Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 December	16 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Consensus that this meets WP:FICTION, which is just another way of saying that it meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster à la Riseholme

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

Fictional recipe. Fails WP:N, no significant coverage in independent sources. Article is mainly comprised of summary of the novels. Sources are negligible and rely on a recipe by Nigella Lawson Paul75 (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is not a "fictional recipe" per WP:HOAX, but rather it's a fictional plot device in the form of a recipe. Unusually, this has then generated secondary coverage by gastronomes as a discussion of the fictional source. The literary source, Mapp and Lucia, is a well-known and clearly notable series. We have a great many fiction articles that suffer badly from excessive in-universe discussion. This is one of the rare exceptions where some in-universe matter is actually discussed by acceptable external sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no external sources though - the sole reference for the entire subject matter is a Nigella Lawson recipe Paul75 (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article describes, clearly and accurately, the sources of this recipe, which is an important element in the original novels and which has, as stated in the article, notably been reused by other authors. There is no Hoax or deception involved here, simply good Encyclopedic description of a notable literary device. Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Used by one other author, not authors as you claim, who wrote a sequel to the novels after the death of BensonPaul75 (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The usual criterion in cases of articles about things in a fictional world is whether they then take on a life outside that created by the original author (the Lilliput principle). I do think that the current article makes that case, and the material would not fit easily into the other related articles. --AJHingston (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andy Dingley et al. Fictional plot points can be notable, and with two reliable sources, I appears to be so. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. It furnishes an important and recurring plot point in a series of notable novels and as such has led to published attempts by some cooks (who are themselves notable) to recreate it. Ghughesarch (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with all of the above. This seems an important part of a series of fairly well-known books.21:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxdlink (talk • contribs)

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. Consensus is that sources found constitute support for WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oldenburg Baby

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of the subject of this article to meet our notability standards. Epeefleche (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete This could stand as an article if it shows that it's a relevant incident in a broader debate on abortion in Germany. Doing so would also require good sourcing, that just isn't here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's some copyvio issues going on in this article, with much of the text being very closely phrased (almost identical) from the Youth Defence page for the Oldenburg Baby. I know the opening sentence was taken directly from this site and I was going to overlook that, but there's other phrases in the article that are taken almost directly from this page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Additional. I've found that a lot of sources are under the term "Oldenburger Baby" rather than "Oldenburg baby". They're in German and my comprehension is nil at best, but I'll see what I can do with the translators and a little hard work.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Tentative keep. I'm finding sources in German and it appears that there's also been a documentary on this as well. There's mentions that people tried or are trying to pass abortion bans, but I'm not sure how far that went. I am finding that there are articles published later on down the line about this kid on his various birthdays and/or on other event days. Not sure if all of this is enough to keep since it all stems from one event. (BTW, if anyone wants to help me wade through these, here's a link to the google search [1].)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I've found some sources to show that this is being taught in legal classes in Germany, so it looks like this has had lasting notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
It also appears that the family received a Federal Cross of Merit for taking the baby in, from what I can see, although there is a big language barrier here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep. Almost all sources are in German but as Tokyogirl79 has shown, they are there if you use the original German term - enough to suggest that the case attracts continuing human interest stories in reputable German newspapers and has become a standard example in German books on medical ethics (and also in anti-abortion arguments). Quite enough to meet GNG. PWilkinson (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it is taught in legal textbooks as a notable case, then it has lasting effect, and it did get coverage. Good work for Tokyogirl179 for finding that. Dream Focus 21:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keepsignificant case. Maxdlink (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2011 (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. Hut 8.5 14:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

W3dtek

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

I found no significant coverage for this software company. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2011 (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) 00:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, as it applies to products. I looked through the various Google searches; there is nothing useful out there. Msnicki (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this and this which appear to be substantially the same article but according to the Google News search results the article are from Sep 1, 2007 and Mar 25 2011. The machine translation makes a complete hash of it so I can't really follow what the articles say. However, even this if it turned out to be significant coverage and the source reliable (I'm dubious based on the copy-paste editting of the two articles), that still falls short of establishing notability, especially with only one game to their credit. -- Whpq (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. Supposedly notable for developing the game Wars in Lebanon, but even this game is red-linked. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:59, 23 December 2011 (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 Dual-sport motorcycle. Kurykh (talk) 08:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure (motorcycle)

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

This article is original research and deviates from the accepted types of motorcycles developed through consensus reached by editors and members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling. Motorcycles of this type are adequately covered by the existing Dual-sport motorcycle article. Biker Biker (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the article might currently be WP:OR, a cursory search in google shows that the term exists, is used by manufacturers, and looks like a notable class of motorcycle. While more research should be done for the article, it seems like the article could be cleaned up to pass our deletion criteria.

Redirect to Dual-sport motorcycle per Biker Biker's reasoning. Lithorien (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree the current article is original research (I tagged it as such before it was nominated for deletion); it is also unreferenced. However, I think the subject matter is notable. A quick Google search threw up a number of reliable sources referring to adventure motorcycles: [2], [3], [4], [5] and so on. Its clear that "adventure bike"/"adventure motorcycle" is an accepted term in the wider world, and as such is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. All that said, the current version of the article needs swift and substantial improvement so it is written based on proper sources, not on what one editor believes. Sparthorse (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to both Lithorien and Sparthorse - the issue is that the list of motorcycle types has been arrived at by discussion and consensus reached over time. Adventure motorcycle is simply another phrase for dual-sport motorcycle and the topic is adequately covered in that article. To be honest I think the best solution is to drop the AfD and boldly redirect the article to the dual-sport article ensuring that any unique and useful content here is carried across. In summary, we don't need two articles covering the same topic. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd support that - it makes sense. I don't nessicarilly agree with having an appropriate list of bikes when new types could be made at any time, but I suspect consensus would be changed to reflect that if it happened. And if this class is already covered by another article, there's no reason not to just redirect to it. Lithorien (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with Biker Biker's proposal to redirect to Dual-sport motorcycle, perhaps a mention of the semi-synomym Adventure touring would be appropriate there. We should also clean/tighten up Template:Types of motorcycles as necessary (i.e. remove the redlinked Adventure touring. Brianhe (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The (real) topic is interesting: it is a well established practice in motorcycle marketing to invent new categories for old bikes. "Crossover" and "adventure" are the hottest trends these days. If you look at the definitions of yesterday's darlings, "streetfighter" and "naked bike", in types of motorcycles, you'll note that the supposed differences that make these unique are indefensible. Casually, yes if you don't think too hard, you can believe they describe characteristics that exist, but cross examine the definition and you come up with the plain fact that they're synonyms for "standard". Some day we might want to write an article on the practice the marketing of motorcycles to the wealthy, urban, first world rider, and redirect there, but for now "adventure" is simply a flavor of dual-sport motorcycle. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- The article is too poor for me to belive there is anything to merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A large percentage of Adventure motorcycles do not have significant or in some cases any off road capability so are not ideally represented by the dual sport categorization. The "Adventure" categorization of motorcycles is in general use in the motorcycle press. Eg. [6], [7], [8] The dual sport categorization is normally applied to smaller displacement motorcycles that have a 50/50 mix of off road and on road capability, not to heavier Adventure bikes with large displacement engines and no or limited off pavement capability. --Versys guy (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a source that says "dual sport" means 50/50 mix of off road and on road capability? Ever source I've looked at says dual sports have always varied along a spectrum. There are also dual sports at the other end of the scale that, while road legal, are very slow and uncomfortable on the road, yet we don't put them in a special category. Wikipedia:Content forking explains the fundamental principle at issue here: forking off "adventure" bikes because they approach the subject with a different point of view undermines neutrality. Placing adventure bikes side-by-side with other types of dual sports in the same article allows the reader to look at them in a balanced context. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle World award for best dual-sport of 2010 was given to KTM 990, probably the definitive Adventure bike, if such a thing exists. I think this is good evidence to support article merge as discussed below. — Brianhe (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The International Journal of Motorcycle Studies has a broad, scholarly survey of adventure motorcycling: Adventure Motorcycling: The Tourist Gaze. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dual-sprt motorcycle.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The useful article Dennis has linked makes it apparent Adventure motorcycling might be a notable phenomenon. Based on the sources and the arguments above, Adventure as a subclass of motorcycle seems a content fork of dual-sport motorcycle. BusterD (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2011 (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 Shahjalal University of Science and Technology. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EEE SUST

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

Article on a new university department offering undergraduate degrees. References are all to the university's own site or blogs. No evidence that this department is individually notable. AllyD (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in bangladesh you will not find articles on the internet about notable topics. There are so many notable topics whose e content are not available in the internet. If it is closely seen. it is clear that almost all the article about bangladesh on Wikipedia has no secondary or third party sources. But this article has some secondary source. --shparvez001 (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont get why this page is going to be deleted. This page has good information. Yes there are less secondary reference. But there are some cases in Bangladesh where notable topics doesnot have online content, so citation become tough. --TAhmid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.175.217 (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I would have said to upmerge this into the parent article, the content is decent per WP:PRESERVE I don't see why this information doesn't belong at Wikipedia, and given that Shahjalal University of Science and Technology is already too long, this article seems like a perfectly good application of Wikipedia:Summary style. --Jayron32 23:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't disagree with applying WP:PRESERVE but - fundamental for AfD - reliable sources demonstrating notability are neither in the article nor being found. (This is hardly surprising, given that this is a newly started department with a 1st year undergraduate class of 30.) So we have an article saying there is a course and it has an admission process: hardly notable. For any external sourcing, there is the briefest of mentions of the acronym in this general article on the University. We should be mindful too, I think, of the argument on appropriate standards for individual department notability put forward by User:DGG recently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Department of Sociology, University of Karachi. This one is far from demonstrable notability. AllyD (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm readily convinced to change my vote. Given the size, lack of history, and lack of reliable sources about this department, merge to the article about the University seems like the best course of action here. --Jayron32 01:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(~~Keep~~) This article should be given time to improve. At least it should be moved into the author's user space if a 'delete' decision reaches consensus. See Wikipedia:Userfication --Greenmaven (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking further, after carefully reading the comments of others, I am inclined to vote for a Weak Merge or a delete. The structure of Shahjalal University of Science and Technology does not lend itself to merging this article while keeping the balance of coverage in Shahjalal University of Science and Technology. I am also concerned that Shahjalal University of Science and Technology contains many links to itself, in the part where EEE is mentioned. Also, if this article were merged into Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, almost all of its content would become redundant. I hope the author considers working on a better article in a sub-page in his Userspace, if he wishes to persevere. --Greenmaven (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge with SUST): The department is not independently notable. Even within Bangladesh, this department will not rank among the top departments in the area. So, either delete, or merge with the university article. --Ragib (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the department seems to be established in 2011 ... i.e., just this year. I don't see how this article can contain anything more than that one-liner information, which can easily be merged into the SUST page. --Ragib (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ragib You can see the page is already at good length and with tiem the page EEE SUST will grow. So i donot think merging with the page SUST is a good choice. This will make the page SUST ,more clumsy. And you are saying it is established in 2011. Then what is the problem? New things sometimes may be better. --shparvez001 (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the department is NOT Notable. It needs to be notable before you can start an encyclopedic article on it. I'm not saying it won't become notable *in future*. But as of now, it remains a brand new department with no notability and not even any recognition as a well known department within the country. You can fill this article with random crap, but that does not mean it will be encyclopedic or of any value. If you take away the crystal ball content (what the department will be notable for in future), all that remains of any value is a single sentence, or bullet point: it is a department of SUST. Other than that, there is no real content here. --Ragib (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ragib You know though this is newest department, but seats are filled in this department faster than any other department. I mean Front students in the merit list get admitted. So is this possible if the department is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shparvez001 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a wrong idea of notability. Please read WP:ORG. Also, you don't have any reference that establishes the notability of the department. --Ragib (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with SUST. If the parent article becomes too long, it would be strategically better to create separate pages for the Schools, and only if those get too long as well should the departments have separate WP pages. Technically (WP:RS), the EEE department is not separately notable at this time. --Pgallert (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shahjalal University of Science and Technology. No need to flood WP with indiscriminate info. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:18, 23 December 2011 (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. Kurykh (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tire Kingdom

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

A little bit of controversy brewing here. =) I have found this article popping up at least twice today on Special:New Pages. I speedy deleted the first incarnation, and the most recent version was redirected to the article for TBC Corporation - which was soon reverted by the author. The issues I have here are that the article does not show notability for this tire dealer based in Florida - it would seem that a better home for it may be in the article for TBC, but I'm not so sure about that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TBC article, as I previously did. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 22:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete this and TBC Corporation. The TBC article lacks valid references. reddogsix (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you can either fix it or put it up in its own AFD. You got the power, man. I'd rather leave it to a separate discussion, myself. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Side Comment I'm no great fan of big corporations, but the good secondary sources about TBC Corporation were already available in the articles on the subsidiaries. I don't think there's any doubt that TBC was notable. Sionk (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me establish this page at least as a stub status. Our other brands all have wiki pages that our TBC wiki page links to. The first version was deleted because I used the content from our website to create it. I then re-posted it with original content. The business has been in business for over 35 years and TK itself operates in 8 states with more than 200 locations. Below is a list of further information on the company from other sites/references:
http://www.comdata.com/assets/pdf/case_studies/CaseStudy_TireKing.pdf
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=35596
http://www.moderntiredealer.com/Article/Story/2011/07/Tire-Kingdom-vs-Discount-Tire.aspx
http://www.bbb.org/south-east-florida/business-reviews/automobile-repair-services/tire-kingdom-in-juno-beach-fl-10209
Please contact me for more information or details. Thanks in advance for your assistance. --Kavaliauskas (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues I will have with this, Kavaliauskas. One, there's now very clear conflict of interest here (please read that - in a nutshell, you should not be working on articles you have a direct interest in). Two, of the four links you provide only one could conceivably count as a reliable source. In addition, we really can't rely on the fact that there are other articles about your related companies - this, alone does not set a precedent. I encourage you to read those guidelines. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Your basic WP business advertorial. Such articles on commercial organisations can exist, but they must have good external sources to show notability. Otherwise they're just, as here, self-sourced and spammy. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please help provide some more guidance on what would make an organization notable? This is our second largest company that TBC has and all the other companies have pages here. There are many external resources about the company. I'm having a hard time understanding the issue. Many thanks... --Kavaliauskas (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already provided you links to the resources that you need. Please see above. Moreover, as this is a directassociation with the company you have, there is conflict of interest. I cannot support this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the information of the article's author, the Wikipedia notability guidelines for companies and organizations can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Generally Wikipedia only allows encyclopedic articles about things that have had significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are completely independent of the subject. Sionk (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The only valid reason to delete would be that the current content is not worthwhile keeping. Some checking tells me that this large chain, Tire Kingdom, does easily meet notability standards.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] (featuring sweet picture of founder)[16], and that's not even including all the investigations, etc., about the company over the years.[17][18]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They had more than 67 locations at one point. Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD and the first thing that pops up is the South Florida Sun - Sentinel saying in Aug 16, 2000 that it was one of the two largest tire dealers in Florida. The USA Today article says Tire Kingdom is the eighth largest U.S. tire seller. [19] If any previous article was deleted, its because people didn't bother checking for news coverage to prove this was a notable company. Shame on them. Dream Focus 16:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per the availability of reliable sources that significantly address this topic, some of which are posted above. Topic passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is very clearly notable, compare with Big O Tires, or Kragen.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CORP. Any assertion this is a local company with local coverage is refuted by the paragraph in the WSJ article and the mention in USA Today. Page rescue by User:Milowent puts this past the bar with room to spare (no pun intended). That User:Kavaliauskas has an interest would be a COI problem if the user didn't self-identify, but he or she did. Since the user's efforts have been to provide RS, I have no problem with the effort. BusterD (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Loves Girls

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

Not notable porn film. No evidence it passes WP:NFILMS. Cavarrone (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Cavarrone (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, run-of-the-mill porn product; references purported to support notability are just part of the industry's own marketing and as such not independent. No mainstream coverage in reliable sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFILMS. My search for reliable sources only got a passing mention in a press release. The references in the article are not reliable. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The faux "reviews" cited in the article as evidence of notability are just marketing hype by online vendors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did it ever occur to you that everything isn't "hype"? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 12:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has a valid point. The "reviews" cited come from sites that offer to sell the video. They are not credible for establishing notability. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The customer reviews are; not the staff reviews. I never include customer reviews in articles I create. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was referring to the staff reviews cited by the article. The sites themselves are the problem. Vendor sites are not sufficiently independent of the subject to satisfy WP:NFILMS. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. But I love the staff reviewer name of "J.D. Bauchery".--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:39, 24 December 2011 (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. Hut 8.5 14:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Becky D. Alexander

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

Though she certainly exists, I cannot find sufficient third-party RS coverage of this poet to meet our notability standards. Tagged for notability for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's almost nothing on the web, and basically no news items on her either. No evidence of notability found. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Lack of any 3rd party discussion of her work. As an unsourced BLP created since December 2009, couldn't this even be a speedy? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At least in current form and via some quick searching, no case for notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:41, 24 December 2011 (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 disintegrated. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sector 13

(Find video game sources: "Sector 13" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Lack of references. Unreleased computer game. (Developer's website, first ext link in article, says on indefinite hold.) been tagged for cleanup since 2007. RJFJR (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2011 (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) 23:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of third party sources, fails WP:GNG. Also, the article outright says that it's taking just about all info from their official site, which they keep linking to. Looks like too much of a promo piece... Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2011 (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. Consensus is that the article subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 14:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank tamborello

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

Article about a post-doctoral student who clearly does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Contested prod, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Citation counts in Google scholar are far too low to pass WP:PROF#C1 and what else is there? A typical example of an article created too early in an academic's career, before they have had time to make an impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. Hairhorn (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Try HCIBib. Specific bibliographies are sometimes more useful than Google Scholar for niche fields like Human-Computer Interaction. donkeycart —Preceding undated comment added 04:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Wikipedia's standard for inclusion of article's about academics is WP:ACADEMIC. This lays out a number of criteria, any of which a person can pass in order t have an article about them on Wikipedia. The first of these is: " The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.". Please read the more detailed description of this criteria that discusses what is meant by an academic who has been "an author of highly cited academic work". I'm afraid that Tamborello doesn't come close, right now, to meting this criteria. Being co-author of six papers clearly does not meet the requirements. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that donkeycart has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a shred of evidence that this meets WP:PROF. The article history (with no less than three new users creating/removing speedy/PROD tags has a definite whiff of sockpuppetry. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle chide. Uh, see Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. Also assume good faith. FWIW, Sparthorse has only been here since October and I have been editing here even longer than you. Drjem3 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donkeycart blocked as a sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dodge1967. Hairhorn (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Followed over from cognitive ergonomics. It does look as though the subject is a significant figure in that field. For one thing, a google check shows he is a principal in a company called "Cogscent". I recommend keeping this entry, if only because someone searching this company and this field might expect something about him. Admittedly, I am a wikipedia "inclusionist". But disk space is cheap these days. Drjem3 (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can start their own company and call themselves a "principal". Disk space is cheap, but wiki is an encyclopedia, not directory of everything that exists (nor a webhost for essentially unsourced BLPs). Hairhorn (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ACADEMIC#Caveats says the criteria vary greatly by field. He seems to matter to his small community of cognitive architecture researchers. See for example the ACT-R website and the Computer-Human Interaction Lab website. These indicate that he's published multiple papers in multiple refereed conferences, which is fine for some fields. Also, "Don't rely just on Google Scholar, it is dicey." WP:ACADEMIC#Citation_metrics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellstarr (talk • contribs) 19:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you meant this link to the ACT-R website. This lists hundreds of researchers. Just being on a list of people who research a field is not the same as establishing you are notable in that field. Tamborello is a post-doc researcher who has started his own consultancy, which seems to consist of just him. There's no doubt he exists and is a researcher, but WP:ACADEMIC is very clear, caveats and all, that notability is a substantially higher bar than just being a researcher. The alumni list at Rice [20] shows he was a student there, it does nothing to establish notability. I don't see any reading of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ACADEMIC that suggests that merely being a graduate student (even of Rice) makes you notable in a field. Sparthorse (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I personally know somone who made a nobel-prize worthy discovery (or at least contributed as much as the guys who won it} buckyballs, while he was a graduate student. So if you are going to go on that criteria, lots of people ewould get excluded. And this guy is considerably farther along thna that. Maxdlink (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course a grad student can be notable. But notability comes from what they achieve while being a grad student. Just being a grad student isn't enough. The criteria are laid out quite clearly in WP:ACADEMIC. Tamborello doesn't meet any of the criteria. The student you mention most likely would meet one or more of the criteria and therefore would be notable. If Tamborello has had an achievement as significant as contributing to a Nobel prize discovery and that is documented in reliable sources he should have an article even if he was in high school at the time. No evidence has been presented so far to show he has had that kind of impact. Sparthorse (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The arguments in support of keeping this article have clearly missed the spirit of WP:ACADEMIC. Furthermore, I'm a grad student in cognitive psychology and so I am familiar with the ACT-R community and the conferences its members attend. Let's go through the guidelines here:

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

There's no real good way to do this without relying on imperfect searches like Google Scholar or MSN Academic Search. Neither one provides any cursory evidence that their impact is significant right now. But let's look at the publications. There appears to be one in Cognitive Systems Research and several conference proceedings. Conference proceedings, based on their lowered standards for acceptance as I am aware, are not suitable publications for indicators of notability. Furthermore, Cognitive Systems Research appears to very exclusively cover cover cognitive architectures. This doesn't especially support the idea that the subject's work has had a broad impact. What we need are more publications that go beyond conference proceedings (which are considerably less stringent for inclusion than scholarly journals) and limited-scope journals. The impact cannot be just on a sub-discipline of a sub-discipline of a field that consists of a few hundred individuals, and that's what it is right now. JR Anderson, for instance, was able to publish his work on ACT-R and cognitive modeling all over the place (and continues to). The claims that he is a "significant figure" are not well-supported.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

Nope.

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE).

Don't think that this "Cogscent" organization qualifies as the above, nor is there evidence he was elected.

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

Nope.

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

The subject was/is a post-doc, so this won't work.

6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

See #3.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

Not as of yet, no.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

Nope.

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

No, the subject's claim to notability seems restricted to academic pursuits.

That said, I wholly support the deletion of this article with no bias toward recreation if the academic becomes notable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 10:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Closer must disregard the sock/baloney keep !votes, because there is a consensus to delete which seems correct. Does not meet WP:GNG, did not invent buckyballs.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:44, 24 December 2011 (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. Kurykh (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steaz

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

Article consists of advertising for the named company and in detail for its products. Claims to notability are that the packaging has appeared in Glass News, and a news item on Yahoo about a charitable gift by the company. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I live less than an hour from Doylestown and frequent alot of different c-stores that carry smaller and/or local drink brands and I have never seen this product. Tunafizzle (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ Minor product spam Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my delete !vote. I'm still not convinced that becoming a business directory is a good thing for an encyclopedia, but as policy is currently written, this would now seem to meet it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - Promo of non-notable product. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for writing about our entry. We are sorry if we didn't get it right. We modeled our article after the entry for Sweet Leaf Tea Company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Leaf_Tea_Company . We receive calls from the public noting that they found information on companies like ours on Wikipedia and why we weren't on Wikipedia so we thought we'd give it a try since there seemed to be interest. It is not our intent to spam or advertise so we tried to model after an already accepted entry. Would it be better if we put some financial information about the company? What about if we took down where the product is sold? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Leokpwong (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The key item is whether the company meets general inclusion criteria, or those specific to companies. To be kept, there needs to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find significant independent coverage in reliable sources. I do fin a bunch of press releases though. -- Whpq (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I used to be from Doylestown and I know of Steaz, but it's not as though whether you've heard of it or not should be a consideration here. What matters is what the sources say. There appears to be a great deal of coverage of the company on BevNet, which appears to be an independent source. For instance:

There are many reviews of its products here
There are also some articles about the company itelf that do not appear to be press releases:

Steaz pushes affordable organic at mainstream,
~~Steaz Continues Growth and Expansion~~ (Struck because this is a press release)
~~Steaz to Debut New Packaging, Zero Calorie Innovations at Expo West 2011 This also mentions the company has won a "Best Tea of 2008" and "Best Organic Product" of 2008 from BevNet.~~ (Struck due to possible press release. But this source confirms the the "Best Tea" and "Best Organic Product" awards from BevNet.)

Outside of BevNet, the company was also ranked #19 in terms of its growth in the food & beverage industry by Inc. Magazine in 2007. Steaz products were also named a "top-selling product" by Fresh Healthy Vending and a "top beverage" by FastCompany. There is a bio of the company from the Philadelphia Business Journal that I'd argue constitutes significant coverage. There is also some local coverage of the company, but these appear to be behind paywalls or are unavailable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - This is a single news source, and the independence of the articles are suspect. Notice that the reviews have an edit link. Although they review the submissions, it's not really content that is generated by a journalist working for Bevnet. This article you listed is submitted The Healthy Beverage Company , the owners of the Steaz brand. This post is not attributed, but bears all the hallmarks of a press release with registered trademark symbols and a final section labelled "About the Healthy Beverage Company and Steaz Iced Teaz®" just like a press release. Finally this article looks to be a press release rehash as it consist almost enirely of quotes from the company. -- Whpq (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad-- I've struck those sources above. But I still think this is worth keeping-- there are still several awards and sources above that demonstrate the notability of the company. I've also found a reliable source from BevNet confirming the awards they were given, rather than being in a press release-y sounding article. BevNet reviews are distinguishable from "User Reviews", which can be made in addition to the BevNet review-- for an example see this page, so I think there is every reason to believe this it is coming from a journalist working for BevNet. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a reluctant keep. It now seems to pass GNG, and is objectively written. I think industry reviews are good refs, and so these three: [21][22][23] plus the existing refs tip the scales for me. I don't know how I didn't find them before. I get a lot of blocked sites where I am. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've cleaned up the page and added the sources I named, plus a few others. I think it is in an appropriate state. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as nom, I think Steaz is getting a scrupulously fair, even seasonally generous, treatment here. With Anna Frodesiak I'm a bit of a reluctant convert, but I Jethrobot has done an elegantly professional job on the article. I'm therefore prepared to withdraw if the remaining delete votes are dropped. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2011 (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 deletion under CSD A7. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Auburn, New Hampshire Families

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

Contested prod. Completely unreferenced original research. No real indications of notability, just random names. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2011 (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). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeea

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

The article was created in June and tagged in July with a request for better references. Though there have been a few dozen edits since, better sources have not been provided. I don't believe that there are any. Most of the sources are self published, fluff pieces, or links to various sites that only confirm that the subject and her works exist. I don't see any improvement from the last time it was deleted. Dismas|^(talk) 20:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - passes WP:MUSIC.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep - passes WP:MUSIC. Citations provided for her being distributed by a major record distributor Btakita (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"keep" - passes WP:MUSIC Kimyamaguchi (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This discussion generated little attention. I am closing it as delete, but I consider this essentially to be a WP:prod, I'll restore and relist on request. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green Standard

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

This appears to be an advert for this organisation: http://green-certificate.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26&Itemid=7 . See also this letter http://www.unglobalcompact.org/system/commitment_letters/13948/original/Green_Standard.pdf?1306951809 ( from a UN database). Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI,

On reviewing the Google results (above) I see the four top hits are four organizations that are apparently unrelated to the content of the article I proposed for deletion:

Other hits seem to use the phrase 'green standard' as a nickname for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, again unrelated to the content posted.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 15. Snotbot t • c » 19:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The author left a note at Talk:Green Standard; I link it here for reference. Even if UN documents are public domain (and I'd think they would be), there's almost nothing remaining when we remove the potential copyvio. The article does not seem to be about Green Standards, but about a meeting at which they were discussed. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:09, 19 December 2011 (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.

I know this debate is closed, but it's important to note that UN documents are not public domain. It would be nice, but unfortunately their websites and contents are fully reserved: [24]. If this material is ever restored, UN content will have to be removed from the article--again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. I cannot say that this discussion reached consensus, and this is area in which there are sufficiently divergent views in the community as a whole that it is inappropriate to devalue any of the !votes. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jane Hamilton

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

Subject fails GNG & PORNBIO. JoshyDinda (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. This is a second AfD. It's worth reading the first one. It was closed thusly
"The result was No consensus. Opinion on whether Ms. Hamilton meets WP:BIO standards is split, with a slight favoring to Keep the article. The article's supporters are invited to strengthen the references for the article, while its opponents are welcome to revisit the AfD later in the year if no effort has been made to improve its contents and references." Pastor Theo (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
It's also worth reading the edit history thereafter. JD is simply taking up the invitation Pastor T extended, on the terms Pastor T suggested. I think this nomination is well-founded and I support it. The supposed notability proves ephemeral when one actually reads the "sources". That was true in 2009 and seems even truer today, given the lack of remediation since that time. David in DC (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It's also worth reading the edit history thereafter." So read it, please. The references for the article were strengthened. Before AfD there were IMBD, blogs and "Excalibur Films" refs, that were subsequently addressed and replaced by more proper book citations. I do not ignore the closing of the previous discussion, but not considering that (in my opinion, obviously) the notability was already established in that discussion, per consensus (the cited "slight favoring to Keep the article") and per argument-weight, the closing says "article's supporters are invited to strengthen the references for the article" and it was made.--Cavarrone (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we reading the same history?

bot fixes pre-existing ref

bot delinks dates

epbr123 removes hair color. Edit summary:(rm unreliably sourced)

bot alters infobox

bot edit. edit summary: (Replace Infobox adult female with Infobox adult biography, per pending TFD decision)

bot adds persondata template

bot edit. edit summary: (Moving deprecated imdb, iafd, and afdb from {{Infobox adult biography}} to External links per request)

bot edit. Edit summary: m (Removed deprecated parameters from infobox per discussion in Template_talk:Infobox_adult_biography + general fixes using AWB (7707))

John of Reading fixes infobox image syntax

Dismas removes deprecated, blank field

Asarelah adds a category: Bisexual pornographic film actors

Kumioko removes deprecated parameter.

These are the only edits between the "No consensus weak keep" and the 2nd AfD. There's not a single edit after the closing that improves the article as the closer urged. Announcing that edits were made after the closing that responded to the closer does not make it so. The record discloses that they weren't. The opinion that notability was established in the last AfD is misinformed. Announcing that consensus was reached on notability does not make it so. That is not what "No consensus weak keep" means.

Announcing "facts" that are not facts undermines the credibility of the announcer. Assumptions can be rebutted. David in DC (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol!! My method to compare the two versions of the article, the one before the Afd and the actual one, is slighty different from yours, and I have the little suspect the mine is more correct! I not only read the edit-summaries, I more properly compare the two versions, see here!: as I wrote I see the not-reliable sources (IMDB ref, the ref named "lukeford" and the ref named "excalibur") replaced and/or incorporated by the references to the book Skinflicks and to the book X-Factory. I see also the "Refimprove" and the "Notability" tags disappeared. It's not my fault if the editor of this ref-clean-up did not announced it in the edit-summary. I'm not so crazy and so in bad faith to announce something that could be so easily verified.--Cavarrone (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you include the changes made during the pendency of the AfD you get a slightly different result. But not much. Those changes were considered before the first closing. They don't amount to much. The "sources" that were added remained unimproved upon, for more than two years. Only bots and minor edits. As for the book refs, inserted during the AfD, Enric Naval nailed their value way back when:

"In the "Skinflicks: The Inside Story of the X-Rated Video Industry" book, the only mention in the whole book is one sentence: "These are the ladies who try pornographers' imaginations. The diminutive Fallon spurted "G-spot" orgams at will. So did British carrot-top Sarah-Jane Hamilton" [25] (page 294). The other book sources seem to be also collections of anecdotes in the porn industry that are also make passing mentions of many actress, and this person seems to be mentioned in short mentions and not in actual coverage of her biography and her carreer. So, these sources show no significant contribution to the field, or significant coverage of her person, so I'm not sure of how she is supposed to be passing WP:BIO or WP:ENT. As for WP:PORNBIO, she doesn't fullfill any of the points there."

I stand on the shoulders of giants. I can't possibly do a better job than EN did of analyzing the wiki-value of these sources. Calling them minimal would be an insult to every empty gas tank in every car in every junkyard in the Western Hemisphere. David in DC (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment David, seriously, you were wrong and you still are wrong: the changes happened after the closing of the AfD, not "during the pendency of the AfD". You don't like these sources...? This is another question. You wrote that after the AfD closing nothing changed, I noticed it was not so. You wrote (assuming good faith) something that was not true, I corrected it. That's all. After this epic fail I'm surprised you have not edited some exceptionally bad, "rude" and clearly contradicted statements as "Announcing "facts" that are not facts undermines the credibility of the announcer. Assumptions can be rebutted". In my 3000 edits I never received/made personal attacks nor I wanna begin today, so I invite you to be less aggressive, more polite and, above all, more cautious in what you write.--Cavarrone (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject clearly passes GNG. It's quite rare that a pornographic performer having just one book mention, here we have a lot of book resources about the subject as: Pornography and sexual representation by Joseph W. Slade, The X factory by Anthony Petkovich (five pages), Skinflicks by David Jennings, The sexual century by Tom Hickman, Incredible Orgasms: Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yesss! by Marcelle Perks; she is also mentioned in Critical vision: random essays & tracts concerning sex, religion, death by David Kerekes and David Slater, in Pornography in America by Joseph W. Slade, in Carnal Comics: The Inside Story of Art, Sex, and Porn Stars by Todd Loren, S. S. Crompton and Jay Allen Sanford and in a lot of comics-centered guides, enciclopedies and catalogs (as, ie, Comic Book Price Guide, p.144) in relation to the comic series of the same name of which was the subject and that she collaborated on the writing. She also appears in an article of The New Yorker. Not considering book-resources of less weight as Électre multimédia 1998, British Pornographic Film Actors or her portrait in the book Pornstar by Ian Gittler... or the fact she was one of the only 39 adult actors and actresses cited in the book Calendar of Historical Events, Births, Holidays and Observances. --Cavarrone (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the article and added several references from some of the sources listed above.--Cavarrone (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It pays to check. Here's the sum total about Sarah Jane Hamilton in the whole of the newly added ref, "Pornography and Sexual Representation Volume I": "...characters aimed at different genders, a diversification that continues today. Here are to be found gay comics by Craig Maynard (Up From Bondage), Gerald Conelan, and Allison Bechdel and unusual sex strips drawn around real-life porn stars like Annie Sprinkle (Rip Off Press) and Sarah Jane Hamilton (Renegade Press)..." (page 61).
Comment: False! see below --Cavarrone (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing this source says about SJH is that she was once a porn star and that a porn comic strip once featured a character like her. Good heavens. My uncle was once a publisher and Spider-man features a leading character who's a publisher. Does my uncle's resemblence to Jonah Jameson or Stan Lee make HIM notable. I can't wait to tell him.

~~Perhaps before I do, I'll check the other newly inserted refs. David in DC (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Interestingly, the ref was inserted as an alleged source for SJH being a female ejaculator, or from Britian. It's not clear which fact it allegedly sources. No matter. Does anyone see anything in the actual words about either Britain OR female ejaculation? Nope, me niether. David in DC (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: False! see below --Cavarrone (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong about which facts this source backed. I did a bad job searching the book. I apologize. I'm duly chastened.David in DC (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are these just being inserted on the assumption that no one will check them? The remaining insertions all source only the fact that she helped script a three-part comic strip about a fantasy versions of herself - in ancient England, Revolutionary France, and early Hollywood. One "source" is a review on a commercial online site that sells comic books, for heaven's sake. I'm trying to maintain an assumption of good faith, but it's sorely strained when I review these "sources". This is a BLP, for crying out loud. David in DC (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another is a blog. Taken together, we've got a sum total of nothing. Fleeting mentions in books ~~randomly strewn in text, have little or nothing to do with the text.~~ A blog. A review of a comic strip on a commercial site. ~~WP:SNOW?~~ David in DC (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment David, I'm definitely convinced you are in bad faith, or more probably you have not digested my comments to your vote: your acid tone says everything. For God's sake, "My uncle was once a publisher and Spider-man features a leading character who's a publisher" is not exactly the same thing of being the main subject of a comic series and collaborating in writing it! About the personal attacks to my edits, what I made: I added to the article the statement: "She was also the subject and collaborated at writing of a three parts-Carnal Comics-series with her same name, published in 1994 by Revolutionary Comics", something I consider of some weight in her bio. All the references I added are about this fact, all support the verifiability of this fact. The "blog" is the personal blog of Jay Allen Sanford, the Revolutionary Comics cartoonist that was co-author and cartoonist of the comics. Yes, the atomicavenue link is a not reliable source, you are true, is there not to support GNG but just because I retained it was useful. If a reference is unclair or misplaced sorry, you can edit. You don't like them and consider them not significant? I was sure even before.--Cavarrone (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment After reading your insulting edit-summaries I verified what you wrote above, and you're still wrong! this is the correct extract from "Pornography and Sexual Representation", not the one you cited, as everyone can verify:[26]! This is the second time you accuse me for something you have (assuming good faith...) not carefully verified, it the second time you insinuate (and not only, you wrote it in the edit summary) I am dishonest. I do not expect you that you apologize, I just hope, as I wrote above, that in the future you will be less aggressive, more polite, less nervous and more cautious in what you write. Best regards. --Cavarrone (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology a strikethrough of the part I got wrong above. David in DC (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between date of first close/opening of second AfD. Sources subtracted. Not one added. David in DC (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also see the Skinflicks book-source added.--Cavarrone (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skinflicks was in the article before closing and, as I wrote above, shown to be a fleeting mention in sentence fragment "In the "Skinflicks: The Inside Story of the X-Rated Video Industry" book, the only mention in the whole book is one sentence: "These are the ladies who try pornographers' imaginations. The diminutive Fallon spurted "G-spot" orgams at will. So did British carrot-top Sarah-Jane Hamilton" [27] (page 294)." David in DC (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Same as last AfD. I believe she has enough coverage to be notable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:50, 4 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, I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. We are always very, very soft on porn actresses (did I just make a bad pun?) - keeping articles where mainstream actresses would get deleted. If we want to apply WP:PORNBIO then Delete, but if we want to try and stay consistent, then Keep. I suspect we get a no-consensus though. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Subject clearly fails the relevant SNGs. The article includes no significant, reliably sourced biographical content. Three of the six refs used in the article show no more than that the subject cowrote a comic book about herself (or, more precisely, her porn industry persona). The "Skinflicks" book was self-published. Of the remaining pair, one mentions the subject only once in its 1000 or so pages, referring to "a demand for females who can ejaculate, a talent that has boosted the careers of 'rainwomen' like Nikki Charm, Fallon, and Sarah Jane Hamilton (aka Victoria Secret), all of whom can spurt liquids for Olympian distances"; the "X Factory" book is simply a compilation of interviews with porn performers whose only significant content regarding the subject that doesn't come from the subject herself seems to be "It's a undisputed turn-on seeing British bunnies like Sarah Jane Hamilton, Roxanne Hall, and Mrs. Sterling get stuffed far more literally than figuratively." Previous AFD was marred by participation by editors later banned for disruption (including the closer!) none of whom supported deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:20, 10 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, Sandstein 17:02, 15 December 2011 (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hadoti Express

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

No evidence of notability. Unsourced. (I declined an A7 speedy deletion, as the article is not on a qualifying subject. A PROD was then contested without explanation by an IP editor who has made several edits to this article via several IP addresses in the same range, but no edits elsewhere.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG --Bryce (talk | contribs) 16:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It does seem to exist, though barely. Totally un-notable. 99% of the article is WP:OR on Indian newspapers in general, which will have to be blanked if the article is to stay. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per livit, the whole article is just WP:OR and I can't find sources to back up its notability.

Comment: I also wanted to mention that the IP removed the deletion notice from the page and so I've requested semi-protection until the discussion is concluded. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, totally non-notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2011 (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Art Index

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

There is no indication of notability and the page title and text are so vague that it's not even clear what the article should refer to. There are no references (I deleted the only reference, which didn't mention the Art Index at all and was to Google search results). The discussion page indicates that other people have questioned its notability. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Article is apparently about an aboriginal art exposition or fair, hard to say. Adding 'Australia' to news results does not yield anything that appears to be talking about the article subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty sure this: [28] is what this article is supposed to be about - the list of artists in the WP article are all included in the list of artists represented by this group, but even still, I'm pretty sure this fails the WP:GNG, and I'm even pretty sure this could be WP:CSD'ed under A7, but since we're already here... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:19, 15 December 2011 (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. Neutrality^talk 21:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shropshire pudding

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

This article may well be a hoax. Even if not, the citations given do not verify the content of the article, and the only Google reference to be found for a "shropshire" pudding refers to an entirely different entity. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The website 'Foods of England' has an entry for 'Shropshire Pudding' + a reference to the book 'Food in England' by Dorothy Hartley. It is verifiable by G-books (p. 625). You can find out more at G-books. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we are going to keep the article, it will need to be completely rewritten, as the item described by the "foods of England" site is completely different than the item described in the current article. Without access to Hartley's book, there is insufficient information at the foods of England site to hang an article on. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks that you are right, I've compared the ingredients from mum's recipe with the 'Foods of England' and they are different. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Mum's recipe" seems to be a slapdash attempt by the article's author to add legitimacy to this article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it is quite funny attempt :) I agree with deletion, the recent version is rather a joke. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or total rewrite, which comes to much the same thing). The article is non-encyclopedic (which we could fix), but more importantly the citations are hopeless - a quiz, a jokey one-liner in a recipe, and a link to 'Staffordshire Yeomanry Pudding' which seems not the same thing at all. As for cookery books, Shropshire Pudding isn't in my edition of Mrs Beeton, Mrs Peel, Henderson, Lady Clark of Tillypronie, Francatelli, or Raffald, I give up. I expect it does exist but frankly it's jolly obscure. The article is, probably, a hoax, and we should delete it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete hoax. David (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I approached this with an open mind and an empty stomach. I exercised due diligence by searching the net, and asking at Shropshire talk, and Project Shropshire. It does not seem that it can be adequately verified, and may not even exist. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2011 (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Technologies

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

Fails WP:ORG. Zlqchn (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as no indication of minimal importance. Current full text: Dee Technologies is now called MaxxBit...MaxxBit is a software and technology development company in Varanasi, India....MaxxBit was envisioned by a technology enthusiast in late 1997. Longer version in history was written in first person and still had no indicia of minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hard to believe this article has been around since 2006, in longer or shorter form, equally inappropriate. AllyD (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability. SL93 (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7. The article doesn't indicate that Dee Technologies holds any importance whatsoever and spends more time focusing on MaxxBit. Smerdis of Tlön hit the nail on its head. Chris (talk - contribs) 20:19, 20 December 2011 (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rannneeti

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

Absolutely no indication of notability. No sources. Totally speculative crystal ball stuff. The article indicates that discussions with possible actors for the film have not yet begun, so it can scarcely be very far under way. A PROD was contested by an IP editor with no other edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is a classic case of WP:CRYSTAL.As obvious it fails WP:GNG and WP:RS due to lack of reliable sources and subsequent lack of notability. P.S:I also think this IP editor could easily fall under WP:UAA and subsequent indef block for having a username similar to the org this person is trying to promote.Vivekananda De--tAlK 14:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced article on a future film. The article claims that filming is scheduled to begin in late 2012, so even if we take the author at his/her word it still fails WP:NFF. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:V and thus WP:NF. I resored the article so that myself and others might search for information based upon the article's providing the name of director and producer.... but I came up dry. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:06, 19 December 2011 (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dialog Center

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

Although this organization may be notable, the article provides no sources that say so. The only one provided is an obituary of its founder, which does not provide much of the information in the article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 15. Snotbot t • c » 11:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NONPROFIT - international in scope, independent sources exist, though these are admittedly short on detail and most references are ten years old or more. This book refers to it in a footnote. This conference shows it still exists. This conference report indicates it is thought of as a significant player in anti-cult organisations. asnac (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clicking on the news and book Google searches above shows that this organization has received some coverage and is considered important it its field. The article should be improved. Also the founder, Johannes Aagaard, probably should have a bio here. Borock (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the article on Dr. Aagaard now. There seems to be more information on him than on the Center. There are also other organizations called "Dialog Center," most of which are concerned with Christian/Muslim relations. Borock (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a good source: [29], and this:[30] Borock (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be some news coverage here. Jewishprincess (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article could be renamed to "Dialog Center International" since that seems to be its official name now. Borock (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep possibly redirect or rename as indicated above.Maxdlink (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2011 (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 Userfied per discussion at ANI. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Liaison between Facebook and Newspapers

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

User written essay, pure original research. Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Massive synthesis of sources, totally unsuitable for Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated; a shame as a lot of work has gone into it and I hope the contributor won't be discouraged from supporting the community. asnac (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy This is the second AfD today that involves a University of Toronto student putting an essay up on the main page (the other being here). While I doubt this article can be salvaged, I agree with asnac that a lot of work has gone into the article. I'd rather encourage the writer to see if there are parts of the article that can be merged into other articles, rather than just blanking the article entirely. PaintedCarpet (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator appears to be a member of this class, which is supported by both WikiPriject Wikipedia and Wikpiedia Ambassadors. I don't believe this article belongs at AfD. PaintedCarpet (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When nominating this article, I actually was aware of this. However, I don't think that being a student or editing here as part of a class assignment should lead us to treat people anything different then we would do with "regular" editors. After having experience with several class assignments here, I find the experience decidedly mixed: on the one hand, I see Gerald Fischbach up for GA review, on the other hadn their is unencyclopedic stuff like this article (and Human Cognome Project is another problematic one). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because there maybe be a systemic issue with the Canadian course (given these two AfDs), I have raised it at ANI. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I also PRODded Young Canadian Voter Turnouts and Canadian Newspapers this morning. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While interesting, not really suitable since an encyclopedia should be about facts, not analysis of trends. The factual information should go in articles on Facebook and on journalism. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - per User:PaintedCarpet ukexpat (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2011 (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 Userfied per discussion at ANI. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why Journalists Deserve Low Pay

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

User-written essay. Fails WP:OR and WP:NOTBLOG amongst many other things. Zlqchn (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A clear case for Delete as per nom. asnac (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Picard's presentation might actually pass the notability guidelines given the number of sources out there (somewhat inevitable, given the topic), in which case it deserves an article. This original essay, however, is not that article. It's irretrievable in its current form - blast it with TNT. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Per the article's main page, the article's creator "is a member of the U.S. Public Policy WikiProject." Yes, the article is an essay and doesn't belong in the main space, but I don't think deletion is the right answer here. PaintedCarpet (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It came from the User's userspace. See User:Catgaunt/sandbox‎.Zlqchn (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then it should go back there. The article's creator is a member of this class, which is supported by both WikiPriject Wikipedia and Wikpiedia Ambassadors. I don't believe this article belongs at AfD. PaintedCarpet (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's still there. As far as I can see, the user just copied it from her usespace to mainspace today. FYI, I also nominated the Userpage for deletion because this is an original essay that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. But that's for the mfd discussion. Zlqchn (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ordinarily I'd agree with you. But since the creator is taking a Wikipedia-approved class on how to write Wikipedia articles, I don't feel deleting the page is the right answer. PaintedCarpet (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I had no idea what the education programme is so I had a look. From what I can read on the main Wikimedia project page, the aim of this programme is to promote Wikipedia as a teaching tool and encourage both the teachers and students to contribute to Wikipedia. The way I understand it, it does not give users permission to put original essays on Wikipedia (mainspace and userspace). They may be 'special' contributors in certain aspects, but they still have to follow Wikipedia policies. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Zlqchn (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It's entirely possible the students were instructed to place their articles in the mainspace for the class. On the other hand, the individual authors may have done that on their own. I've contacted the class online ambassador to ask for more information. PaintedCarpet (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The problem is not that this is a badly written article that needs cleanup, wikify, etc or that it has WP:N, WP:V issues (it does, but that's not the main issue at hand). It's the fact that this is an original essay that has (very) little chance of becoming a proper article.Zlqchn (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right. This is an essay. We usually delete essays. In this case however (as well as other cases where the people taking this class have put their articles up on the mainspace) I think the authors should be encouraged. rather than immediately being their articles to AfD. PaintedCarpet (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I've seen some of the other Afds around related to this project. And you are right, they should be encouraged, but to write proper articles, not essays. For example, as an editor suggested above, the Picard's presentation bit may be useful enough to be an article on its own. I suspect that there may be a communication problem somewhere in this mess so I will keep an eye on the project page to see what they say.Zlqchn (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because there maybe be a systemic issue with the Canadian course (given these two AfDs), I have raised it at ANI. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect there may be a communication error somewhere in this mess.Zlqchn (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm guessing so. Thanks to Yunshui for referring it to ANI. PaintedCarpet (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. My name is Jonathan Obar, I'm one of the coordinators for the Canadian arm of the Education Program. Let me start by saying that I really appreciate all of your help thus far. I know that integrating new editors into the community can sometimes be a challenge. I'd like to first respond to User:Yunshui and User:Zlqchn. The Canadian initiative does not have a "systemic problem" nor is it a "mess." To expect that new editors are going to join the community without making mistakes is unrealistic. Professors who are learning about WP themselves are teaching students how this all works. Overall, I think the students are doing a great job. Yes, we need to make sure that students are returning to articles to wikify the content and to address issues raised by the community. I would hope that responses (and methods for getting students to do this) would be constructive first, before being critical, and certainly before catastrophizing. Overall, I think the Canadian students (and we do have five classes this semester) have done a pretty good job learning this new system. Let's please try to welcome with open arms instead of turning our backs. Again, thank you for all of your help. Jaobar (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification. :)Zlqchn (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, professors should learn about what WP is and and isn't before they attempt to teach their students about it. – ukexpat (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - per User:PaintedCarpet. ukexpat (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Possibly userfy. Folgertat (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2011 (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdel Hadi al-Tunsi

AfDs for this article:

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

If the single source provides no further information about this person, I believe this fails WP:N. There's just not enough content to warrant a stand-alone article, especially given how vague it is. What is his claim to notability? sonia♫ 07:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article shows no reason to regard him as notable. There is no real info that is not already given in the article on Muhammad al-Zawahiri. asnac (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Not notable article I guess. --Katarighe (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have to agree, the subject fails notability requirements. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Fastily has speedied it already —Tom Morris (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes only

AfDs for this article:

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

Flagrant spam - article was previously merged to Dark Angel and then changed back. It was a tenuous redirect anyhow, so suggest deleting. Sorry, I am not clever enough to know how to Speedy it. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 07:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have marked this page for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising & copyright violation. Please note that there is a serperate article at Eyes Only (capital "0") which is a disambiguation page, containing the link to Dark Angel, a link to classified information, and a link to Eyes only. This redirect page will need to be edited if (more likely when) Eyes only is deleted. Millermk90 (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2011 (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 Rat Pack#Films. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra Films

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

Yeah, not really sure what to do with this one. Don't see that it adds anything to Dean Martin or Frank Sinatra articles. Can't convert it into a redirect to both... so not quite sure where to go? --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rat Pack#Films, where they and some other films are already listed. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, that makes a lot more sense than deleting. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. This gives the information in context. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect good catch, makes sense!--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or smerge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggestedMaxdlink (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2011 (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Stewart (Football)

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

Non-notable footballer who has not played at a high enough level. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article asserts its own non-notability. As the article says, this footballer has not played in a fully pro league, meaning it fails WP:NSPORT, and in the absence of significant coverage it fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Speedily if possible. Clearly NN under any reasonable criteria at present. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played at a fully-pro level, and fails WP:GNG due to no significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 11:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable player who has yet to play in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 10:44, 18 December 2011 (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) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belén Estévez

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

Irrelevant, in the Spanish page was deleted. Is falsely called a professional dancer. She's just woman who dance in a disco and contestant. MarioNone (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems sufficiently notable (as Argentine dancers go...) and referenced. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If for us Peruvians (she is only known here) is not relevant, imagine for others.--MarioNone (talk) 17:35, 8 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reality show contestants are paid in Latin America. The sources appear at first blush to be in order. What's the problem? Bearian (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, in the page es.wikipedia.org was deleted repeatedly for not being relevant. To continue with the article, and not be surprised that anyone involved in scandals have a page here. --MarioNone (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2011 (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. D. Westmoreland

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

I've been unable to unearth the requisite indicia of notability for this musician, though he does exist. Tagged for notability over three years ago. Epeefleche (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sole reference on the page is actually more about a band Westmoreland was in, not the performer himself. The quote on the page does not seem to actually be from any real source, with this page (and various sites that copied it) being the only thing that shows up for that quote. I tried seeing if there was enough information to create a page about the band, but was unable to find anything beyond the local news article referenced in the article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2011 (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 Prashant Bhilare. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle Twinkle Unknown Star

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

As far as I can tell, this is a film that has never been released to the public and does not meet WP:GNG. Even if it does exist, as claimed, mere existence is not enough. Are there are Hindi-language WP:RS, perhaps? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Novice, wannabe filmmaker creates an 11-minute "documentary short" about his grandmother, screened once for a "private audience and the family members." Searches for this home movie return this article and its mirrors, primary listings, and other non-WP:RS sources. Fails WP:N. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons by nom and Hobbes Goodyear.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Redirect to director Prashant Bhilare where this film is alrready mentioned in context to his career as a filmmaker. It does not have the independent notability required for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, except that I think that the director is also non-notable and that the redirect target should also be deleted. But until that is done, I have no problem with a redirect. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Michael above. PaintedCarpet (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prashant Bhilare per above, possibly selectively merge some parts. Jean ^(t·c) 17:33, 15 December 2011 (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 Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WIRE

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

Unlicensed carrier current AM station. No indication of how it might meet notability guidelines. Lacks references to significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. RadioFan (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to the university's Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication, which already mentions this station (being a DJ on it is part of a specific class they offer). Web searches find a bit of primary coverage from the university, social media, a press release published on a blog, and of course its WP entry and mirrors. Fails WP:N. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per previous commenter. Not notable enough for own article. Unlicensed carrier current station typically don't merit their own articles. Few diverse articles linking to this one. --Fightingirish (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Hobbes.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back Stage Burners

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

Fails WP:N. The article itself is promotional/fan speak. Zlqchn (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Obvious vanity article. --JonathonSimister (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:N. Jean ^(t·c) 04:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SPEEDY G7: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." Probably qualifies under A7: "No indication of importance", too, as lacking any credible claim of significance or importance. And just in case there are any concerns of non-English bias, it looks as though their Finnish WP article was recently speedied, twice. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2011 (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. Neutrality^talk

Alessandro De Benedetti

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

No significant secondary sources confirm notability. Jean ^(t·c) 02:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail WP:BIO. Wasn't able to find any sources confirming notability with Google. The only source that might be helpful on the article (UK Telegraph) is a broken link. Looks like a vanity article. Notice the main contributor (User:Sistiana) has only really worked on this article. --JonathonSimister (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fashion designer (of which there are kazillions). Fails WP:BLP. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2011 (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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry P. Glass

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines. Primary sources and a few patents are among the only signs of "notability". Mythpage88 (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This looks like a secondary source, an article discussing his works in Design Issues. Jean ^(t·c) 02:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A publication of dubious notability. Mythpage88 (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Design Issues (published by MIT Press) [31] is of dubious notability!? It's an editorially-reviewed academic specialty publication. The tagger of Design Issues also tagged Annals of Anatomy as of dubious notability, an astonishing assertion. Acroterion (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Google books shows several results, including this and this. Jean ^(t·c) 03:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources found suggest clear notability.--Michig (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. The visual arts and industrial design are very poorly represented in Wikipeda, and designers from the pre-Internet era face significant handicaps in documenting notability, leading to an unfortunate level of systemic bias in favor of recentism. While performing artists get huge quantities of press, visual arts and design get little, resulting in under-representation of such topics on Wikipedia and requiring a good bit of research in relatively obscure publications (at least as far as the general public is concerned). This is a noted industrial designer and design professor who did significant work in furniture design when there was a lot of experimentation with new materials. While this is a blog, it has good pictures [32] of Glass's Swingline furniture, a significant and influential design. Cricket chair here [33]. Documented in secondary sources, professor, author, designer. Exhibited at the Art Institute of Chicago [34] [35]. Blog link from Interior Design magazine: [36]. While we could wish for better sources, this is a discussion concerning notability, not sourcing. The best sources for Glass will be found in dead-tree publications. Acroterion (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all, the "Modernism" magazine PDF which triggers a SPAM filter for some reason is a good source. The link from the article to here is red for some reason, but this seems a WP:SNOW. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable as above. SL93 (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs some work, but I have no doubt that Johnbod will bring this up to FA status pronto. I think he hasn't had one since June. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even as nominated, the article clearly had sources that falsified the nominator's "primary sources" claim, e.g. the Chicago Tribune obituary. That and the IDSA fellowship are enough to convince me of notability, let alone the other stuff brought to light by this AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A rather puzzling nomination. The Design Issues article is substantial and was already in the article at the time it was nominated. --Hegvald (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the nominator misunderstands the notability guidelines, interpreting an old tagging of Design Issues as a possibly non-notable publication as an indication that Design Issues is not a suitable source. See their comment above. Acroterion (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2011 (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. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shorty's Lunch

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

Fails WP:ORG, most of the article looks a case of WP:SOAPBOX Night of the Big Wind _talk4th 01:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks kind of like Jimmy Wales' favorite South African restaurant. Shii (tock) 01:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Five references from multiple independent reliable sources. Satisfies WP:N.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on nomination Exactly how does WP:1E (Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event) apply to a restaurant? PS: Welcome back yesterday from your 3rd block in 6 months.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, WP:1E is indeed for people. But the true mening is that the restaurant claims most of its notability due to a single event: the threat of closure. And all the five local newspaper source point to that fact. And welcome to the world of unneccessary personal attacks. Please remove that attack. Night of the Big Wind _talk 06:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see the fact that somebody reasonably famous used to enjoy eating there makes it sufficiently notable. Otherwise we'd have a heckuva lot of articles on restaurants. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please clarify. There's nothing about a famous person in the article.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems notable for the campaign to keep it open, as recorded in the local press. NB Legis's reason for deletion (above) is erroneous because the cafe does not claim to be the favorite haunt of any celebrity. The article may well say too much about non-notable or promotional info, but that can be dealt with without deletion. Sionk (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete strictly local campaign to keep open a strictly local eatery, fails WP:NOTNEWS. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that all of the articles are from Pittsburgh, which is 30+ miles away from the restaurant. Further, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the source for 4 separate sources, is a major American newspaper. The campaign to save it garnered significant notice from major media, which makes it per se notable--they don't cover the threatened closure of non-notable restaurants.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I write this, I'm sitting about about 8600 miles from Pittsburgh; 30+ miles is nothing. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette would have to double it's daily circulation to make the List of newspapers in the world by circulationStuartyeates (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's the 35th largest newspaper in the US.List of newspapers in the United States by circulation--GrapedApe (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just 9940 internet hits for "Shorty's Lunch", 0 on Google News. Skipping the ballast (facebook linkedin wikipedia youtube yelp myspace download twitter review vimeo tripadvisor), your are left with 3860 hits. As it looks most of them addressbooks and reviews/descriptions. Excepts that fight to save their place in 2004, there is no relevant third party coverage. I did not find any relevant out of state coverage or special events. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Try Google News Archives There are like 15+ news sources, dating back to 1999.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you have a working link? This one just gives 0 (zero) hits... Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The link works for me. Google News > Archives > search "Shorty's Lunch." 15 substantial hits on the first 2 results pages. There are more, too.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please give me the link to the first result page, because I think Google News is doing weird here. I can find absolutely nothing. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Go to http://news.google.com/archivesearch and search for "Shorty's Lunch." Here are a bunch of those articles linked: User:GrapedApe/Shortyslunch. Some articles from the Observer-Reporter are paywalled, but they still count to consideration of notability. --GrapedApe (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmmm, by now I have found some newspapers. I could not find anything special in it. Only non-local papers (Milwaukee) report about Shorty's Lunch-sponsored sports. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I have read through your links, thanks for the effort supplying them! Unfortunately, both papers are local one. Having noted that, I read through all your links. There is, to my opinion, absolutely nothing in those articles what supports the claim for notability. Sorry. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Where in WP:GNG's notability standard of "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" say that "newspapers from the area don't count." Besides, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Pittsburgh Post (a now-defunct major Pittsburgh newspaper) aren't local to Washington, Pennsylvania. Different counties and 30+ miles away.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        See Wikipedia:Notability (events) and WP:NRVE. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A restaurant is not an event. Nor does WP:NRVE apply: WP:PAYWALL says verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries--GrapedApe (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        1) But the potential closure is, and half the article is about that! 2) True, but your sources add nothing to the notability. Paywalled or not. Night of the Big Wind _talk 04:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        To my opinion, you have failed to prove why Shorty's Lunch is notable. I stop my discussion with you now, and will wait at comments from others or the closing admin. Night of the Big Wind _talk 04:13, 11 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) 02:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per news coverage found by GrapedApe. Seems to indicate some notability. HurricaneFan 25 — 02:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - It's well referenced and makes a colorable claim to meeting GNG, so I lean to keeping it.--Kubigula (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2011 (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International School of Arizona

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

Doesn't meet the GNG. Heavily edited by User:BeccaISA, a user with a likely conflict of interest. Raymie (t • c) 00:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above- looks more like an add than anything else. --Axel™ (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Jean ^(t·c) 02:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the foregoing. I think there is a presumption that COI-apparent articles lacking third party sources establishing notability should go. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2011 (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. In reaching this conclusion I have accorded less weight to a number of the keep !votes, because they made a bare assertion of notability by virtue of position. However, the proposition that simply holding the position of general officer is sufficient for notability has not been accepted by the community; indeed, WP:MILPEOPLE itself merely reads that normally individuals holding these positions will have sources to show notability. In this case, the sources have not been produced despite challenge. I am sensitive to the difficulty in dealing with foreign language sources, and am prepared to userfy if someone is interested it continuing to source the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santi Bonfanti

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

Does not seem to meet General notability guidelines, specifically "Significant coverage" and "Independent of the subject". All of the sources about the subject are military public affairs type publications. The Italian version of the article was deleted on 3 August 2010 as unencyclopedic or promotional it:Santi Bonfanti. EricSerge (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a very well written article, but seems to be a distinguished and highly decorated Italian officer. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. General officers are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 8 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Leaving aside the editorial issue that the article is basically a disaster, the sourcing supplied is either plainly incidental or sourced to a press release. As for the Keep !votes above, I'm curious (sincerely so, because it will probably change my vote) if there is any specific piece of the notability guidelines that supports including Brigadier Generals and/or decorated army personnel in the absence of proper sourcing. I'm not aware of any such guideline or precedent, but that certainly doesn't mean none exists. If none exists, my vote is definitely a delete based on the sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There does appear to be a fair amount of coverage on this person. I will try and do some cleanup and tag the article for rescue. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I'll check back in a bit then! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brigadier General Santi Bonfanti is the commander of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). That seems rather notable. They have people being killed on both sides there. And he gets coverage for this. Dream Focus 21:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I don't think it's splitting hairs to point out that he's a Deputy Commander. Not "the commander." That's simply inaccurate and misleading. I note with interest that he's not listed/mentioned on the UNIFIL Mission Leadership page.
How about supplying, here or in-article, some of the coverage you mention? I'm personally okay with changing my mind on this one. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. Deputy commander. Just click the Google news archive search button at the top of the AFD. Dream Focus 22:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I did that before voting. I haven't found any articles in the GNews search that are actually about him, although he has been quoted in a few articles. Being quoted is not significant coverage, per WP:GNG ("address the subject directly and in detail"), although I note that academics are often ascribed notability on the basis of being considered an authority on certain subjects. Perhaps that could apply to Mr. Bonfanti in this case, but I'm very uncertain about that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There only appears to be about 5 English sources. Given that this person is an Italian Major General, there may be stronger coverage in Italian news sources. Several of the Italian Google news search results appear to be quite substantial. It might be of benefit to have an Italian speaker take more detailed look. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A cruddy resume for a long-serving civil servant in a uniform, currently seconded to the commander of UNIFIL as his press spokesman. This "highly decorated officer" has accumulated his braids and baubles by (a) climbing the greasy pole high enough to have a magical star or two pinned to his collar and, (b) just by being around long enough. I will grant that this is classier than the private sector these days--we just hand out gift cards—but where, pray tell, is the evidence to suggest that this person is notable? And please spare me the sources in the article and the obvious ones to be found in English and Italian Google searches—I've looked, and I think it's clear what my view is. Am I being mean? Sure, but may I remind you that our colleghi over at Italian WP have never even reached an AfD with this guy, they've just speedied him out—three times. Show me the ~~money~~ substantial evidence of notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This gave me my chuckle of the day Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Goodyear said it all. Neutrality^talk 21:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Isn't it interesting that an article about Dee Ann McWilliams, an American general who has only served in administrative appointments (and is thus, to use Goodyear's somewhat insulting terminology, very much a "civil servant in a uniform"), is recently snow kept after several editors (including myself, as I have done above) opined that all general officers were inherently notable under WP:MILPEOPLE, whereas this article about an Italian general who has actually served in several command appointments has received several delete votes. Not that Wikipedia editors set the notability bar much higher for non-American subjects of course... -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with your point: the notability bar should be the same for American and non-American subjects. And I appreciate your calling the Dee Ann Williams AfD to my attention. I believe that its lightning-fast closure was incorrect and have asked the closing admin to reopen, at which point I intend to vote to delete there, as well. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep General officers are generally considered notable. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin. When weighing the value of the bare "generals are notable" votes, please bear in mind that WP:MILPEOPLE is not policy and is not even a guideline. It is an essay that, when put to the vote, was solidly rejected as a guideline. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is formed in AFDs usually. I've seen high ranking military officers who commanded a force in notable military campaign have their articles kept before. How many people participated in this guideline vote, and where was it done at? Was it just some aspects of it, or did people reject all of it? Dream Focus 14:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion here, vote here. Voters here who think that it is enough merely to demonstrate that subject is a general are of course entitled to express this view, even though it has no foundation in policy or guideline. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep big wigs such as this guy have a lot of info about them available but its hard to find a good neutral bio and he is notable for his high position.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There appears to be consensus for a merge of Rauf Kalasra and Rauf Klasra, as they cover the same subject. There currently doesn't appear to be a strong consensus on the common name, so a requested moves discussion may be needed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rauf Klasra

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

Non-notable journalist. Fails GNG. Appealcourt (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is he not a notable journalist. He has worked two newspapers and TV channels.--—Assassin'S Creed^(talk) 22:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 30 November 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks that we have two articles on the same topic, see Rauf Kalasra (created in September 2008). I think that Mr K(a)lasra, Klasra or Kalsara (which appears to be another version of his name noted in the news) is a notable journalist in the context of Pakistani media, his book (Ek Syasat Kaee Kahanian) received coverage in the national media: [37] (The News International). Another article by BBC mentions his name among the Asian journalists facing "indirect pressure from the authorities". This article by Online - International News Network decribes participation of a 'noted journalist Rauf Kalsara' in a court in Pakistan. I think there's enough material in the news archives (not just articles by him), so I suggest to keep the article and let the creator or others to work on it. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rauf Kalasra or vice versa. Per Vejvančický's links, he does appear to be the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent published works. No need for two articles, though, and the other seems slightly stronger. I suggest a merge of the contents of the other article (Rauf Kalasra) to whichever spelling of his surname is more prevalent. --DGaw (talk) 02:41, 9 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Selectively merge the contents of Rauf Kalasra to it, as it seems to be the prevalent spelling. Jean ^(t·c) 11:29, 15 December 2011 (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 Self close, speedying instead. Mythpage88 (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

God Wears My Underwear

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

Fails Notability Guidelines, massive COI from creator. Mythpage88 (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's mainly copied from the webpage. No independent sources. Notability not established. And as it's been around for five years I can't see that changing. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'll close this and speedy it instead! Thanks! Mythpage88 (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2011 (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 Deleted by Will Beback (talk · contribs) under CSD G3. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Historian

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

Unreferenced page about an unimportant profession Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't even attempt to establish notability. Reference link leads nowhere. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utter rubbish. --Axel™ (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2011 (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 userfy/redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Lives (Deuce album)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nine Lives (Deuce album) (2nd nomination)

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

Previous AFD was listed incorrectly I think, so I'm relisting it correctly with the old explanation. "Lack of references, one section of text referenced 3 times, none of the refrences given actually provide the information written in that section of the article and all contain almost the exact same text. This entire article is written on rumours and unconfirmed information from the internet. TrueBlue9LIVES (talk" Bluefist ^talk 02:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At best case it is WP:TOOSOON, but probably wouldn't put it that high. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:41, 8 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a sandbox under my username (User:GroundZ3R0 002/Nine_Lives_(Deuce_album)). The article is not proper for the mainspace yet, as noted. The lack of clear references and coverage make it unable to stand at the moment. However, this album will easily chart on the Billboard 200 and receive decent coverage upon release. So, putting this page in my userpages until it is notable is the best solution. Redirect this link to Deuce (singer). Ground Z3R0 002 02:40, 15 December 2011 (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 Procedural close - wrong namespace. Try WP:MFD or, better yet, ask for speedy deletion using {{db-u1}}. Non-admin closure. —SW— ^chatter 00:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ruby2010/Duke Eugen of Württemberg (1846–1877)

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

Article already exists in mainspace Ruby 2010/2013 00:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No rough consensus was reached here. There is independent coverage of the winners; but no real agreement as to how to weigh it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of IIT JEE Toppers

AfDs for this article:

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

I think that in its current form, the article does not fulfill the guidelines of notability usually used on Wikipedia. I would recommend either deleting the article completely, or only keeping a list of people on the list who are notable themselves: such as, perhaps, those that already have a Wikipedia entry. Piyush (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that the subject of IIT Toppers by no means gets "heavy" media attention; as was claimed by a voter in the last deletion request. Most of the coverage is of the incidental type, which goes somewhat like "Here are the results of this gargantuan exam. Here is the person who topped it. Wow, she happens to be from our city. Let's find out what her future plans are." (Sorry for sounding sarcastic, but that's the way it happens). These articles come out once per year, and though they sometimes make it to the headlines on the websites of some national newspapers (usually the Times of India) the coverage in print editions, is rater more sedate. Piyush (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I really can't see any significance to this list. The institute itself is of course notable, but a list of people who took an exam there is useless trivia. Of the 34 people listed, only 4 have articles about them. JIP | Talk 06:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After going though the General Notability Guidelines, I think this list qualifies most of the requirements to warrant a case against deletion. Its relevance can, in some respect, be likened to the relevance of List of Rhodes Scholars or List of International Mathematical Olympiad participants, albeit they have many more notable people among them, i.e. people with Wikipedia articles on them. Keeping that in mind, though I think this list has some nominal archival value, I agree with Piyush that most information contained therein as of now is crud. I vote for condensing (deleting and renaming?) the list and, in the process, adding Wikipedia pages for more people mentioned therein. musically_ut (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 28 November 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. The Indians and their media appear to put great stock in this achievement. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:21, 6 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Clarityfiend. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete There's no indication of this examination having any significance outside a very narrow world around IIT. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a significant academic achievement with extensive independent coverage. OPEN goes so far as to say that it is "probably the toughest entrance exam in the world", and as far as I can see, there's very detailed news coverage of individual recipients as they're named. — C M B J 12:07, 16 December 2011 (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.