.
Are we here to make the encyclopaedia better or worse?
In the end, it should be a redirect to A. P. Herbert but not right now, because the links I and others have made to the work that APH did, via his döppelganger Albert Haddock, are written in law. Someone just change my redlink to a DAB page for the Matrimonial Law Act, and then I could improve on that and change it to the specific Matrimonial Law Act
It seems to me obviously in time Albert Haddock should be incorporated and become part of that article. But to go deleting content without ANY consensus, this is the first time here at AFD there has been a chance to argue it, not been said on my user page, and not in the article page (you only have to look at the history) seems ridiculous, and also infuriating. I am here to make things better not worse.
So my goal was to merge the content intto A. P. Herbert then redirect, but it is not complete enough for that now (but still useful enough to be a good search term). But this kinda crosses so many boundaries because I imagine the proposer will then complain about a merge, and complain about a redirect, or complain about the sun not shining on them today. The thing is, try to make Wikipedia better
Si Trew (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you just add that content in as a subsection on the main article, and create a redirect? You did all the work from scratch anyway, why not just do it in the right place? The redirect (and the content in the right location) would satisfy any internal search, or google search quite well. There are specific policies in place talking about the duplication and forking of articles, so rather than accusing me of not doing the right thing, you should perhaps take a look at the policies regarding article creation to begin with. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already redirected and it was reverted. Merge/redirect are valid results from AFD, and there is no consensus saying that this is not a valid avenue for discussion. There is in fact a large discussion regarding the appropriateness of AFD for merge/redirect issues in the AFD talk page currently. The page is (imo) in clear opposition to the standards, and no pre-consensus is required. WP:BRD (guess which part we are in now?) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously - my concern was more that we jumped from "Revert" straight to AFD, with no intervening discussion - or even attempts at discussion. The talk page is a redlink, for example. And here we have Si Trew agreeing with you - he planned to merge over and redirect, but thought that the material wasn't ready. In discussion, you might have caught that - and given him a day to finish it off, helped him userfy it, or whatever. I think this could have been handled better. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't ready to be a section of an existing article, then it certainly isn't ready to be a separate article and should be in user space. (although I disagree that it isn't ready actually. I think it would make a fine subsection of the main article) Frankly I think I'm being generous with the AFD, since I believe it probably qualifies for CSD under A10. The redirect did not lose any of his work, the text was all there waiting for him to take it out of history and put it where it belongs in the real article or in a userfied article to work on later. Yes, this could probably be handled better (by me, and by him) but frankly, 9 times out of 10, if you go the extra mile on the wiki, you get someone who thinks you are violating their rights and censoring them every time you suggest things. So I am becoming a bit jaded on it. The people that are reasonable take it to some sort of discussion, and it all works out in the end. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editors jaded? On Wikipedia? No, I don't believe it. But I get where you're coming from, and support a Merge and Redirect as you propose. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Clearly this should be merged and redirected. We do not have multiple articles on the same topic. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge Merging seems to be the sensible course here. It does not make sense to just redirect is there is material worth including in the hope that someone will drag it out it later from the old history. We merge, and for a dispute where merge is one of the possibilities, AfD is a reasonable place to get a conclusion. We're NOT BURO. Any place is a good place, it if gets the right results. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 1 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) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Mahone

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

No official or promotional work released, no record deal yet. Just a YouTube star whose success is slowly rising - I think it's too early for him to have a page. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 17:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Based on meeting WP:GNG. Whether he has "official" or "promotional" work released is irrelevant in this regard, his notability is not based on that. He has received widespread regional as well some U.S. and international press coverage. The AP ran a nationwide (US) story on him in November 2011. He has charted as high already as No. 28 on the Billboard Social 50 chart (ETA: whoops he's actually sitting at No. 25 now, after 9 weeks on the chart [13]), which is essentially a chart which documents the cultural popularity of performers, finding those which are legitimately popular vs. baloney "he's big on youtube" claims which I loathe as much as any editor. The Billboard chart is meant to lessen the import of subjective arguments of "its too early" or "he's not really big in my high school" stuff. As the article creator, I was careful to make sure he was notable before creating this, as numerous "fangirl" type attempts to create articles on him had been speedily deleted as crap in prior months. Though not dispositive, the subject's popularity is also confirmed by the page views of the article, e.g., 20598 views in the past 30 days.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He still hasn't got a record deal yet, I think it's too early for this kid to have his own page. If this page will be kept, then every Beauty and the Geek contestant should have an article as well. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 18:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beauty and the Geek? I have no idea what that is, I'm not endorsing an article on my old chemistry teacher because he showed up on a game show once. You've yet to really articulate a policy-based rationale for deletion.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure in a year no one will remember who he is, and if he won't get a deal, I don't think he'll meet the criteria anymore. Beauty and the Geek is a TV programme btw. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 20:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your bet and raise you one Chris Crocker :-). --Milowent • hasspoken 22:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She's done a lot in her life so far though. Austin has just a few videos with more than 1,000,000 views, and mainly middle schoolers know him. I don't think there should be an article about him on an encyclopeadia, nothing against him, I just don't see his relevance yet. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 20:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just Watch Me (album)

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

    Poorly sourced page about an album which seems like it's never going to be released (the article has been here since 2007). ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 17:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland) Events 2012

    [edit]
    Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland) Events 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Wikipedia is not a TV guide or has articles about a non-notable events list like this. Furthermore, this seems to be valid for G12 G11, as the tone seems promotional, but I am not sure, so I am taking it to AFD. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 17:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't a TV Guide. If you want I can not delete news so it's more of an archive. Disney Channel (UK & Ireland) Events is the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylansTVChannel (talk • contribs) 17:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for pointing out another definite AfD candidate in that Disney Channel article (which can be found here). My gosh, that thing might as well have disneychannel.co.uk's Flash page banner on top of it. Nate • (chatter) 22:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    — Note to closing admin: DylansTVChannel (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 17:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Vladimir Kush

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

    This subject meets neither WP:BASIC notability requirements, nor any of the alternative qualities under WP:ARTIST. I searched and initially found book hits encouraging, but discovered mostly trivial mention, advertizing, and illustration credits. None of the existing sources are WP:RS that could establish notability: one's selling the subject's work, another is the subject himself, and a third is a blog. JFHJr (㊟) 23:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, that encyclopedia uses Wikipedia as a source. Whatever Russian source may have been on ru.wiki was deleted for failing notability. Obviously, that decision is not binding here. Even considering the cite, how does this make multiple, reliable third party sources? JFHJr (㊟) 07:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments on that deletion discussion are very poor. Just a quick google search and I found helpful information; you just need to search more deeper, and of course only on Russian sites.--♫GoP♫TCN 19:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • it says in your link "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" i think the sources on the article do that now. you are free to disagree but i dont think it needs to be discussed. Bouket (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • also can you please stop removing material from the page right after i add it. can you let someone else without interest in deleting this page go over it instead. Bouket (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:BLPSPS for reasons that self-publications should not entail self-serving claims as to notability, education, and third parties to name a few. JFHJr (㊟) 22:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    the link you give says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". the book and probably the web site are written or published by the subject and they agree with each other Bouket (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And the very next section: Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. JFHJr (㊟) 22:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    then you should only remove the parts of that section that the bold sections you listed refer to. Bouket (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    however since it is in contention you probably should leave it. an experienced wiki editor said this and i think it applies here [14] " I refer you to WP:BRD, which is not policy, but is a widely accepted essay. You made a Bold edit by removing the "In popular culture" section, I disagreed with that edit, and I Reverted it. The next step in the process is Discussion, and it was well that you initiated it here. However, you don't get to continue reverting to your preferred version during the discussion, which you have done. I have returned the article to the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing, until consensus or compromise can be reached" Bouket (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed your restoration. Material that is not properly sourced cannot be kept in an article, even during an AfD discussion. If editors want to look at the material, they can do so through the history.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    problem is that much of what you removed is sourced properly. Bouket (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's clearly not sourced properly. From a technical viewpoint you should never just add bare urls, you need to do a full cite which for books includes author, title, publisher, publishing date, ISBN and page number. The publisher of one of your sources (and I shouldn't have had to follow an url to find this out) was Books on Demand, self-published so not a reliable source (have you read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY let alone WP:BLP? The date on the link which is supposed to show current ownership of shops was 2003. I also couldn't see anything on the snippet to back the claim. Then there's the one line mention in a tourist magazine trying to draw tourists to a shopping area, again not a reliable source, do you really expect it have anything but praise? A trivial mention in a guidebook doesn't belong in the article either. I couldn't even be bothered with the useless link to an 'encyclopedia' - didn't the ads give it away? If you really want to use that encyclopedia you'd have to show it was a reliable source by our criteria and not, for instance, one of the many online wiki type encyclopedias that we never use. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, forgot about the mention in a book which is a reliable source but the fact that she says a student teacher used Kush's work doesn't belong in a bio, it's far too trivial - that paragraph was not about Kush but about how the teacher was teaching. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all your work, Doug. Let's keep in mind, Bouket doesn't think the issue needs to be discussed; trivial mentions and deceptive prose make this subject notable (laugh). I hope the closing admin will fully discount Bouket's !keep vote. JFHJr (㊟) 16:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did check in Russian. I didn't find much coverage that struck me as RS, let alone substantial coverage by RS. I also had a look at the three publications linked to above. The first, lookatme.ru, is probably not RS, most likely a blog/SPS, as it posts user contributions as long as they're registered (see section 5) and appears to exercise little editorial oversight; here's the author's profile. The second, on runyweb.com, is an interview. What the subject has to say about himself is probably not entirely reliable in an RS/WP:BLPSPS way. It contains self-serving claims as well as claims involving third parties, including the CIA. I couldn't find any information on the editorial practices of the third source, peoples.ru; normally there's information more readily available. I'll note that it says he has Sudanese citizenship, and that he was born in Moscow AND Sudan, though the prose generally closely mirrors statements made by the subject about himself. Though it's less clear cut than the previous two, I'm inclined to say it's probably not reliable. If you read Russian, please take a look and let me know if you disagree. JFHJr (㊟) 23:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am surprised about this error... --♫GoP♫TCN 16:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, I knew there was more information, but as I said you need to look more deeper. Keep as per Voceditenore's great research.--♫GoP♫TCN 10:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks!--♫GoP♫TCN 10:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tertiary source coverage in the Great Russian Encyclopedia – link here (in Russian, use translator if necessary). This source does not appear to be a Wikipedia mirror whatsoever. The source in the article is listed as "Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2009" (translated from Russian to English).
    • Coverage in trustworthy, reliable sources:
    • Significant coverage in the Sedona Rock News – link here
    • Significant coverage – Greg Stacy (2007-06-07). "Sunshine Surrealist". OC Weekly. Retrieved 2012-01-26.
    • Significant coverage – "Something Once Known, Something Once Dreamed". The New Mexican. October 13–19, 2006. Retrieved January 26, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
    • (subscription required) Paywalled coverage in World and I – link here
    —Northamerica1000(talk) 12:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody said it was a mirror. Have a look here to see that 1) this publisher uses Wikipedia as a source, and 2) the source given is so non-specific that it matches several "Encyclopedic Dictionary" sources at the link. What information there matches the deleted ru.wikipedia article I don't know for certain because I'm not a ru.wikipedia admin. JFHJr (㊟) 22:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If you mean the "Whalers Museum" in Maui, I think the article is referring to the Whalers Village Museum ([21]), which is part of a mall and probably not notable (a Google News search comes up with a few articles about, uh, the teeth that are/were at the museum). And his work isn't part of any collection. He apparently painted some murals for them (I assume on their walls).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I would agree with Bbb23's view of the Whaler's Village Museum. Probably the closest he comes to having his work in a permanent collection is the NaPua Gallery (now part of the Grand Wailea resort).
    "Vibrant glass pieces by internationally known artist Dale Chihuly are prominently displayed in the resort's NaPua Gallery, as are prints and an original painting by Russian-born surrealist Vladimir Kush, who lives within walking distance of the resort." (See this reprint of a 2010 article in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser)
    Let's face it, the NaPua Gallery is hardly MoMA. However, my basis for keeping is that the other coverage (4 lengthy articles devoted to him and his work + a paragraph in the review of a larger exhibition) in reliable secondary sources, scrapes a pass per Wikipedia:BASIC. The criteria at Wikipedia:ARTIST are supplemental criteria and a subject failing to meet them may still be notable under BASIC, although arguably he also meets [3] under those supplemental ones. Voceditenore (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. If there's any parent company page to which this needs to be redirected, please do so. Currently, deleted Wifione Message 12:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sonovista Publicidad S.A.

    [edit]
    Sonovista Publicidad S.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Lacks substantial coverage in RSs. Created by a one-article-only-ever SPA. Tagged for notability for over 1 year. Epeefleche (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, not enough coverage available to meet notability. GNews brings a couple of articles [22] [23], but the coverage is focused on the founders and on the parent company Olímpica S.A., and Sonovista Publicidad is just mentioned in passing. I can't find anything to support the claim that it is the main advertising company in the Caribbean Region of Colombia, and nothing on the P&M Magazine ranking either — Frankie (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • merge/redirect for now to the parent company. It is not likely that Google would find sources for an advertising agency in Columbia, so finding nothing there is not really an adequate search--but until someone does better, it'll do best merged. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-English-speaking companies, or more to the point those who are not reflected on google sources (whatever the language), are less likely to have RS sourcing available to many of us that meets our verifiability requirements. Happily, we do have a number of Colombian companies that have articles, but over time I expect this will increase to more comprehensive levels than those that we now cover.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query. This article (as it stands) has zero text that is supported by any ref, let alone an RS ref (though it does have an EL). Under such circumstances, is it policy to move un-referenced text (as suggested above) that does not pass our verifiability standard into another article? Just wondering. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The text of the article is all uncited, and challenged. Per WP:CHALLENGED, it requires inline citations. In the absence of them, I can't see merging such text without violating our core policy of wp:v. At the same time, I agree that it should not be as a stand-alone article.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:36, 1 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) 00:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:32, 16 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, Deryck C. 16:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Wifione Message 12:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Tommy Golden

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

    Heavily promotional article, written by an SPA whom I have to suspect is an associate if not the subject himself, about a paranormalist. There are of course no definite independent sources. Searching for this fellow is hellishly difficult but I didn't turn up anything that encouraged me to more extensive searching. Mangoe (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. I've closely read the comments of both the oppose !votes and the keep ones. While the personal statements weren't appreciated, the effort to save the article has been appreciated. Yet, as much as I personally believe that Gun Nutz may have a significant impact on gun politics, the sources that I perceive out here are either unreliable or flatly questionable, with a conflict of interest on the topic being reported. Irrespective, I cannot deny that the rough consensus here does stand for delete. At the same time, I personally should wish to allow Juno to save the article. Therefore, while I'm deleting this article, in case Juno wishes a copy of the article on their talk page, I'll be more than open to provide that so that the article can be built using reliable sources after taking feedback of established editors (perhaps in the Article Rescue Squadron, where editors did reject the notability worthiness of this article) on the quality of sources. Wifione Message 12:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Canadian Gun Nutz

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

    While certainly a well-linked-to site from certain chat forums and boards, I have been unable to find reliable sources indicating notability for this Canadian firearms website. Fails to meet WP:WEB. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: to administrator reviewing this afd. The editor Shawn in Montreal that started this afd has admitted below that he does not like firearms and is biased against the webforum "Canadian Gun Nutz". In addition, this afd goes against the Wikipedia policy of PRESERVE. Thank you. JunoBeach (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I said nothing of the kind. Regardless of my feelings about firearms, I have no bias against retaining this or any article if the subject is notable. Think about it: if "Gun Nutz" is so influential, why wouldn't I want an objective article about it, if only to document its influence? Other editors in support of this article have made positive suggestions on how it may be kept, I continue to urge you to focus your efforts there, and not on personally attacking me. I've tried to shrug off these comments but enough is enough: I've issued Juno a warning. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    — Note to closing admin: JunoBeach (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep... the Turf Mark Holland campaign found here http://www.turfmholland.ca/ originated at Canadian Gun Nutz. Note that CGN is also linked at the TMH page. There are numerous threads at CGN discussing this campaign, as well as CGN member's donations of cash, and time to the campaign of Mark Holland's opponent (and eventual victor) Chris Alexander.

    The Coalition for Gun Control referenced CGN in a news release http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Releases/HandoutElection2011.pdf, and mentioned CGN's involvement with the Chris Alexander campaign. 45.70 FTW (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.70 FTW (talk • contribs) 07:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC) — 45.70 FTW (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


    Just another link mentioning CGN. http://www.canada.com/news/Fredericton+registry+targets+toys+critics+complain/6064023/story.html Casual T .30-06 (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Blogs are not reliable sources. Mtking (edits) 05:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguments to avoid: WP:JUSTABLOG. If there's evidence that the Coalition for Gun Control of Canada is trustworthy for this subject, the above coverage would help establishing notability for CGN. A quick Google News search for "coalition for gun control" canada shows that it is being used by reliable sources as a source for relevant knowledge on the topic. Diego (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - No significant coverage about this web site is presented; nor could I find any myself. The two Toronto star passing mentions are not significant and do not demonstrate that this website has had an impact. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But what they say is verifiable per wp:RS, so their content should be kept with a merge per the WP:PRESERVE policy, not deleted. Diego (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note also that it was not listed by an ARS member, but by a new editor who contributed to this article seeking assistance with Wikipedia's deletion processes.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:17, 1 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. postdlf (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    List of accolades received by Ra.One

    [edit]
    List of accolades received by Ra.One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Recent branching of the main Ra.One article. Belongs with main article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Oppose. Branching of main article? Absolutely; if the said editor had taken the time to properly go through Ra.One, he would see exactly how long the article is. Besides, there are other film articles such as The King's Speech and Avatar that have exactly similar branched articles.
    • Strong Oppose. The article is really long and the table is absolutely enormous. Plus, the National Awards etc. are yet to occur. The list is just going to get longer and longer and be a hinderance to the main article. The King's Speech and Avatar as well as many other movies have separate awards pages so why can't Ra.One, a film that is probably a milestone for Indian cinema? (Asher Madan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashermadan (talk • contribs) 16:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep - Branched section contains enough material for a separate page and is a good way of splitting up an article that's already a bit too long (Ra.One). WP:RS are provided which establish WP:N and WP:V. I can't find any reason in WP:DEL-REASON to delete this article.--Stvfetterly (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Only !vote once. *withdrawn I was not aware of the practice of listing accolades separately. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We voted only once. The first one was from Anikbhatt (sp?) and the second oppose was from me, Asher Madan. Plus, Even Stvfetterly has said it is a Speedy Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashermadan (talk • contribs) 16:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Good. Now can Gaijin please remove the deletion notice? Its very distracting, and updates are coming as we speak, so there is work to be done. @ashermadan: What do you mean by sp? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, I just meant that I might've spelled your name wrong. AniktBhatt is correct, I spelled it Anikbhatt. Missed the H. Haha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashermadan (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Mosul. And merge anything useful and sourceable from history.  Sandstein  22:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Maslawi

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

    This article is entirely unreferenced. If there were any RS-supported material, I would think it should be merged to the city of Mosul. But there is none. Tagged for lack of refs for close to 4 years. Epeefleche (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, depending on the subject, it's sometimes tough finding references online for a Arabic-related page. As you can see on he page, it does exist on the Arabic version of Wiki.. Any person of common knowledge of Iraq is aware of the page's importance. Added a few refs. Chaldean (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be fine with a redirect. As to a merge, I think that would only be appropriate for the list of notable people and the refs (though it is unclear what they support -- perhaps they are meant as ELs. The text of the main section is both non-referenced and challenged, and therefore not I believe appropriate for merger.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that Chaldean has added 2 references (both books). While it would have been nicer if these had been inline, their titles (M. and its minorities -- i.e. its peoples; History of M.) suggest they support the main text, so we now have an article that is referenced. As for challenged, that word has various meanings. If it means 'at AfD', we knew that already. If it means 'poorly written', that can be fixed without recourse to AfD and is not itself cause for deletion. Similarly, if it means 'contains some disputed facts' then which ones? But again, no cause for deletion.
    The facts now are that 'Maslawi' unquestionably means an inhabitant of M, that there are indisputably (cited) histories of that city, apparently correctly summarized in the article, and there is a valid list of famous inhabitants. The current options are merge or keep, I think, which wasn't the case at time of nom. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As to the challenge issue -- it was challenged in 2008 when it was tagged for no refs (I've added another perhaps clearer tag now), and when it was nominated for AfD, and it can be deleted at any time as unreferenced text which is another way of challenging it (I can do that now if that would make it clearer), or I can just state now (as I do) "I challenge the text". Our verifiability policy is a core policy, and merger of challenged, non-referenced text is within it. I'm not at all "challenging" it for being poorly written; I'm challenging all text that is not supported by inline citations, for the purpose of deleting it (or not allowing its merge) per our verifiability policy, which indicates that all challenged text must be supported by inline citations to remain. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 11:48, 16 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, Deryck C. 16:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Water clock. Wifione Message 12:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Water-powered clock

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

    Funky little trinket with no real encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Wifione Message 12:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Craig Davies (entrepreneur, racing driver)

    [edit]
    Craig Davies (entrepreneur, racing driver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non notable autobiography

    Is a racing driver, so notability sports may apply.

    The relevant criteria would appear to be Have driven in a fully professional series. A fully professional series is one where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series. For example, the SCCA Trans-Am Series is considered professional while the SCCA Spec Miata National Championship would not be.

    Not sure if the races indicated would qualify. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete "left school at 15 with no qualifications but always had the ability to connect with others"- by posting his autobiography on WP for instance. Notability not established. Promotional tone. Conflict of interest etc Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete - per G11 as too promotional, so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I'm not sure enough about the standing of the racing to speedy it, but to me it doesn't look notable. I'm not in the domestic appliance business (or in the market for any at present), but I will say I've never heard of those brands over here (Wolf was a brand of drill and other such that I recognise but they're not around any more - well, some are until eventually they wear out). Referencing isn't much. Peridon (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wolf is better known as Sub-Zero, which is a pretty major brand - but that is not really relevant to the AFD. Ive looked more, and I cant find really any refs on him, so its going to hinge on being inherintly notable via the racing. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Wifione Message 12:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    List of oldest CEOs

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

    WP:GNG Page is just a collection of unverified old CEOs, and is very outdated. This is useless Drawering (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Wifione Message 12:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Athar Ata

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

    Fails WP:ACADEMIC and I have doubts about WP:GNG Sitush (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, GScholar turns up about 72 papers of his, and they seem to have quite a lot of citations. Has anyone calculated an index for him? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    72 is nothing for a scientist, and I am not sure that they are all him in any event. - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete 72 papers is a very respectable number, I don't know what field Sitush is talking about... However, even assuming that all papers in the GScholar search linked by Chiswick Chap are indeed by Ata, they have only been cited for a total of 339 times with an h-index of 11, which is decidedly below what usually is taken here as indicating notability. I see no evidence that the awards mentioned in the article are anything else than local awards. Does not meet WP:PROF. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries. Perhaps the longevity of a person affects things. And perhaps I am just acquainted with seriously clever chemists etc. An h-index for social scientists would be an interesting exercise ... and a comparison of the relevance of "paper count", "cite rate" etc of AfD consensus re: academic scientists vs. the arts would be even more so. Not that these whimsies matter, however, for this or any other specific nomination - just food for thought. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Manomio

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

    Article appears to be a non-notable software company. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for organizations Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:14, 12 January 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) 14:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 12 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, Sprinting faster (talk) 17:23, 19 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with that being that the references largely cover the same string of 3 incidents. I have found more references that I will work in to the article so it is a bit more comprehensive, but I believe that the sourcing the page has right now is enough. ClayClayClay 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. With no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Piotr Lato

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

    Lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. This singer's last AfD closed as "no consensus". His claim to fame appears to be that he placed 5th in the Polish Pop Idol, and was in the Polish Big Brother--but I don't understand those accomplishments as conferring notability per wp standards. The RS sources I found on gnews and gbooks were generally passing references and/or relating to his 5th place Idol experience and his appearance on Big Brother, though there is a mention (I'm not clear if it is by an RS) of his also having been invited to compete in "The Voice of Poland. Best voice". Epeefleche (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 13 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, Sprinting faster (talk) 17:32, 19 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. Based on Cavarrone and Michig's statements, I'm closing this as no consensus. Yet, there's no prejudice to an extremely early renomination in case reliable sources don't get added to the article that prove notability. Wifione Message 11:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The Breath of Life (band)

    [edit]
    The Breath of Life (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A proposed deletion of this article was contested with an assertion that this band passes the fifth notability criterion for musical ensembles. This criterion states that a musical ensemble is notable if it "has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels." As far as I can tell, this band has not released any albums on major labels or important indie labels. A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. Neelix (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • There are different criteria for companies and for musical ensamble, you should know, and the guideline doesn't say "an independent label that has an article on Wikipedia". Hall of Sermon and Dark Wings could not have the adequate coverage for an article on Wikipedia but are, literally, independent labels with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable. We could discuss about the guidelines, about the concept of notability in itself, or about the notability of this subject under other points of view or other criteria, but it is spectacularly evident that this group meets this criterium. - Cavarrone (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Whether or not a label has an article on Wikipedia does not determine whether it is acceptable under WP:MUSIC (and the Hall of Sermon article was deleted yesterday, via prod, with a dubious rationale). The label is judged by whether it is "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable", which Hall of Sermon meets. Chubbles (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not convinced that this band meets the fifth criterion mentioned. The majority of the bands that have released albums on the "Hall of Sermon" label are of dubious notability. It appears as though we are justifying the notability of one band based on the notability of other bands, but then justifying those same other bands' notability based on the notability of each other. As far as I can tell, there are only three notable bands on Hall of Sermon (Lacrimosa, Artrosis, and Dreams of Sanity), and I would hardly consider that "a roster of performers, many of whom are notable." Even if The Breath of Life met the fifth notability criterion for musical ensembles, which I do not believe it does, its article would have to conform to certain requirements made of all Wikipedia articles, the relevant two of which are these: "We require that all articles rely primarily on third-party or independent sources" and "We require the existence of at least one secondary source." The Breath of Life is able to meet neither of these criteria which must be met whether it meets WP:MUSIC or not. Neelix (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim that groups such as Love Like Blood, Evergrey and Girls Under Glass are are "of dubious notability" is, assuming good faith, very audacious... the tons of GNews about them should be enough for a claim of notability... Cavarrone (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, Love Like Blood has only one GNews hit and Girls Under Glass has none. Neelix (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol! At this point I would be curious to know how you do your researches, for sure you are using a wrong method... Girls Under Glass: 59 GNews entries (not all about the group, but about 80/90% are about it). Love Like Blood 102 entries. As above, not all the entries are about the group but at least 50/60% are about it. Cavarrone (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies; I believed that the straightforward GNews search brought up archived entries as well. Nonetheless, the central point of this discussion is not being addressed. Wikipedia guidelines require that all articles "rely primarily on third-party or independent sources" and demonstrate "the existence of at least one secondary source." This article can do neither. Neelix (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondary sources surely exist... "The Breath of Life" has 11.100 entries in GNews archivies... it is clear that, considering how common this name is, many of these are about other stuff, and I don't know if I ever had the patience and the time to review every single article of these 11.100, but at a first quick look I see there are multiple language news sources like [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]... that's only a small sampling (more in-depth researches could reveal further and stronger sources), and appears to be enough to largely satisfy the "one-secondary-source-existence" requirement. Cavarrone (talk) 23:54, 13 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article is SIX years old and has ZERO sources, and near-zero content. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. Borderline in many ways. Several albums on the Hall of Sermon label, which does have a long history of releasing records by notable bands, but many of those releases are from the label-owner's band (see releases here). The band has received some reliable source coverage ([33]) and some from possibly-reliable sources ([34], [35]). This one I'm not sure about - perhaps editors from the countries that these sites are from could comment on these. The band having been around for so long and with so many commercially-released albums inclines me to err on the side of keeping.--Michig (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamie Hood

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

    This is basically a WP:BLP1E situation. The man is locally known for one event. LadyofShalott 03:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 03:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 03:15, 11 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. Merging can be further discussed on the article's talk page. Closing with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Little Birds (single)

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

    Contested PROD. unreferenced by reliable sources and non-notable music recording Cloudz679 06:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 11 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Agora (Nomic)

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

    This article about a single game of Nomic does not demonstrate any form of notability. The fact that it has been played continuously for 18.5 years might be a world record, but unless independent reliable sources write about it there should be no article on wikipedia. Note that basic information about Agora is already in Nomic, including an external link to the homepage, so merging is not an option here. Yoenit (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 11 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Deletion is unopposed after two weeks.  Sandstein  16:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hans-Werner Hunziker

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

    Unreferenced autobiography about a psychologist and businessman that fails to meet the basic requirements of notability for biographical articles. I noticed this article because an editor recently declared him dead. While trying to find a reference for this fact, I actually found no reference for any statement in the article. The only biographical information comes from the website of Hunziker's own company (http://www.learning-systems.ch). There's no trace of him on Google News. On Google Books you'll find his book obviously and all the print-Wikipedia-on-demand junk. On Google Scholar, four papers that reference one of Hunzinker's papers. This seems odd given how detailed the article currently is but this would actually be a candidate for the proposed deletion of biographies of living people process. Pichpich (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 18 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Athésia

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

    The AfD in 2005 resulted in no consensus. Since then, no other substantive proof of notability has come up, so I think it's time for a second AfD. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 12 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Ahh 2005, those halcyon days when google hits and imdb mentions could carry the day. Fast forward to 2012, where guest spots and an unnoticed solo release do not at all meet the general notability or WP:NMUSIC. Tarc (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Scott Montieth, since her guest spots on his albums are her primary "notability". (Though even he needs referencing improvements, his basic notability isn't as much in question.) It's true, and entirely appropriate, that our notability rules have tightened up considerably since 2005, but a person who isn't really notable enough for her own article can still be "notable" enough to warrant redirection to a related article. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep:   I think the issue of notability arises due to the fact that her work is mainly in a language other than English and that in 2005, she was new and relatively unknown. I have added this to the article: DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

      Along with other countries, Argentina celebrates the International Francophonie Day. In 2010, Athésia was the highlight of those who performed there. She sings in English, French, Creole and Portuguese. Buenos Aires newspaper, Página/12, reported that Athésia's presence was considered important for raising awareness of Haiti's plight after the earthquake. Athésia's parents are Haitian.     Source:  Yacca, Maria Daniela (March 10, 2010). "With the language as a link: Samples, lectures and recitals in the month of the French". Pagina 12 (in Spanish). Buenos Aires, Argentina. Retrieved 2012-01-23.

    Update: We now have several citations included in the Athésia article. (all dated after the AfD 2005 discussion.)  DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. as nom. Johnbod's findings establish that something besides deletion should be done. Whether rename or redirect can be sorted editorially. StarM 16:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Balkh Provincial Museum

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

    While ghits aren't the be-all, end-all, this museum appears to only exist in wikipedia mirrors. While English language sources may be an issue, I cannot find any evidence to prove this museum exists, let alone is notable. StarM 00:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —StarM 00:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005

    [edit]
    National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:GNG; limited coverage; did not even get voted on by its committee. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This has been brought up by someone that tries to delete anything that may show Rick Santorum in any unflattering light. He has already tried to remove this from Rick Santorum’s Wiki page but has been reverted. He rarely goes to talk and then tries to delete pages like this. WP:SNOW is also in play. KEEP this page and recommend banning NYyankees51 from editing anything related to Santorum or the elections. --Sallynice (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep: This incident got quite a bit of media and governmental coverage, and is very notable because of it. It doesn't matter much that the bill never got out of committee, it's the coverage of this bill and the strong accusations that stemmed from it that makes it noteworthy. Eric (EWS23) 15:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This minor legislative proposal was made in 2005 and never passed as a law. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It reamins of political significance. In any case, we cover non-current events just as much as current--the principle is NOT NEWS , which I see as a positive principle for inclusion. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 1 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 Emily Haines. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Cut in Half and Also Double

    [edit]
    Cut in Half and Also Double (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This article is for a non-notable, possibly non-existent/fan-made album. There have been no sources on the page for over 2 years and a number of banners asking for any source input.Cyrip (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This AfD was not properly transcluded to any AfD log until 17 January. This should be considered the effective opening date of this AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - While Emily Haines is a notable Canadian artist, this album is not. I myself just searched for references in regards to the existence of this release and couldn't find anything. It is the burden of the creator of the Wiki page to reference their claims, and at this point, almost 4 years after creation, there is nothing. It is not my burden to figure out whether the album exists officially or not. The page should be deleted and can be recreated when there are suitable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrip (talk • contribs) 19:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Emily Haines. Self-released by Haines in 1996 with a very small quantity of copies. It was noted at the time by the Toronto Star[44] and Amy Millan talks of how it started her (Millan's) career in Venus Zine.[45] This is covered in the Emily Haines article. 86.44.38.30 (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. There do not appear to be any legal issues with writing about this content, and it is covered adequately in sources. That said, there is no consensus between keeping or merging the material. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The Hidden Wiki

    [edit]
    The Hidden Wiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    • Keep I would like to point out that "The Hidden Wiki" is no different from Silk Road (marketplace). Both use Tor's hidden services and both are supposedly illegal. If Wikipedia can have an article about the Silk Road (marketplace) then why can't it have article about The Hidden Wiki. The Silk Road (marketplace) article does link to the corresponding .onion website so why avoid doing the same for The Hidden Wiki.

    And The Hidden Wiki is quite notable. It has been covered by the UK's top newspapers including the Daily Telegraph. It has a substantial number of users therefore it is a matter of interest for everyone who uses the internet. Being widely used and widely known warrants having a Wikipedia article.

    Lastly, there are no legal issues in having an encyclopedia article about something that is illegal as long as the article itself does not contain any illegal material.

    Prachursharma (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Not every newspaper story leads to a Wikipedia article. The existence of hidden services is mentioned in Tor (anonymity network) but there is not enough sourcing for a spinoff article. The Hidden Wiki openly contains links to child pornography and drug deals, which is why linking to it fails WP:EL.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright then, don't link to it. But atleast let the article about it remain on Wikipedia. And there are sources for The Hidden Wiki. If you do a Google search for "The Hidden Wiki", you find thousands of sources. The Hidden Wiki deserves its own article because it is a phenomenon in its own right. Major newspapers have reported about it in that manner. It is not just any Hidden Service within Tor. It is a particularly notable hidden service in its own right because it attracts the wrong type of people and large number of such people. Prachursharma (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I don't see any "linking to The Hidden Wiki" in our article. The article provides information verifiable in reliable sources. I consider the information (about the "darkest corners of the internet", to quote The Telegraph) very interesting and important, no matter how disgusting and scary it is. For possible sources look also here. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The link to the .onion of The Hidden Wiki was removed in a previous diff, this is unacceptable. The real issue here is WP:GNG. Rather than creating new articles in response to newspaper stories, it is better to look at articles already existing where the material might go. The Mikelsons case in September 2011 was discussed at Talk:Tor_(anonymity_network)#Robert_Mikelsons_-_notable.3F, while Operation Darknet in November 2011 also picked up some media coverage.[46] However, per GNG, coverage needs to be significant, otherwise every story in the newspapers would have a separate article, which is impractical. This is an area where great caution is required, as blogs are not reliable sources and pastebin links which could contain practically anything are dangerous.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've revdeleted the diffs mentioning the link (I'm not sure if everything is OK, I have a little experience with REVDEL). Where do you think the material might go? There's in my opinion enough reliable coverage to build a stand alone article about this site. The article cites well known and reliable media, not blogs and "pastebin links". --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The best places are Tor (anonymity network) and Silk Road (marketplace). There is not enough coverage for a separate article that would meet WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, but merging is something different than deletion. I strongly disagree with deletion of this information. Our readers should have access to verifiable information about the practices of bastards selling child porn. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So ... delete or merge? Ian mentioned two articles. Where do you think the material might go? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The two articles mentioned above (Tor (anonymity network) and Silk Road (marketplace)) are the best place.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand this correctly, Silk Road is a different (similarly focused, but different) service operating under Tor. Why should we merge (and confuse) two different topics? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Hidden Wiki has numerous links to drug related sites, child porn, hacking etc. It is the unofficial clearing house and directory for these links. They all operate via an .onion link and cannot be accessed in an ordinary browser.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Fire at 30 beaumont rd smithfeild

    [edit]
    Fire at 30 beaumont rd smithfeild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Unreferenced and would require a significant rewrite in order to become encyclopaedic. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 08:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Arun Kumar Pallathadka

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

    Not enough references to prove notability. Screenshots in the person's personal website cannot be counted against notability. Sreejith K (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Dead Red

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

    Not a notable band? Bihco (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Well, if a source can be found to back up the claims that one of their songs was used as a theme song for a notable show, that would go a long way to showing notability. Unfortunately the article doesn't say what show it was for, so we have no way of knowing if it's for something notable or if it was for something that's the equivalent of a public access show someone filmed themselves.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
    • Additional. I was unable to find anything to back up the claims of the theme song. The only source that mentions it is this article. I also want to note that the name of the original contributor to the article is the same as one of the band members, so there's a definite COI going on here. Not against the rules, but there does seem to be some puffery going on in the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
    • Delete. I couldn't find anything to back up the multiple claims in the article, such as one of the band's songs getting picked up for an American TV show (the article doesn't even specify which show it is) or the importance of any of the other things mentioned in the article. It's mentioned that the band was praised by some radio stations, but a search doesn't seem to show that either station is notable and since both appear to be internet radio stations, I'm not sure that this really counts as "in rotation" in the way that WP:NBAND means rotation. A more specific search geared towards the terms used ("best unsigned band") didn't bring up anything reliable. There is the BBC bit, but it doesn't appear to have aired yet and we have no way of knowing it the band gets enough coverage to show notability. (Is it about the band or is the band merely briefly shown as an example of indie bands? Is the spot just local or is it part of a nationwide show?) There's no other sources on the internet that show that this band is particularly notable or that any of the claims in the article are true.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
    • Comment. Kept searching and I finally found the BBC mention. I was thinking it was a television spot when it was actually a local BBC station interviewing the band along with several others about a music promotion called the B-Side Project. I did finally manage to locate the show that the band's song is being used for (after searching for quite a while), Philly Undercover. It's on National Geographic Wild, so I'm going to assume that this is enough to pass WP:NBAND. I'm going to try to improve the article before making a final judgement, but I'm removing my delete vote.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural Keep - No rationale for deletion provided? Carrite (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It's in dire need of reliable sources but the theme song is what makes them pass WP:NBAND. I can understand how the nominator was worried about notability and I'm concerned that the only sources for the show's theme song are primary sources (I can't even find a clip of the show's opening theme to back this claim up), but the band still passes in spite of this. I've done some major improvements to the page and I'm going to continue to try to find a source to back the theme song claim up that isn't from the band itself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ordinariate for the Faithful of the Eastern Rite in Romania

    [edit]
    Ordinariate for the Faithful of the Eastern Rite in Romania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No assertion of notability, as the article clearly indicates that this is a local entity that consists of around 500 parishioners. Article is overly reliant on one source. MSJapan (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep - no valid reasons for deletion have been presented. The entity is not "local" - at least, it covers all of Transylvania, with parishes in three counties. It's small, but that's not in itself a reason to delete. There's one main source because that's all I could find, but as long as the source is reliable (and it is), having an article drawn from a single source is not a fatal flaw.
    • An ordinariate is equivalent to a diocese, and we consider all dioceses notable, so it's inherently notable on that score. It has a 400-year history, with three of its churches and its cathedral recognized as historic monuments by the Romanian state. And it's one of a select few religious organizations granted official recognition by the Romanian state, all of which are notable starting from that fact. - Biruitorul Talk 16:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: If that is indeed the case, then you are likely correct, though I don't necessarily agree with government recognition = notability, unless some sort of historical precedent for that not happening (and that making a difference) is shown. None of the information you mention, however, is actually present in the article, whether it be parallelism of church structure, historicals, or anything else. A non-expert reader of the subject (such as myself) cannot figure out from the article why it meets policy, and conversely, it seems like the response is "this is a bad AfD because material not in the article proves it's notable, as long as one can read Romanian." That's a very narrow range of users. However, AfD often becomes an impetus for improvement, so if someone wants to take care of that, that would be good. GNG isn't assumed; it has to be shown. MSJapan (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Per reasons already presented by Biruitorul--Codrin.B (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. There aren't that many ordinariates around, but I think we can safely say they are inherently notable. I guess it's the equivalent of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. StAnselm (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The small size now is outweighed by the historical importance, as the religious grouping of Armenian Catholics in Transylvania. A Google search finds several reliable sources, some under the name of "Gherla Ordinariate." Nominator should note WP:BEFORE. -- 202.124.75.250 (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly keep'. The title should be changed, for accuracy, to "Ordinariate for Catholics of Armenian Rite in Romania"; but I don't dare move it while this discussion is ongoing. This is one of eight ordinariates for Eastern Catholics. Esoglou (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Ordinariates, eparchies and dioceses are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Armenian Catholic Archeparchy of Istanbul

    [edit]
    Armenian Catholic Archeparchy of Istanbul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Unreferenced, and essentially untouched dicdef since the date of its creation. no assertion of notability. MSJapan (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. — --Lambiam 21:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep, non-admin closure. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Armenian Catholic Patriarchate of Cilicia

    [edit]
    Armenian Catholic Patriarchate of Cilicia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Unsourced for over three years. Also violates NOTINHERITED. This Patriarchate is the only one within the entire Armenian Catholic Church hierarchy, and while the Patriarch is notable through his position, there is nothing that indicates that this patriarchate is notable on its own, which would seem to be backed up by the lack of sources. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I don't understand the "NOTINHERITED" argument. We could as well say that the Patriarch does not automatically inherit notability from the obviously notable Patriarchate. In any case, whole books have been written about the history of the Patriarchate.  --Lambiam 21:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. — --Lambiam 21:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep, non-admin closure. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    St. Elie and St. Gregory the Illuminator Armenian Catholic Cathedral

    [edit]
    St. Elie and St. Gregory the Illuminator Armenian Catholic Cathedral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The cathedral is the seat of a Patriarchate which consists entirely of only that Patriarchate. In other words, it is the seat of itself. Therefore, it has no independent notability. First three pages of GHits are self-referential, photos only, wikis, or do not meet RS. Being a cathedral does not automatically create notability, but merely ascertains existence. MSJapan (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. — --Lambiam 21:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Nomination makes no sense: the relevant Patriarchate covers a wide swath of territory. As the Armenian Catholic cathedral in Beirut, this is extremely notable, and widely covered in reliable book sources. The name of the cathedral is Anglicised in different forms, e.g. "Cathedral of St. Gregory and St. Elias," "Armenian Catholic cathedral of Beirut," etc. -- 202.124.75.250 (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Have you actually seen the size of this church? Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Necrothesp (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC) }}[reply]
    • Keep asthe site of a major ecclesiastical organization, and widely covered. A building and an organization are not the same thin, though they may have a connection to each other. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Obscenity the other side of Aisha

    [edit]
    Obscenity the other side of Aisha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This book does not appear to meet the notability guideline for books at WP:NBOOK. Specifically, I see coverage in blogs and discussion on sites clearly linked to the book (such as the references in the article now and the Amazon links used in the past) but no coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. References may exist in Arabic, however, since it appears that the English language version of this book is not broadly available. VQuakr (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Abhiroop, Sagarika, Abhigyan, and Aishwarya Bhattacharya

    [edit]
    Abhiroop, Sagarika, Abhigyan, and Aishwarya Bhattacharya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non notable news event. Original research. PROD declined by article creator without explanation. Safiel (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Seems to be a non-notable child custody case that has received some minor press attention because the parents are Indian and the family lives in Norway. Cultural insensitivity is claimed. I don't know who is right, but I don't think the matter is notable by Wikipedia standards. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. Just a news story, the author has confessed that he simply using wikipedia to "set the facts straight". Nothing significant has happened as a result of this news story, non-notable. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - as of yet non-notable news story. In the remote event that this isn't deleted, it needs to be renamed to something other than the names of the children involved. --Versageek 14:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Whitefish_Bay,_Wisconsin#Education. (School district article currently doesn't exist.) (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Whitefish Bay Middle School

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

    Unsourced, and tagged as non-notable for almost a year. Per the general consensus that all elementary and middle schools are non-notable, this should be deleted, merged, or redirected Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I should have specified none are in the main category. I am not going to sift through the state subcategories. Dru of Id (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete That "general consensus" has not been established at the talk page of WP:ORG and does not appear in that guideline. We should follow the guideline unless it is changed. Sources have not been identified to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as usual Edison seems to misperceive the nature of Wikipedia: we make the rules ourselves, and we make the effective rules for deletion by what we do here, and we almost never totally delete a primary or intermediate school, but keep a redirect. . There's no external authority making rules we must follow until the text has been changed. But if we want to be legalistic, the controlling rule is WP:Deletion policy, that deletion is the last resort, notability guidelines merely give the details; when in doubt about the detail, we follow the principle. Established practice is not upset by a few people protesting against consensus. If it were, I could argue for whatever I please: our rules contain enough contradictions to provide the basis for the logical principle that a contradiction implies anything and everything DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Racine Unified School District. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr. Beatrice Jones Elementary School

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

    Per outcome reaffirmed hundreds of times that elementary schools ain't notable, and should be deleted, merged, or redirected. Article is unsourced aside of the school website, and comes nowhere near assessing the type of notability we'd need for a school like these Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or redirect. Convention with schools such as this one 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.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect -- there is no basis fort a separate article--there is equally no basis for not making a redirect, and none has been offered. There is basis for keeping the redirect: according to deletion policy, its the preferred alternative to deletion, and that policy is the basis for everything we do at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi DGG. I've no problem with a redirect, which I've indicated above. But your comments raise some questions in my mind.
    Are you suggesting that each of the hundreds of thousands of schools that exists, which is verifiable, deserves a redirect? That every company that exists deserves a redirect? That every person who exists deserves a redirect? If we could create a bot that would create redirects for every school, every other organization, and every person in the white pages and yellow pages of the world -- that it would be a benefit to have those all in wikipedia, with redirects for those that don't have articles? I'm not as clear as you that this would be helpful.
    Nor am I clear that the target articles always yield any information of interest, to a reader searching for the school.
    Anyway -- my main point is that I'm supporting a redirect. But your suggestion that a redirect is always better than a deletion is not a completely clear conclusion for me. And the suggestion that it is required is at odds with practice, IMHO. I've seen all manner of articles close as delete, where the entity/person exists and we know a locale to redirect the article to. Practice does not seem to be, across wikipedia, that in applying our policies we always avoid deletion when we could redirect. As best I can tell. Respectfully.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate being asked for a further explanation. Yes, I am not just suggesting but arguing very clearly that every one of the hundreds of thousands of schools that exist are appropriate for a redirect, as are all community institutions. I'm one of the people here who has always been opposed to giving articles to relatively minor local content, partly to maintain some degree of consistency and maintainability, and meet the expectations of an encyclopedia. But a redirect to a mention in the article for the locality is another matter. The article or group of articles on a place should include all the schools in it, and they should each have a redirect. Even if the target article just indicates it's there, the sources and external links should lead to detailed local information. I wouldn't suggest it if we were PAPER, but being able to do things like this is one of the advantages of our medium.I agree we haven't always done this, certainly not by searching out ones to include, But there's a great deal Wikipedia has yet to cover. There's time and people ahead of us--there's no final edition, DGG ( talk ) 07:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC) .[reply]
    Thanks. Are you also suggesting that every one of the hundreds of thousands of companies that exists deserves a redirect? That every person who exists deserves a redirect? If we could create a bot that would create redirects for every school, every other organization, and every person in the white pages and yellow pages of the world -- that it would be a benefit to have those all in wikipedia, with redirects for those that don't have articles? Do you see only benefit, or do you see cost in the addition of those millions of redirects -- and if so, what would those costs consist of? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wil_Harris

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

    Wil Harris now falls under the category of "not notable". He is no longer a technology journalist, nor does he appear regularly on the podcasts mentioned. He is neither a figure of public interest or has accomplished anything of note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iainthompson (talk • contribs)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Notability doesn't expire just because it seems like he left the field. Reading his Twitter he just came back from CES, so I'm not seeing any proof he's out of technology journalism. Plenty sourced for a stub. Nate • (chatter) 06:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete 153,000 people went to CES. Reading a published article he has written from the event is very much different than a tweet mentioning he went. That aside, being a guest on a podcast does still not meet Notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.40.236 (talk) 22:33, 17 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, Wifione Message 03:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote struck and should be discounted, nominator voting twice by trying to sneak by an unsigned contribution. Nate • (chatter) 05:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment Subject is on this evening's episode of TWiT, so one part of the nomination rationale that he doesn't appear on podcasts currently is nullified. No change in vote. Nate • (chatter) 00:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Hawker (trade). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Looky looky men

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

    I do think that this can be merged with Hawker (trade) and a redirection created. I do not think it needs its own page. JetBlast (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Procedural Keep: If you want to discuss a merge, please follow the procedures described at WP:Merge. AfD is not the place to do this. In any event, though, I would probably object to such a merge, as the topic appears to be independently notable with enough information to justify a second article. But I could be convinced otherwise; just start up the discussion on the talk pages and add the merge tags as per the merge instructions. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: We tried a basic redirect, but the original author reverted that, Sadads (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said: you should have used the procedures discussed at WP:Merge. That means tagging both articles, and starting a discussion on the talk page of the target article. The original bold redirect was fine, but was once was undone, if you want to keep the information but just change the article it's in, this is not the place to do it. However, since this is already getting comments, we can keep it here per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. As such, I've struck out my original !vote and will add a new one at the bottom. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and redirect per nom the topic isn't individually notable, and the term is used in a really limited fashion on the web and in reliable sources, Sadads (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Right now I'm on the fence about this one - the sourcing is there, but limited. It's borderline. If anyone can find a few more reliable sources, I might come all the way over to keep. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Article has sufficient sources to show that this group has a distinct identity from the general concept of hawkers, and thus can have a separate article (which, of course, should be linked in the broader article). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 18 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, Wifione Message 03:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect - Does not seem to be a separate occupation than that covered by Hawker (trade). "Looky Looky Men" is a colloquialism for hawkers in a region. That this phrase appears in the press is neither here nor there, the encyclopedic occupation here is "hawker". There are many different synonyms for this, but we don't have forked pages for "vendor" or "street merchant" (etc.) just because that word appears in the press, eh? This should be a redirect to the already existing encyclopedic article; perhaps with merged content. Carrite (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
    • Redirect - Agree with Carrite. Agent 78787 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    AMP v. Persons Unknown

    [edit]
    AMP v. Persons Unknown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Not seeing enough sources to establish this case as notable other than a news story. I've deleted a number of revisions and blocked an IP who seemed deadset on revealing her name (which is not revealed in any news sources). OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep This incident has been covered by major newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph, the Independent and the Daily Mail (see talk page of the article for all the sources). Which makes it notable enough. It is also probably the first British online privacy case that involved BitTorrent, this is what makes this case unique. The previous such cases were mostly related to Twitter and websites, such the case of Ryan Giggs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prachursharma (talk • contribs) 03:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Not every court case meets WP:GNG because it was in the newspapers. Some media coverage, but not enough for a standalone article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a press freedom case. Although it has picked up some media coverage, there are WP:GNG issues. It would be better to merge the information into an existing article, but not 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy as the elements of theft, blackmail and harassment are not present here. Also, please note that some people in the blogs are obsessed with revealing the name of the woman allegedly involved, which has WP:BLPNAME issues. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Which part of the WP:GNG are you referring to? I see multiple reliable sources informing about the case independently. You might point to WP:BLP1E, but I don't think it applies here, as the circumstances of this case are rather unique (read the above mentioned article by The Register). Wikipedia has various procedures of dealing with WP:BLP issues (article protection, REVDEL etc.), but it is not a subject of this AfD discussion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The chances of this article progressing beyond stub class on the current sourcing are slim. Most of the reliable coverage comes from one day's newspapers, and there is no coverage on the BBC or CNN website to back up the "landmark case" claim being made. It was an interesting High Court case, but would need more than the fairly limited coverage it has received so far to justify a full article. I am still thinking about the best place for this to go. The Pirate Bay initially seemed like a good idea, but since the sourcing simply mentions "a Swedish file-sharing website" and does not say which one, it was ruled out. Please also note that the DMCA takedown request at Chilling Effects cannot be used as a source for AMP v. Persons Unknown, because it does not say that the woman involved is AMP and it would be original research to infer this. People are using this DMCA takedown to reveal the woman's alleged name, but apart from the WP:BLPNAME issue, it does not link directly to any of the coverage in the reliable sources and is a form of WP:BLPPRIMARY.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The BBC and Guardian websites did not cover this case, and the only really good coverage is in the Telegraph and Independent, which has been picked up elsewhere. Comments from blogs, law firm websites etc have WP:SPS issues. I am not in favour of banning this material altogether, but do not believe that a standalone article is ideal.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG don't mention that our topics must be covered by BBC, CNN or Guardian. The Register (which covered the case independently) is not an unimportant blog, but a very influential web with large readership. They wrote that "...the legal battle took three years...". I don't think this is one day's topic. It reminds me of the cases of Stacy Snyder and Andrew Feldmar and maybe others. I can imagine an article on legal cases regarding privacy rights and the Internet, even though the background and circumstances are different for each case. However, we don't have the article and the fact that there's no place where to merge the information doesn't mean we should delete it. Wikipedia is a work in progress. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent work, Ian. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthew Ziff

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

    This article just featured at WP:BLPN. I cannot find significant coverage of this actor in independent, reliable sources. I checked out the sources in http://www.matthewziff.com/page7/page7.html and they do not amount to significant coverage - event photos, press releases, and the interview with "Magic Image Magazine" looks like promotional copy. Good luck to him, but I don't think we can effectively write a bio based on the material available. Fences&Windows 03:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Glasgow School of Art Students' Association

    [edit]
    Glasgow School of Art Students' Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Only 2 passing mention refs in gnews, zero in gbooks, and zero refs in the article itself. Epeefleche (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Northeastern Quartersphere

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

    OR essay. Google gives no hits whatsoever, not citations in the article, and I've never heard this phrase before. Just a neologism. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 02:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hello I made the article actually because I noticed that there was little to no information at all quarters of the earth and actually no accepted academic term even for it. A quick search into what one should call a quarter of a sphere I think literally comes up with more cases of people asking questions than answers. I put it up under the name Northeastern Quartersphere with the intention having a few other possible names people might conjure when thinking of that region link to it as well, and agree that that term alone qualifies as OR and does not exist anywhere else.

    Despite a paucity of material on it, I still think the region with those boundaries is significant, but I do concede that any term used to describe the area would be in little and that maybe the concept itself is rare. The best term would probably be "Northern Eastern Hemisphere" or "Easter Northern Hemisphere". All things considered (including Wikipedia's Policy), it might be best just to touch on this in a reduced or modified fashion on either the Northern Hemisphere or Eastern Hemisphere articles as a side note. Your thoughts?Nanib (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know if this makes this worth saving as an independent article under one of those names or not? The top one, Sub-Saharan Africa: an environmental history - Page 76, of them was something talking about Jared Diamond's reasoning for communication lagging in Sub-Saharan Africa as opposed to the "northern Eastern Hemisphere", for what that is worth.Nanib (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as WP:OR. -- 202.124.75.52 (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • One Question before it is deleted though for WP:OR, does anyone think it would be reasonable and appropriate under Wikipedia Policy to add anything about the Northern portion of the Eastern Hemisphere or Eastern portion of the Northern Hemisphere to the respective articles or even creating an article on the Northern Eastern Hemisphere, or do you think it would be best just to let this issue rest for now, only to be touched on if and when it does become more common a concept in terms of "notability"? Regarding the second part of the first part of that question, I'm asking because I don't know if has been established yet that the idea of a Northern Eastern Hemisphere or its equivalent itself notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia here, or if it is not. If it is not then its not and I don't take any issue with it.Nanib (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_January_25&oldid=1142222844"